Jay Angoff, HHS director of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, acknowledges that the interim high risk pools created to cover people with preexisting conditions between now and 2014, when health insurers are forced to cover them, may well run out of cash and be forced to turn the sickest people away before private market insurance is available to them. Applications for insurance from the pools, funded by $ 5 billion in federal cash, opened July 1. Richard Popper, Angoff's deputy director, acknowledges at the same time that proposed plan premiums of $ 140 to $ 900 per month may also serve to exclude a lot of people with preexisting conditions from these plans.
Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Obamacare Fallout Starts
Anthem Blue Cross in California, the first major health insurer to come to grips with Obamacare, is proposing 20% rate hikes.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Health Care “Reform” Becoming Health Care “Conform”
When stumping for his federal health care legislative package, President Obama repeated over and over at every rally and speech to Congress that “if you like your existing health coverage, you can keep it” under the bill which he signed into law this spring. As the Department of Health and Human Services begins writing the rules and regulations that will carry the provisions of the new law into effect, it is becoming clear that Obama’s promise was just a technicality on the road to limiting everyone’s health coverage to what the federal government wants you to have.
The proposed regulations will provide a penalty of $3,000 per year per employee against any employer whose health plan costs any of its employees more than 9.5% of their earnings. Of course, this penalty will eventually push all employers into offering only the health coverage the federal government wants you to have. Furthermore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that federal bureaucrats won’t reduce the 9.5% figure even lower in the future, in the name of “affordability” of health insurance. Because most Americans get health coverage through their employment, this provision of the new law puts the federal bureaucracy at HHS firmly in charge of what form of health insurance will be available to the vast majority of the population.
Yes, you can keep your current health plan, but only for a little while. Eventually, fewer and fewer employers will be offering health coverage costing more than 9.5% of the pay of the lowest employee on the totem pole, and rapidly declining demand for more comprehensive health coverage will drive insurers which might offer better coverage out of the market. Before long, we will all be on something that looks a lot like Medicaid, regardless of how much we would be willing to pay for better health insurance.
The proposed regulations will provide a penalty of $3,000 per year per employee against any employer whose health plan costs any of its employees more than 9.5% of their earnings. Of course, this penalty will eventually push all employers into offering only the health coverage the federal government wants you to have. Furthermore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that federal bureaucrats won’t reduce the 9.5% figure even lower in the future, in the name of “affordability” of health insurance. Because most Americans get health coverage through their employment, this provision of the new law puts the federal bureaucracy at HHS firmly in charge of what form of health insurance will be available to the vast majority of the population.
Yes, you can keep your current health plan, but only for a little while. Eventually, fewer and fewer employers will be offering health coverage costing more than 9.5% of the pay of the lowest employee on the totem pole, and rapidly declining demand for more comprehensive health coverage will drive insurers which might offer better coverage out of the market. Before long, we will all be on something that looks a lot like Medicaid, regardless of how much we would be willing to pay for better health insurance.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Congressional Health Care Secrecy Betrays Public Trust
In a continuing program of concealing debate and compromises on the pending health care reform legislation from the public view, Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress have agreed to bypass the formal conference committee process for reconciliation of the differences between the House and Senate bills, and instead intend to draft compromise provisions behind closed doors before the House reconvenes later this month, have the House pass the agreed compromise provisions as an amendment to the House bill, and then send the amended House bill to the Senate for a final vote in which 60 affirmative Senate votes would result in passage of an identical version to send to the Oval Office for signature before President Obama’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress.
By these measures, Congress would avoid public observation of the process through C-Span broadcasts of conference committee hearings and debates, and issuance of a published conference report before either house votes on the bill. This alternative to the customary procedures also insures that most Senators and Congressmen, like the rest of the citizenry, will be ignorant of the details of the 2,074 pages of the legislation they are voting on.
The House amendment will have to resolve conflicts respecting the inclusion of a “public option” in the legislation, threshold levels of premium cost for imposing a 40% tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans, the Senate’s favored funding mechanism for the bill, and the minimum level of income before imposition of a wealth surtax, the funding mechanism favored by the House bill. Congressional leaders expect the final compromise measure to include aspects of both funding mechanisms, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers affected by either type of revenue increase.
Democrats are feeling more intense pressure to get this legislation to the president’s desk before midterm elections, as announced and expected Senate and Congressional retirements open more and more seats in both houses to Republican challengers. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the final bill will leave between 18 million and 23 million citizens still without health insurance coverage. As of yesterday, it appeared House leaders were unwilling to press forward their version of a nationwide public option in the final legislation, since Sensate passage of such a provision appears nearly impossible.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s secretive approach to the manager’s amendment, which became the final Senate version of this bill, illustrates the sort of provisions which can creep into legislation at the last minute, leaving the public and most legislators unaware of the details of bills passed in this secretive way. While the Senate bill does not require all employers to provide workers with health insurance, it does impose a $750 per employee annual penalty on every business with over 50 employees if the business does not provide health coverage, and any one of its employees receives a federal subsidy to pay his or her individual or family health insurance premium. At the last second urging of Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, Reid secretly accepted an amendment to the Senate bill applicable only to the construction industry, reducing the size of penalty exempt employers from 50 employees to 5 employees.
Labor unions argue the Merkley amendment is needed to avoid giving non-union contractors an unfair competitive advantage in an industry where 90% of businesses have fewer than 20 employees, and union health care costs can represent 12.5% to 20% of payroll costs. Labor’s health insurance costs are expected to increase dramatically under this legislation, by as much as $1,000 per employee per year, due to the bill’s elimination of annual and lifetime benefit limitations, preexisting condition exclusions, and extension of family coverage to children of the employee until age 26.
