All Your Latest News

WASHINGTON – After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

At a hastily called evening news conference in the Capitol, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to provide details of what he described as a “broad agreement” between liberals and moderates on an issue that has plagued Democrats’ efforts to pass health care legislation from the outset.

With it, he added, the end is in sight for passage of the legislation that Congress has labored over for months.

The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.

The developments followed a vote on the Senate floor earlier in the day in which abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping health care bill, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the issue didn’t hamper the drive to enact legislation. The vote was 54-45.

Taken together, the day’s developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Reid as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas. Despite their reluctance, some senators had talked openly and in detail earlier in the day about the progress of the negotiations.

The provision in the legislation to be dropped under the emerging agreement provides for a government-run insurance option to be available to consumers, with individual states permitted to drop out. Liberals have long sought such as arrangement, as a means of forcing competition on insurance companies.

One participant in the talks, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters he didn’t like the deal, but he added, “I’m going to support it to the hilt” in hopes of securing passage of the health care bill.

Another senator involved, Sen. Russ Finegold, D-Wis., issued a statement saying, “I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach. We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars.” But he did not rule out voting for the measure.

In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise “includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices.”

It wasn’t clear what he meant by a “public option,” the Medicare expansion or another as yet unknown element.

It was unclear, for example, what fallback steps would be included in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis, but no confirmation was available.

Under the tentative agreement, liberals lost their bid to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, elderly and disabled. But they prevailed on the Medicare expansion, and the negotiators appeared ready to maintain a separate health care program for children until 2013, two years longer than the bill currently calls for, according to officials familiar with the details.

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

WASHINGTON – Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation. No further details were immediately available.

But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, talks centered on opening up Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters he didn’t like the agreement but would support it to the hilt in an attempt to pass health care legislation.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn’t hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The 54-45 vote over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.

A potential alternative was taking shape, several officials said, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, Medicare would be opened up to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.

Taken together, the day’s developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas.

Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be “logistically challenging” to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.

Reid — the chief architect of the health care bill as well as an abortion opponent — played a prominent role in the debate over attempts by conservatives to toughen restrictions in the Senate measure. “No one should use the health care bill to expand or restrict abortion,” he said, arguing that abortion foes were attempting to do just that. “And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care.”

The current legislation would ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services under insurance plans expected to be offered in a new health care system, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

Individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the plans would be permitted to use personal funds to pay for abortion services — the point on which the two sides in the dispute part company.

“Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the chief Democratic supporter of tightened restrictions. “The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion.”

Abortion rights supporters, Senate Democratic women most prominently, countered heatedly.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes “a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women.”

The amendment that Nelson, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and numerous Republicans proposed would also have barred insurance plans from covering abortions except in the three categories if any of their policyholders received federal subsidies. It also would have required insurance companies that offer no-abortion plans to make available a policy that offers such services.

In all, 50 Democrats, two Republicans and two independents voted to kill the abortion proposal. Thirty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats favored it.

It was not clear whether the vote would mark the end of efforts by abortion opponents to change the health care bill before any final compromise talks with the House.

Nor was it clear how Nelson would respond to the defeat. He told reporters the result “makes it harder to be supportive” of the final legislation. But he wouldn’t flatly rule out his support, adding, “We’ll have to see if they can make it easier.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, told reporters, “Now we hope that we can work with him to get a provision in this bill that he can accept.”

Barring a change of heart by one of the Senate’s Republicans, Democrats cannot afford any defections if they are to pass their bill. Nelson has also been one of the most outspoken Democrats in opposition to a government insurance option and was involved in the closed-door talks taking place in recent days.

The Nebraska Democrat already has won a major concession from Reid, who agreed earlier that the legislation would allow the insurance industry to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. Several Democrats favor ending the exemption — the Houses-passed version of the bill does so — and would presumably be emboldened to try to remove it if Nelson decides to oppose the bill.

Abandonment of a government-run insurance option would mark a significant defeat for Senate liberals, who have long demanded its inclusion in the legislation as a way to force private insurers to hold down costs. It also would set up a final struggle with the House, which passed a health care bill earlier this year that gives millions of consumers the option of buying government-run coverage.

In place of the public insurance option that Reid inserted into the bill earlier, Democrats are considering a plan for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee private insurance, much as it does for federal employees and lawmakers.

Details were sketchy, but it appeared to win support from moderates as well as a positive response from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has vowed to oppose any government-run health care plan.

There were few details available of the proposed Medicare expansion, which would open the program to the uninsured beginning at age 55.

An attempt by liberals to expand Medicaid drew objections from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and other Democratic moderates, and seemed unlikely to survive. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whom Democrats are courting to support the bill, also criticized the idea.

In general, the legislation is designed to expand insurance coverage to millions who lack it, while banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and reining in the relentless growth of medical costs in general.

Most Americans would be required to carry insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused. At the same time, the bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help defray the cost of coverage for lower and middle income families.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON – The White House gate-crashers plan to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed to appear on Capitol Hill about the security breach.

