It is currently 05/23/24 8:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 3:36 am • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i am guessing, based on the article and Leiberman's statements, that this contains NO public option:

Reid releases Senate's health care bill

Thursday, November 19, 2009








(11-19) 04:00 PST Washington - --

The political stakes enormous, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid launched long-awaited health care legislation Wednesday estimated to extend coverage to 94 percent of eligible Americans at a cost of $849 billion.

Initial maneuvering on the Senate floor was expected later in the week on the measure, bitterly opposed by Republicans eager to deny President Obama a victory on his top domestic priority.

Officials have said the measure would require most Americans to carry health insurance and large companies to provide coverage to their workers, as well as ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

At its core, the bill would set up new insurance marketplaces - called exchanges - primarily for those who now have a hard time getting or keeping coverage. Subsidies would be available to defray the cost of coverage for people with lower incomes.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said all consumers who purchase insurance from private companies in the exchange would have access to abortion coverage.

He said plans without abortion coverage also would have to be sold, giving consumers a choice. That is less restrictive than a provision in the House-passed bill that has angered liberals and abortion rights supporters.

With the support of two independents, Democrats have 60 seats, the exact number needed to choke off any Republican delaying tactics. Ahead lie weeks of maneuvering on the Senate floor.

Reid released his legislation more than a week after the House approved its version of the health care bill on a near party-line vote of 220-215.

This article appeared on page A - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/19/MNDT1AMRAU.DTL&type=health#ixzz0XJf7r4Cy


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 3:40 am • # 2 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
it has a public option with "opt out":

Under Mr. Reid's bill, the government would establish a new public insurance plan, which would compete with private insurers. States could opt out of the public plan by passing legislation.

In one last touch on Wednesday, Mr. Reid and his aides finally named the bill that he wrote over the last few weeks, selecting parts of bills previously adopted by two Senate committees. It is called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. "This legislation is a tremendous step forward," Mr. Reid said. "It saves lives, saves money and will make Medicare stronger."

Though broadly similar to the House bill, Mr. Reid's proposal differs in important ways. It would, for example, increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-income people and impose a new excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac health plans" offered by employers to their employees.

Mr. Reid's bill would not go as far as the House bill in limiting access to abortion. And while he would require most Americans to obtain health insurance, he would impose less stringent penalties on people who did not comply.




Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 3:42 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
this bill sounds like just about the best compromise that can be reached. without getting into the details, i am pleased with it.

the "Opt Out" provision may give Leiberman the "face saving measure" he wants for CT.


Last edited by macroscopic on 11/19/09 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 3:52 am • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Lieberman may "want it for Connecticut" but the last poll in Connecticut showed something near or over [I think] 70% in favor of a public option ~ and the language from the op that "plans without abortion coverage also would have to be sold, giving consumers a choice" is encouraging since it seems to toss out the Stupak amendment ~ "also" denotes plans WITH abortion coverage will be available ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 4:58 am • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
sooz08 wrote:
Lieberman may "want it for Connecticut" but the last poll in Connecticut showed something near or over [I think] 70% in favor of a public option ~ and the language from the op that "plans without abortion coverage also would have to be sold, giving consumers a choice" is encouraging since it seems to toss out the Stupak amendment ~ "also" denotes plans WITH abortion coverage will be available ~

Sooz

it not only implies it sooz, it explicitly states it. Kerry said so in an interview late yesterday. the Senate version MUST have plans that offer abortion services.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:00 am • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
VERY interesting ~ Sooz



The Congressional Budget Office analysis
of the recently released Senate health bill has concluded that compared to the Senate Finance Committee's bill, the merged legislation makes a stronger contribution towards deficit reduction even though it includes (among other things): 1) more affordability credits for middle class families and a public option, 2) a strong individual requirement to purchase coverage, 3) and a lower threshold for the excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. An increase in the payroll tax for individuals/families earning $200,000/$250,000 makes up for the loss in revenue from the excise tax, while the later implementation date (the bill moves the start dates for the individual mandate, exchanges, and employer penalties from July 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014) helps increase the deficit savings in the merged legislation.