On the other hand, smaller contractors argue that imposition of payroll cost increases amounting to as much as 25% will require layoffs at a minimum across the home building sector, or at worst, drive many of them out of business altogether. Whether the Merkley amendment stays in the final, secretly compiled bill, remains to be seen. The ongoing closed door drafting of this legislation, which will affect each and every American one way or another, acquiesced in by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama who campaigned on pledges of greater transparency and openness in government, leaves too much room for many similar last minute special interest provisions to creep into the bill, sight unseen.
By these measures, Congress would avoid public observation of the process through C-Span broadcasts of conference committee hearings and debates, and issuance of a published conference report before either house votes on the bill. This alternative to the customary procedures also insures that most Senators and Congressmen, like the rest of the citizenry, will be ignorant of the details of the 2,074 pages of the legislation they are voting on.
The House amendment will have to resolve conflicts respecting the inclusion of a “public option” in the legislation, threshold levels of premium cost for imposing a 40% tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans, the Senate’s favored funding mechanism for the bill, and the minimum level of income before imposition of a wealth surtax, the funding mechanism favored by the House bill. Congressional leaders expect the final compromise measure to include aspects of both funding mechanisms, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers affected by either type of revenue increase.
Democrats are feeling more intense pressure to get this legislation to the president’s desk before midterm elections, as announced and expected Senate and Congressional retirements open more and more seats in both houses to Republican challengers. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the final bill will leave between 18 million and 23 million citizens still without health insurance coverage. As of yesterday, it appeared House leaders were unwilling to press forward their version of a nationwide public option in the final legislation, since Sensate passage of such a provision appears nearly impossible.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s secretive approach to the manager’s amendment, which became the final Senate version of this bill, illustrates the sort of provisions which can creep into legislation at the last minute, leaving the public and most legislators unaware of the details of bills passed in this secretive way. While the Senate bill does not require all employers to provide workers with health insurance, it does impose a $750 per employee annual penalty on every business with over 50 employees if the business does not provide health coverage, and any one of its employees receives a federal subsidy to pay his or her individual or family health insurance premium. At the last second urging of Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, Reid secretly accepted an amendment to the Senate bill applicable only to the construction industry, reducing the size of penalty exempt employers from 50 employees to 5 employees.
Labor unions argue the Merkley amendment is needed to avoid giving non-union contractors an unfair competitive advantage in an industry where 90% of businesses have fewer than 20 employees, and union health care costs can represent 12.5% to 20% of payroll costs. Labor’s health insurance costs are expected to increase dramatically under this legislation, by as much as $1,000 per employee per year, due to the bill’s elimination of annual and lifetime benefit limitations, preexisting condition exclusions, and extension of family coverage to children of the employee until age 26.
On the other hand, smaller contractors argue that imposition of payroll cost increases amounting to as much as 25% will require layoffs at a minimum across the home building sector, or at worst, drive many of them out of business altogether. Whether the Merkley amendment stays in the final, secretly compiled bill, remains to be seen. The ongoing closed door drafting of this legislation, which will affect each and every American one way or another, acquiesced in by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama who campaigned on pledges of greater transparency and openness in government, leaves too much room for many similar last minute special interest provisions to creep into the bill, sight unseen.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Health Care Reform Staggers Toward The Finish
If, as President Obama predicts, health care reform legislation is approaching the finish line in the Senate, then it has been staggering fitfully across the last stretch of the track. Senators are supposed to vote on this 2,000 plus page bill before Christmas, yet none of them have yet seen the actual text of the legislation. Managers of the bill will not release the final version until CBO has completed its scoring of the measure, and of course CBO is shooting at a moving target as the compromise negotiations stutter along on the two most controversial and stubbornly difficult aspects of reform: abortion funding and the public option.
Senator Joe Lieberman says he won’t vote for a bill with a public option in it, and Senator Roland Burris says he won’t vote for a bill without a public option in it. Either way, Democrats come up one vote short of the 60 needed for passage. No matter what the resolution of the public option problem, abortion coverage is an independent and equally contentious hurdle. Women’s rights advocates insist every American woman should have an avenue to purchase health coverage including the possibility of abortion services, and right to life advocates are equally insistent that not a penny of federal taxpayer dollars should go to fund the purchase of abortion insurance, either through premium subsidies or Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Of course, passage in the Senate, whether before or after Christmas, does not assure that health care reform becomes reality. The only thing now clear about the Senate version of the legislation is that it won’t be identical to the bill already passed by the House. That means that whatever the Senate does pass will go to a conference committee, where these two seemingly impossible issues will rise again, along with the differences in approach between House and Senate tax impositions to pay for the enormous cost of expanding health coverage for those who can’t or won’t buy it on their own. Super Bowl Sunday may come and go before American citizens know what conclusion Congress reaches regarding health care reform legislation.
Senator Joe Lieberman says he won’t vote for a bill with a public option in it, and Senator Roland Burris says he won’t vote for a bill without a public option in it. Either way, Democrats come up one vote short of the 60 needed for passage. No matter what the resolution of the public option problem, abortion coverage is an independent and equally contentious hurdle. Women’s rights advocates insist every American woman should have an avenue to purchase health coverage including the possibility of abortion services, and right to life advocates are equally insistent that not a penny of federal taxpayer dollars should go to fund the purchase of abortion insurance, either through premium subsidies or Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Of course, passage in the Senate, whether before or after Christmas, does not assure that health care reform becomes reality. The only thing now clear about the Senate version of the legislation is that it won’t be identical to the bill already passed by the House. That means that whatever the Senate does pass will go to a conference committee, where these two seemingly impossible issues will rise again, along with the differences in approach between House and Senate tax impositions to pay for the enormous cost of expanding health coverage for those who can’t or won’t buy it on their own. Super Bowl Sunday may come and go before American citizens know what conclusion Congress reaches regarding health care reform legislation.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Secret Health Care Reform Deals Building Up In Managers’ Amendment
While the Senate floor debate on the health care reform legislation continues along predictable partisan lines, with speeches concerning dramatic reductions in grandma’s Medicare benefits and the evils of federally funded abortion coverage, the real version of the Senate bill continues to be formed deal by deal in secret in Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Senate office just across the corridor from the stately Senate Chamber in the nation’s Capitol. Reid meets privately, one on one, with Democrat Senators, asking them what they need in the managers’ amendment he will present right before the final floor vote.