Reality TV hopefuls Michaele and Tareq Salahi said through their lawyer on Tuesday that the House Homeland Security Committee has drawn premature conclusions about the Nov. 24 incident, when they were able to get into the state dinner without being on an approved guest list.

The committee plans to vote Wednesday to subpoena the couple to testify.

In a letter Tuesday, the Salahis’ lawyer, Stephen Best, gave examples of what he said were the committee’s premature conclusions.

Best cited District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s characterization of the Salahis on Nov. 30 as “practiced con artists.”

Best also said that Chairman Bennie Thompson’s chief oversight counsel told the Salahis’ lawyers that if the couple did not testify at the Dec. 3 hearing, they would be viewed as modern-day versions of “Bonnie and Clyde.”

“It is circumstances such as these for which the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution was designed to provide safe harbor,” Best wrote.

The Secret Service is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the security breach; charges have yet to be referred for prosecution.

In identical declarations dated Dec. 7, the Salahis said:

“I am aware of statements made by certain members on the Committee on Homeland Security in which premature conclusions concerning my criminal liability have been made. … The current circumstances warrant invocation of my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”

The committee’s top Republican, New York’s Peter King, said he plans to ask Thompson to amend his subpoena to include White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. King had hoped Rogers would testify at the Dec. 3 hearing. She and the Salahis were no-shows.

The Secret Service and the White House social office together developed the security plan for the state dinner honoring the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Thompson, D-Miss., is reluctant to subpoena Rogers — an Obama political appointee — because he maintains the Secret Service is responsible for security.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs cited the separation of powers and a history of White House staff not testifying before Congress in explaining why Rogers, herself a guest at the dinner, wouldn’t testify.

Three Secret Service officers have been put on administrative leave after the security breach. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the system did not work as it should have, but he said the episode hasn’t shaken his confidence in his protectors.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan has said that the security breach is his agency’s fault but that the president was never at risk.

WASHINGTON – Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn’t hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The public clash over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.

A potential alternative was taking shape, several officials said, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, Medicare would be opened up to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.

Taken together, the day’s developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas.

Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be “logistically challenging” to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.

Reid — the chief architect of the health care bill as well as an abortion opponent — played a prominent role in the debate over attempts by conservatives to toughen restrictions in the Senate measure. “No one should use the health care bill to expand or restrict abortion,” he said, arguing that abortion foes were attempting to do just that. “And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care.”

The current legislation would ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services under insurance plans expected to be offered in a new health care system, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

Individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the plans would be permitted to use personal funds to pay for abortion services — the point on which the two sides in the dispute part company.

“Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the chief Democratic supporter of tightened restrictions. “The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion.”

Abortion rights supporters, Senate Democratic women most prominently, countered heatedly.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes “a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women.”

The amendment that Nelson, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and numerous Republicans proposed would also have barred insurance plans from covering abortions except in the three categories if any of their policyholders received federal subsidies. It also would have required insurance companies that offer no-abortion plans to make available a policy that offers such services.

In all, 50 Democrats, two Republicans and two independents voted to kill the abortion proposal. Thirty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats favored it.

It was not clear whether the vote would mark the end of efforts by abortion opponents to change the health care bill before any final compromise talks with the House.

Nor was it clear how Nelson would respond to the defeat. He told reporters the result “makes it harder to be supportive” of the final legislation. But he wouldn’t flatly rule out his support, adding, “We’ll have to see if they can make it easier.”

Barring a change of heart by one of the Senate’s Republicans, Democrats cannot afford any defections if they are to pass their bill. Nelson has also been one of the most outspoken Democrats in opposition to a government insurance option and was involved in the closed-door talks taking place in recent days.

The Nebraska Democrat already has won a major concession from Reid, who agreed earlier that the legislation would allow the insurance industry to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. Several Democrats favor ending the exemption — the Houses-passed version of the bill does so — and would presumably be emboldened to try to remove it if Nelson decides to oppose the bill.

Abandonment of a government-run insurance option would mark a significant defeat for Senate liberals, who have long demanded its inclusion in the legislation as a way to force private insurers to hold down costs. It also would set up a final struggle with the House, which passed a health care bill earlier this year that gives millions of consumers the option of buying government-run coverage.

In place of the public insurance option that Reid inserted into the bill earlier, Democrats are considering a plan for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee private insurance, much as it does for federal employees and lawmakers.

Details were sketchy, but it appeared to win support from moderates as well as a positive response from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has vowed to oppose any government-run health care plan.

There were few details available of the proposed Medicare expansion, which would open the program to the uninsured beginning at age 55.

An attempt by liberals to expand Medicaid drew objections from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and other Democratic moderates, and seemed unlikely to survive. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whom Democrats are courting to support the bill, also questioned its purpose.

In general, the legislation is designed to expand insurance coverage to millions who lack it, while banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and reining in the relentless growth of medical costs in general.

Most Americans would be required to carry insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused. At the same time, the bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help defray the cost of coverage for lower and middle income families.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this story.