Despite these changes, the merged bill still lowers health care spending over the long term. The legislation establishes an Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB)- which is required to "recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program's spending" - and places a 40% excise tax on insurers that offer expensive policies. While the budget office did not analyze the affect of the legislation on national health expenditures, the CBO is predicting that
spending per Medicare beneficiary would decrease, as compared to the growth rate of the past two decades (from 8% growth rate to 6% growth rate). As a result, the federal government would be spending less on health care in the decades following the initial 10-year window, despite the expansion in coverage.

Below is an examination of how the merged Senate bill evolved from the Senate Finance Committee's proposal:

Senate Bill Finance Bill
Costs Reduce deficits: $130B/10yrs
Cost: $848B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $447B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $374B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $27B/10yrs
Reduce deficits: $81B/10yrs
Cost: $829B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $461B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $345B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $23B/10yrs
Insured Uninsured reduced by: 31M
Uninsured in 2019: 24M
In Exchanges: 25M | Public Plan: 3-4M
In Medicaid: 15M
Uninsured reduced by: 29M
Uninsured in 2019: 25M
In Exchanges: 23M
In Medicaid: 14M
Revenue Mandate penalty: $8B/10yrs
Free rider penalty: $28B/10yrs
New taxes: $238B/10yrs
Excise tax: $149B/10yrs
Payroll tax: $54B/10yrs
Mandate penalty: $4B/10yrs
Free rider penalty: $23B/10yrs
New taxes: $196B/10yrs
Excise tax: $201B/10yrs
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Total savings: 491B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $118B/10yrs
Medicare Commission (IMAB): $23B/2015-2019
Total savings: 404B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $117B/10yrs
Medicare Commission: $22B/2015-2019

Here is how the merged Senate bill compares to the legislation passed in the House. The merged Senate legislation has lower affordability standards, covers less people, invests less in prevention, does not require all large employers to provide health insurance, and includes a weaker public option. But the bill goes further in controlling health care spending and reducing the deficit:

Senate Bill House Bill
Costs Reduce deficits: $130B/10yrs
Cost: $848B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $447B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $374B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $27B/10yrs
Reduce deficits: $104B/10yrs
Cost: $894B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs
Insured Uninsured reduced by: 31M
Uninsured in 2019: 24M
In Exchanges: 25M | Public Plan: 3-4M
In Medicaid: 15M
Uninsured reduced by: 36M
Uninsured in 2019: 18M
In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M
In Medicaid: 15M
Revenue Mandate penalty: $8B/10yrs
Free rider penalty: $28B/10yrs
New taxes: $238B/10yrs
Excise tax: $149B/10yrs
Payroll tax: $54B/10yrs
Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs
Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs
New taxes: $572B/10yrs
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Total savings: 491B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $118B/10yrs
Total savings: 426B/10yrs
Medicar

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... omparison/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:03 am • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i am actually LIKING the Senate bill. the only question now is- will it survive debate? if it does, we are going to have MEANINGFUL healthcare reform.

that is almost too shocking to imagine.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:13 am • # 8 
I certianly think everyone has a right to affordable health care. I am on Medicare and have a supplemental policy to go with it and both of them together costs me $210.00 per month, which I don't consider very bad at all. My monthly medicine bill is only $8.00 per month also. I have friends whose medicine alone costs them over $1,000.00 per month. There is no way I could ever afford that.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:39 am • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
sooz- did you hear Lieberman on NPR? that interview pissed me off. they didn't question his defense of his position on this issue AT ALL.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/19/09 6:01 am • # 10 
Of the two presented, I would be in favor of the Senate bill also.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 6:14 am • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
No, I didn't hear it, Mac ~ but I am 100% sure, no doubt whatsoever, that all of Lieberman's attitude and words are directly connected to his public admission that this makes him "feel relevant" ~ he is basing his position [which btw is a 100% reversal from his campaign rhetoric to get reelected] on proven FALSE information ~ and he is flipping the bird to the 70% or so of Connecticut residents who favor a public option ~ not to mention the fortune his wife [and Evan Bayh's wife] makes from the health insurance industry ~ I am hopeful we are watching Lieberman commit political suicide ~ IMO, he has a long way to go to rise to the level of snake ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 4:59 am • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
update: cloture vote is set for saturday night, apparently.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.