Managers of legislation in the Senate have the right to accept suggested amendments to the text of legislation which has been published to members and made available to the public, and to make those changes in the bill under debate right up until the voting begins. So, neither fellow Senators nor average citizens really know what the Senate is voting on until the last second. Reid isn’t telling anyone other than the particular Senator requesting a special provision in the managers’ amendment what he is promising, and no one at all but Reid knows what the aggregate text of the managers’ amendment looks like as time marches on.
We do know that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska will be proposing a floor vote on his amendment which would prohibit abortion coverage altogether for anyone buying insurance from the public option and anyone who receives a federal premium subsidy. Nelson’s proposal is even more restrictive than the Stupak amendment in the House legislation.
Meanwhile, Republican amendment proposals include everything from their pet limitations on medical malpractice non-economic damages to a $400,000 ceiling on salaries of health insurance company executives.
Mercer Consulting released results of a survey shows 70% of the businesses say they will cut the health benefits available to its employees rather than pay the proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance coverage. So much for President Obama’s promise that “if you are happy with your present health insurance, you can keep it.” Sixty-three percent of businesses responding to the survey said they would cut back benefits rather than pay the tax, and another 7% said they would terminate their health plans altogether. Only 16% of those who would cut benefits said they would return any of the savings to employees in the form of higher pay. If these numbers play out, health care reform will have a negative effect on about 89% of Cadillac plan participants, most of whom are trade union members.
Thursday the Senate rejected, by a vote of 58-42, a Republican amendment to the health care bill which would have restored the $500 billion in Medicare cuts the Democrats are using to “pay for” the enormous cost of the health care reform legislation.
Managers of legislation in the Senate have the right to accept suggested amendments to the text of legislation which has been published to members and made available to the public, and to make those changes in the bill under debate right up until the voting begins. So, neither fellow Senators nor average citizens really know what the Senate is voting on until the last second. Reid isn’t telling anyone other than the particular Senator requesting a special provision in the managers’ amendment what he is promising, and no one at all but Reid knows what the aggregate text of the managers’ amendment looks like as time marches on.
We do know that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska will be proposing a floor vote on his amendment which would prohibit abortion coverage altogether for anyone buying insurance from the public option and anyone who receives a federal premium subsidy. Nelson’s proposal is even more restrictive than the Stupak amendment in the House legislation.
Meanwhile, Republican amendment proposals include everything from their pet limitations on medical malpractice non-economic damages to a $400,000 ceiling on salaries of health insurance company executives.
Mercer Consulting released results of a survey shows 70% of the businesses say they will cut the health benefits available to its employees rather than pay the proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance coverage. So much for President Obama’s promise that “if you are happy with your present health insurance, you can keep it.” Sixty-three percent of businesses responding to the survey said they would cut back benefits rather than pay the tax, and another 7% said they would terminate their health plans altogether. Only 16% of those who would cut benefits said they would return any of the savings to employees in the form of higher pay. If these numbers play out, health care reform will have a negative effect on about 89% of Cadillac plan participants, most of whom are trade union members.
Thursday the Senate rejected, by a vote of 58-42, a Republican amendment to the health care bill which would have restored the $500 billion in Medicare cuts the Democrats are using to “pay for” the enormous cost of the health care reform legislation.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
House Health Care Reform Measure Sharpens Differences
Tuesday night’s release of a 42 page managers’ amendment to the 1990 page House health care reform bill sharpens the focus of Congressmen on the differences within the Democratic caucus which still plague efforts to marshal the required 218 votes to pass the legislation. Still missing from the 2032 page legislative package are the provisions respecting denial of federal funds for abortion coverage, and for excluding illegal immigrants from participation in federally subsidized health insurance.
The fact that these two issues remain the most contentious within the Democratic caucus gives Republican Congressmen hope that there is still a chance to delay or derail health care reform altogether. House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter expects the House floor vote on the health reform measure to take place Saturday, since language for the abortion provision is still being worked out, and will have to be included in the rule on the bill, expected to come up for a Rules Committee vote at 2:00 p.m. Friday. “We’re further trying to craft language,” said Congressman Jim Langevin, leaving House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office this afternoon. “We don’t want the abortion issue to be the issue that derails universal health care reform.”
Republicans are already bridling at the move to leave the abortion provision to consideration in the vote on the rule, since the proposed language will not be made public for 72 hours before the floor vote. Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, complained, “If Speaker Pelosi intends to address critical issues like taxpayer funding for abortion in the rule, they should make it available for the American people to read for 72 hours. Transparency means putting the whole bill online for 72 hours.”
New things which are covered in the terms of the managers’ amendment include a $1 billion dollar fund available to states for use in controlling health insurance premium increases, language forcing insurers to disclose pricing differences between on exchange and off exchange policies, limits on “excessive or unjustified” health premium increases, and an estimated $24 billion “pay for” ending paper mill tax credits for burning “black liquor” as a cellulosic alternative fuel.
In the meantime, in efforts to focus the political differences over health care policy, Republicans have introduced their own 219 page health care reform measure, eliminating mandates for citizens to buy coverage and for employers to offer it, and limiting malpractice damage awards for pain and suffering and impaired quality of life to $250,000 in any case of injury or death.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicts debate on health care reform in that chamber will spill over into December, and would not commit to being able to send a bill to the Oval Office before the end of this year. “We’re not going to be bound by any timelines. We need to do the best job we can for the American people,” Reid announced at a news conference.
Text of Managers’ Amendment:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_hr3962_dingell.pdf
Text of House Bill:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Text of Republican Alternative:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
The fact that these two issues remain the most contentious within the Democratic caucus gives Republican Congressmen hope that there is still a chance to delay or derail health care reform altogether. House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter expects the House floor vote on the health reform measure to take place Saturday, since language for the abortion provision is still being worked out, and will have to be included in the rule on the bill, expected to come up for a Rules Committee vote at 2:00 p.m. Friday. “We’re further trying to craft language,” said Congressman Jim Langevin, leaving House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office this afternoon. “We don’t want the abortion issue to be the issue that derails universal health care reform.”
Republicans are already bridling at the move to leave the abortion provision to consideration in the vote on the rule, since the proposed language will not be made public for 72 hours before the floor vote. Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, complained, “If Speaker Pelosi intends to address critical issues like taxpayer funding for abortion in the rule, they should make it available for the American people to read for 72 hours. Transparency means putting the whole bill online for 72 hours.”
New things which are covered in the terms of the managers’ amendment include a $1 billion dollar fund available to states for use in controlling health insurance premium increases, language forcing insurers to disclose pricing differences between on exchange and off exchange policies, limits on “excessive or unjustified” health premium increases, and an estimated $24 billion “pay for” ending paper mill tax credits for burning “black liquor” as a cellulosic alternative fuel.
In the meantime, in efforts to focus the political differences over health care policy, Republicans have introduced their own 219 page health care reform measure, eliminating mandates for citizens to buy coverage and for employers to offer it, and limiting malpractice damage awards for pain and suffering and impaired quality of life to $250,000 in any case of injury or death.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicts debate on health care reform in that chamber will spill over into December, and would not commit to being able to send a bill to the Oval Office before the end of this year. “We’re not going to be bound by any timelines. We need to do the best job we can for the American people,” Reid announced at a news conference.
Text of Managers’ Amendment:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_hr3962_dingell.pdf
Text of House Bill:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Text of Republican Alternative:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Health Care Debate Likely To Extend Into Next Year
Unresolved issues in the merger of five committee measures on health care reform include Medicare reimbursement rates as a basis of payment to doctors and hospitals under any public option, regional disparities in payments to rural hospitals, coverage for medical devices, and the always thorny issue of federal funding for abortion services. Versions of the bill presently under consideration in Congress attempt to be “abortion neutral,” requiring availability of insurance plans covering abortions as well as plans which do not. The issue of how to account for premium payments from individuals required to buy private insurance, but subsidized by government tax credits towards their premium payments, is more complex. Can that person use federal subsidies to pay part of the premium for a policy covering abortion services? If not, how is that restriction not a denial of the individual’s right to get an abortion?
Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan leads a group of about 40 legislators who say they won’t permit health care reform legislation to come to the floor unless a vote is allowed on an amendment specifically prohibiting federal funding for abortion. No one has as yet offered language parsing the accounting complexities enforcement of such a ban in the context of mandatory individual health insurance coverage subsidized in part by taxpayer money.
A floor vote in the House on health care reform is expected the week of November 6, with leaders advising Congressmen to expect to stay in Washington Saturday November 7 and the following Monday and Tuesday as well. The Senate vote will likely come later. According to House Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, conference committee work merging the measures from the two chambers will likely “bleed into January or February.”
Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan leads a group of about 40 legislators who say they won’t permit health care reform legislation to come to the floor unless a vote is allowed on an amendment specifically prohibiting federal funding for abortion. No one has as yet offered language parsing the accounting complexities enforcement of such a ban in the context of mandatory individual health insurance coverage subsidized in part by taxpayer money.
A floor vote in the House on health care reform is expected the week of November 6, with leaders advising Congressmen to expect to stay in Washington Saturday November 7 and the following Monday and Tuesday as well. The Senate vote will likely come later. According to House Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, conference committee work merging the measures from the two chambers will likely “bleed into January or February.”
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Eight Senators To Watch On Healthcare Reform
Tired of trying to figure out what 100 Senators are going to do about the 5,000 pages of proposed health care legislation floating around the conference rooms of the Capitol? The bill will need 60 votes to pass the Senate, but there are eight key Senators to watch. You can call them the Wind Sock group, because their reaction to the way the five different committee proposals are eventually merged into a final bill will tell everyone which way the wind is blowing in Washington.
The key to the votes of this group of 8 is the so called "public option." Three members of the Wind Sock group are in the "must not have" position, three are in the "must have" position, and the other two have already compromised on the possibility of a public option in the future initiated by a "trigger" proving unavailability of affordable health insurance from private insurers in certain regions of the country. A change in the position of any one or more of these Senators could well be predictive of the direction the final legislation is taking as it is sculpted behind the closed doors of Capitol conference rooms and offices.
The "must not have a public option" group: Republican Susan Collins of Maine, Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. The "must have a public option" group: Democrat Roland Burris of Illinois, Democrat John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Finally, the "trigger" advocates are Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Stay tuned.
The key to the votes of this group of 8 is the so called "public option." Three members of the Wind Sock group are in the "must not have" position, three are in the "must have" position, and the other two have already compromised on the possibility of a public option in the future initiated by a "trigger" proving unavailability of affordable health insurance from private insurers in certain regions of the country. A change in the position of any one or more of these Senators could well be predictive of the direction the final legislation is taking as it is sculpted behind the closed doors of Capitol conference rooms and offices.
The "must not have a public option" group: Republican Susan Collins of Maine, Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. The "must have a public option" group: Democrat Roland Burris of Illinois, Democrat John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Finally, the "trigger" advocates are Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Stay tuned.
The "Real" Health Care Reform Bill Is Being Sculpted In Secret
Despite being the only Republican vote in favor of the Max Baucus Senate Finance Committee health care reform proposal yesterday, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine is likely to be excluded from the meetings of Democratic congressional leaders as they take the five lumps of pla-dough they have been handed by three House and two Senate committees, and attempt through Congress' byzantine legislative processes to sculpt them into a final piece of legislation which can garner the required number of votes in House and Senate roll calls before delivery to the Oval Office for President Obama's signature.
Why exclude her? Well, the Democrats don't want their secret deliberations disclosed to Republican talk show hosts, the press, and opposing Republican leaders in either chamber until their undoubtedly contentious negotiations are completed, and they come up with a single version of the legislation which they think can pass both the House and the Senate. After all, the real policy disputes over the details of this new law divide the Democrats from each other far more than they divide the Republicans from the Democrats.
Going forward, the process will probably look like this: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has only two versions of the legislation to merge, and says he expects to bring something to the Senate floor the week after next. House leaders will wait to see what the Senate passes before completing merger of their three bills, since they don't want to pass a House bill which would only die aborning in the Senate. Once the House sees what the Senate has passed, leaders there can bring either the Senate version, or a similar version highlighting only those policy differences they think they can push through the conference committee, to the House floor. Until a conference committee report emerges on this one, most Representatives and Senators, like the ordinary citizens outside the beltway, will have no idea at all what is being voted on.
We do know the final bill will require all citizens to buy health insurance, either through their employers, or individually, or pay a fine in the form of additional taxes. We don't know how big the fine will be. We also don't yet know whether or not the final measure will require employers to provide health insurance to employees, or whether it will include a government run health insurance company to compete with private insurers for premium dollars from those uninsured who will be forced to have coverage under the new law.
Most significantly, we don't know how Congress will ultimately raise the cash to pay for all this. The Senate version imposes a 40% tax on health plans costing over $8,000/year for individuals or $21,000/year for families, while the House increases income tax rates for those individuals earning over $500,000/year or families earning over $1 million/year.
Health insurers and labor unions have already come out strongly against the Senate Finance Committee bill. Unions, which often have negotiated hefty health plan benefits for their members, strongly oppose the "Cadillac health plan tax" in the Baucus measure, as do business groups, which don't want to lose generous benefit packages as a way to attract the most talented work force. Health insurance companies say the Finance Committee bill penalties are too low to force the healthiest young folks to buy health insurance, and that premiums will skyrocket because only the sick uninsured will become new health insurance customers.
The saddest fact of all is that there is still no commitment from either House or Senate leadership to give Senators and Congressmen, much less average citizens, sufficient time to read over the final legislation before either chamber votes on it.
Why exclude her? Well, the Democrats don't want their secret deliberations disclosed to Republican talk show hosts, the press, and opposing Republican leaders in either chamber until their undoubtedly contentious negotiations are completed, and they come up with a single version of the legislation which they think can pass both the House and the Senate. After all, the real policy disputes over the details of this new law divide the Democrats from each other far more than they divide the Republicans from the Democrats.
Going forward, the process will probably look like this: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has only two versions of the legislation to merge, and says he expects to bring something to the Senate floor the week after next. House leaders will wait to see what the Senate passes before completing merger of their three bills, since they don't want to pass a House bill which would only die aborning in the Senate. Once the House sees what the Senate has passed, leaders there can bring either the Senate version, or a similar version highlighting only those policy differences they think they can push through the conference committee, to the House floor. Until a conference committee report emerges on this one, most Representatives and Senators, like the ordinary citizens outside the beltway, will have no idea at all what is being voted on.
We do know the final bill will require all citizens to buy health insurance, either through their employers, or individually, or pay a fine in the form of additional taxes. We don't know how big the fine will be. We also don't yet know whether or not the final measure will require employers to provide health insurance to employees, or whether it will include a government run health insurance company to compete with private insurers for premium dollars from those uninsured who will be forced to have coverage under the new law.
Most significantly, we don't know how Congress will ultimately raise the cash to pay for all this. The Senate version imposes a 40% tax on health plans costing over $8,000/year for individuals or $21,000/year for families, while the House increases income tax rates for those individuals earning over $500,000/year or families earning over $1 million/year.
Health insurers and labor unions have already come out strongly against the Senate Finance Committee bill. Unions, which often have negotiated hefty health plan benefits for their members, strongly oppose the "Cadillac health plan tax" in the Baucus measure, as do business groups, which don't want to lose generous benefit packages as a way to attract the most talented work force. Health insurance companies say the Finance Committee bill penalties are too low to force the healthiest young folks to buy health insurance, and that premiums will skyrocket because only the sick uninsured will become new health insurance customers.
The saddest fact of all is that there is still no commitment from either House or Senate leadership to give Senators and Congressmen, much less average citizens, sufficient time to read over the final legislation before either chamber votes on it.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Healthcare Reform Battle Lines Are Drawn
This afternoon the Senate Finance Committee reported out its version of a health care reform measure, on a vote of 14 - 9, with Maine's Olympia Snowe the only Republican senator voting in favor of the bill. Snowe said her vote was only for the bill as it now stands, and she reserved judgment on her floor vote until she sees what emerges from the close door leadership conference to merge the Finance Committee proposal with Ted Kennedy's earlier HELP version of the legislation.
The next step is for Senate and House leaders to merge the bills the five committees have reported out, and bring the legislation to the floor of each chamber for a vote. But, the policy differences within the Democratic Party won't be ironed out in either house of Congress - that final pressing will have to await conference committee work, since it seems clear the House and Senate will not pass identical versions of health care reform bills. The Senate bill may not pass that chamber if it includes the so called "public option," while House leaders insist they cannot pass a bill with out a public option.
Furthermore, the two chambers can't agree on how to pay for the trillion dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade. The House version will rely on a "millionaire tax" imposed on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year, or families earning over $1 million a year. The Senate bill imposes a 40% tax on health insurance plans costing over $8,000 per year for individual or $21,000.00 per family, known as the "Cadillac plan" tax. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina says the "Cadillac plan" tax will never pass the House. "I think taxing benefits is a tough thing to do. On the House side we're coming up with a much better "pay for" than taxing benefits.
Another hurdle for any final reform legislation is yesterday's insurance industry analysis predicting that the Senate Finance Committee's action in cutting back penalties for families who choose not to buy health insurance will drive up premiums for those who are covered to as much as $26,000.00 per family by 2020.
So here's the scoop - the average citizen still has no idea what this legislation will look like, if it passes at all - and neither do the Senators and Congressmen who will have to vote on it. Senator Snowe acknowledged as much: "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast my vote tomorrow," she said. It will be a major stroke of luck if the conference committee version of this legislation is available to Senators and Congressmen in time for them to read it carefully before they vote on it, much less available to the general public for perusal and feedback to our elected representatives before the final roll calls.
The next step is for Senate and House leaders to merge the bills the five committees have reported out, and bring the legislation to the floor of each chamber for a vote. But, the policy differences within the Democratic Party won't be ironed out in either house of Congress - that final pressing will have to await conference committee work, since it seems clear the House and Senate will not pass identical versions of health care reform bills. The Senate bill may not pass that chamber if it includes the so called "public option," while House leaders insist they cannot pass a bill with out a public option.
Furthermore, the two chambers can't agree on how to pay for the trillion dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade. The House version will rely on a "millionaire tax" imposed on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year, or families earning over $1 million a year. The Senate bill imposes a 40% tax on health insurance plans costing over $8,000 per year for individual or $21,000.00 per family, known as the "Cadillac plan" tax. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina says the "Cadillac plan" tax will never pass the House. "I think taxing benefits is a tough thing to do. On the House side we're coming up with a much better "pay for" than taxing benefits.
Another hurdle for any final reform legislation is yesterday's insurance industry analysis predicting that the Senate Finance Committee's action in cutting back penalties for families who choose not to buy health insurance will drive up premiums for those who are covered to as much as $26,000.00 per family by 2020.
So here's the scoop - the average citizen still has no idea what this legislation will look like, if it passes at all - and neither do the Senators and Congressmen who will have to vote on it. Senator Snowe acknowledged as much: "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast my vote tomorrow," she said. It will be a major stroke of luck if the conference committee version of this legislation is available to Senators and Congressmen in time for them to read it carefully before they vote on it, much less available to the general public for perusal and feedback to our elected representatives before the final roll calls.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Healthcare Reform Debate Quickly Coming to A Conclusion
With the Senate Finance Committee expected to report out its version of a healthcare reform measure Tuesday along a strict party line vote, House and Senate leaders will caucus behind closed doors at the Capitol, in an effort to reconcile the divergent details of two Senate and three House committee versions of the legislation before bringing any bill to the floor for a vote. Whatever blended bill comes up for floor debate will run into two obstacles to easy passage in either chamber: Republican contentions that failure to include and reform of medical malpractice laws is costing $41 billion, and Monday's insurance industry report arguing that the watered down penalties for failing to purchase coverage will increase the premiums for covered families by as much as $4,000 per year.
The three major proposals which have to be blended include the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill pushed by Senator Edward Kennedy before his untimely death, costing $645 billion, Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee measure, costing $829 billion, and the likely House version, costing $1.05 trillion. The Baucus plan omits a "public option, while both other measures have one. The Baucus measure also omits a mandate that employers provide health coverage for their workers, while the other two bills include such a requirement. All three bills impose penalties in individuals and families who fail to purchase health insurance, either individually or through their employers, with an annual penalty of $750.00 in the two competing Senate bills, and a fine ranging from 1.5% to 12% of annual modified adjusted gross income in the House measure.
Finally, the details of how any of these proposals will be paid for remain murky and incomplete. All we have is the promise of President Obama and Congressional leaders that the final law will be "deficit neutral," whatever that means.
The three major proposals which have to be blended include the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill pushed by Senator Edward Kennedy before his untimely death, costing $645 billion, Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee measure, costing $829 billion, and the likely House version, costing $1.05 trillion. The Baucus plan omits a "public option, while both other measures have one. The Baucus measure also omits a mandate that employers provide health coverage for their workers, while the other two bills include such a requirement. All three bills impose penalties in individuals and families who fail to purchase health insurance, either individually or through their employers, with an annual penalty of $750.00 in the two competing Senate bills, and a fine ranging from 1.5% to 12% of annual modified adjusted gross income in the House measure.
Finally, the details of how any of these proposals will be paid for remain murky and incomplete. All we have is the promise of President Obama and Congressional leaders that the final law will be "deficit neutral," whatever that means.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Health Care Reform: Affordability At Whose Expense?
Senator Olympia Snowe, likely the only Republican vote in favor of any sort of health reform legislation this session, was under careful scrutiny as she made her opening statement this morning at the Senate Finance Committee hearing on the Baucus sponsored America's Healthy Future legislation. She called the Baucus proposal a "solid starting point," but called for more work on affordability of the health care coverage every American family would be forced to purchase under the measure.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he might have to cancel the Columbus Day recess to keep work on health reform moving forward, and that he might be "forced" to use reconciliation procedures, rather than regular order, to move the bill. Now that the debate is clearly focused on who will pay for the "universal" health insurance required under the Obama plan, no one in Congress wants to tell his or her constituents that they will be the ones whose pocketbooks get raided for the additional cash.
Finally, the one fact no politician wants to admit has come to the forefront of the debate: you can't buy more coverage for less money. The government leaders who want to take over the health care system in America are trying to fool all of un into believing that additional taxes on "Cadillac" health insurance plans, like many union health and welfare plans, on pharmaceuticals, and on those who refuse to purchase insurance, aren't really taxes at all, and that this money is somehow going to materialize from a source that doesn't ultimately come out of the pockets of citizens. Hogwash!
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he might have to cancel the Columbus Day recess to keep work on health reform moving forward, and that he might be "forced" to use reconciliation procedures, rather than regular order, to move the bill. Now that the debate is clearly focused on who will pay for the "universal" health insurance required under the Obama plan, no one in Congress wants to tell his or her constituents that they will be the ones whose pocketbooks get raided for the additional cash.
Finally, the one fact no politician wants to admit has come to the forefront of the debate: you can't buy more coverage for less money. The government leaders who want to take over the health care system in America are trying to fool all of un into believing that additional taxes on "Cadillac" health insurance plans, like many union health and welfare plans, on pharmaceuticals, and on those who refuse to purchase insurance, aren't really taxes at all, and that this money is somehow going to materialize from a source that doesn't ultimately come out of the pockets of citizens. Hogwash!
Monday, September 14, 2009
One More Health Care Reform Delay
Late Monday Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus announced he will not release his chairman's mark of the Finance Committee health care reform bill until Wednesday, and it will be another week after that before his committee begins marking up the draft. Of all the five House and Senate committee bills, the Baucus mark is expected to be closest to the "plan" described by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress last week, and its release is anticipated by all factions involved in the debate over health care reform.
During the negotiating session Monday, Baucus excused all staff from the room for half an hour so there could be a frank and free exchange among the three Democrat and three Republican negotiators about the 12 to 15 member concerns with the still secret draft of the Finance Committee legislation. After the meeting, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said "The flash point is all about affordability." Sources say Baucus has reduced the overall ten year cost of his proposal to about $800 billion by making further cuts in the levels of health premium subsidy to those earning up to 300% of poverty wages. Baucus now proposes to limit subsidies for those earning 300% of poverty level income to the extent premiums would be more than 13% of total family income. Other Democrats wanted that number limited to 9% of family income.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry said the negotiators do not expect any immediate support for Chairman Baucus' mark of the legislation, but that "It's not going to be the bill that we're going to vote on, because we are going to amend, we are going to have a tug of war still."
Some of the most contentious issues which remain, pending release of the Baucus draft bill Wednesday, are Republican demands for specific language banning the expenditure of federal government dollars to pay for abortions, language prohibiting enrollment of illegal immigrants in public or private health insurance in the United States, the question of co-ops versus a government run insurance plan, and finally, the additional burden Medicaid enrollment expansion will put on state governments. One reason for Chairman Baucus' decision to delay release of the bill is the discussion Monday and perhaps Tuesday with various state governors to address their Medicaid funding concerns.
The final Baucus mark is expected to run between 1,500 and 2,000 pages in length. Once it has been released, I will do my best to quickly bring you information on key elements of the Baucus plan compared with the Obama speech and the other four pending bills.
During the negotiating session Monday, Baucus excused all staff from the room for half an hour so there could be a frank and free exchange among the three Democrat and three Republican negotiators about the 12 to 15 member concerns with the still secret draft of the Finance Committee legislation. After the meeting, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said "The flash point is all about affordability." Sources say Baucus has reduced the overall ten year cost of his proposal to about $800 billion by making further cuts in the levels of health premium subsidy to those earning up to 300% of poverty wages. Baucus now proposes to limit subsidies for those earning 300% of poverty level income to the extent premiums would be more than 13% of total family income. Other Democrats wanted that number limited to 9% of family income.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry said the negotiators do not expect any immediate support for Chairman Baucus' mark of the legislation, but that "It's not going to be the bill that we're going to vote on, because we are going to amend, we are going to have a tug of war still."
Some of the most contentious issues which remain, pending release of the Baucus draft bill Wednesday, are Republican demands for specific language banning the expenditure of federal government dollars to pay for abortions, language prohibiting enrollment of illegal immigrants in public or private health insurance in the United States, the question of co-ops versus a government run insurance plan, and finally, the additional burden Medicaid enrollment expansion will put on state governments. One reason for Chairman Baucus' decision to delay release of the bill is the discussion Monday and perhaps Tuesday with various state governors to address their Medicaid funding concerns.
The final Baucus mark is expected to run between 1,500 and 2,000 pages in length. Once it has been released, I will do my best to quickly bring you information on key elements of the Baucus plan compared with the Obama speech and the other four pending bills.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Obama Health Care Speeches To Light Congressional Fuse
President Obama will give two important speeches on health care reform next week. The first, on Monday at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati, before the obviously receptive audience, will be a friendly warm up for Wednesday evening's prime time address to a joint session of Congress in the Capitol in Washington, D.C. President Obama will highlight two "must haves" he considers essential in any health reform package: federal regulation of insurance companies prohibiting coverage denials or premium increases due to a person's current health or pre-existing conditions, and federal government subsidies to make health insurance affordable for low income Americans. He will also name as "give-aways" three non-essential and particularly controversial proposals of pending bills, including Medicare payment for end of life counseling, school based health clinics, and a national health care database organized by race, sex, sexual orientation and "gender identity."
Thus far, no one but the presidential speech writers seems to know whether three equally debated provisions of the various bills will be on the "must have" or the "give away" list: a federal option to compete with insurance companies, a mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage, and a mandate for everyone to buy health insurance.
Tune in to your favorite news channel Wednesday night. Until President Obama delivers his message to Congress, we don't really know anything about what the final health care reform measure will look like.
Thus far, no one but the presidential speech writers seems to know whether three equally debated provisions of the various bills will be on the "must have" or the "give away" list: a federal option to compete with insurance companies, a mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage, and a mandate for everyone to buy health insurance.
Tune in to your favorite news channel Wednesday night. Until President Obama delivers his message to Congress, we don't really know anything about what the final health care reform measure will look like.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Will Health Care Reform Create Second Class Employees?
According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Executive Director Robert Greenstein, the Senate Finance Committee healthcare bill, which Max Baucus expects to finally publish to the public sometime soon, will include a mandate on employers to provide health coverage to employees, or pay the government an amount equal to the government subsidy under the public or co-op plan for every employee who qualifies for subsidies because of family income below 300% of the federal poverty level. Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights points to a powerful unintended consequence of such a mandate - the bill would encourage discrimination against just those people health care reform is supposed to help.
The proposal would create two classes of employees: class one, workers who have family coverage under the health plan a parent or spouse gets from a different employer; class two, single parents and low wage employees for which the employer would have to pay the subsidy amount to the government. So the "pay-for" which is supposed to reduce government health care costs below the trillion dollar mark will drive the poor and minorities reform is supposed to help out of the work force, to be replaced by the spouses and children of middle class or rich people who have health insurance through the employer of a primary breadwinner. Why hire an impoverished single mom to work as a flagger on your highway construction project, and pay the government fine for not giving her health insurance for herself and her kids, when you could give the same job to a college kid whose dad or mom already has family coverage from a job that pays him or her six figures? The danger signal is on the road either way.
These are the kinds of monumental mistakes that will get made in the headlong rush to push any kind of "health care reform" through a Congress feeling the need to act now or forget it, rather than giving careful consideration to all the social and economic effects of every provision in legislation numbering over a thousand pages long. No wonder angry citizens are getting on the bus to ride from one politician's town hall meeting to another, venting their frustration with elected representatives who seem to put political expedience above the real needs of the constituents they serve.
The proposal would create two classes of employees: class one, workers who have family coverage under the health plan a parent or spouse gets from a different employer; class two, single parents and low wage employees for which the employer would have to pay the subsidy amount to the government. So the "pay-for" which is supposed to reduce government health care costs below the trillion dollar mark will drive the poor and minorities reform is supposed to help out of the work force, to be replaced by the spouses and children of middle class or rich people who have health insurance through the employer of a primary breadwinner. Why hire an impoverished single mom to work as a flagger on your highway construction project, and pay the government fine for not giving her health insurance for herself and her kids, when you could give the same job to a college kid whose dad or mom already has family coverage from a job that pays him or her six figures? The danger signal is on the road either way.
These are the kinds of monumental mistakes that will get made in the headlong rush to push any kind of "health care reform" through a Congress feeling the need to act now or forget it, rather than giving careful consideration to all the social and economic effects of every provision in legislation numbering over a thousand pages long. No wonder angry citizens are getting on the bus to ride from one politician's town hall meeting to another, venting their frustration with elected representatives who seem to put political expedience above the real needs of the constituents they serve.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Senate, House Part Ways On Health Care Reform
Never mind the five week delay in work in health care reform legislation over the Congressional summer recess, the real problem will emerge in the conference committee when House and Senate versions of the measure will have to be reconciled. It looks like the Senate could pass a version missing most of the heart and soul of the current House bill: no employer mandate, no public option, and a "luxury tax" of up to 35% on health insurance plans costing more than $25,000 per year in premiums.
The real struggle, Congressman and Senators at home in their Districts over the long summer recess will learn first hand from their constituents, will be convincing the large majority of the electorate, generally satisfied with their current doctors and their present health insurance plans, that the new law will not take anything away from them while it spends a trillion dollars over the next ten years extending coverage to 40 million people who do not have any insurance now.
The real struggle, Congressman and Senators at home in their Districts over the long summer recess will learn first hand from their constituents, will be convincing the large majority of the electorate, generally satisfied with their current doctors and their present health insurance plans, that the new law will not take anything away from them while it spends a trillion dollars over the next ten years extending coverage to 40 million people who do not have any insurance now.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care Reform Postponement Is Now Official
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dumped President Obama's August deadline for floor action on Health Care Reform legislation into the shredder today with the announcement that the Senate won't take up the measure until after Labor Day. Private negotiations continue in caucus rooms on both sides of the Capitol, but progress is apparently insufficient to speed any legislation through both houses of Congress any time soon. While Senators and Representatives are home in their Districts during the month of August, look for millions of dollars worth of television advertising on the issue from both parties and the numerous health care and insurance interests involved in the debate. If you sell advertising time on the airwaves for a living, August should be a very lucrative month.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Is Health Care Reform On the Ropes?
President Obama is refusing to release to news media the list of health industry big wigs who have met with him at the White House in recent weeks to discuss health care reform legislation, and according to Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, when Obama met with Blue dog Democratic Congressmen last week to discuss changes their caucus wants to the House version of the measure, the Representatives listed ten major changes they want before a floor vote in which their opposition could kill the legislation altogether. Grassley reports the president responded "You're going to destroy my presidency." Republicans, hopeful the August recess will give their anti- administration advertising campaigns in key states a chance to gain traction, keep referring to health care reform legislation as Obama's "Waterloo."
Utah Senator Orin Hatch has dropped out of negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee on that chamber's version of health care reform legislation, noting as reasons for his withdrawal the employer mandate, unfunded Medicaid mandates, and inclusion of a public option which he believes will lead quickly to a single payer health care system. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, speaking for himself and others who oppose abortion rights, predicts the House version of the bill will not pass unless it abortion opponents are permitted to offer an amendment on the floor prohibiting use of public funds to pay for any abortion procedures. "If we don't get a clean shot, if we don't get the amendment we want ... I think it's enough to take down [the legislation]. I'm not just going to roll over."
Finally, after yesterday afternoon's weekly Democratic policy luncheon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked by a reporter whether the notoriously foul-mouthed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had consulted with Reid on the Senate bill. Reid's response: "Any guidance from Rahm? No, but he did call me twice during lunch. And I would like to say his language is getting better, but I think it's getting worse."
Utah Senator Orin Hatch has dropped out of negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee on that chamber's version of health care reform legislation, noting as reasons for his withdrawal the employer mandate, unfunded Medicaid mandates, and inclusion of a public option which he believes will lead quickly to a single payer health care system. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, speaking for himself and others who oppose abortion rights, predicts the House version of the bill will not pass unless it abortion opponents are permitted to offer an amendment on the floor prohibiting use of public funds to pay for any abortion procedures. "If we don't get a clean shot, if we don't get the amendment we want ... I think it's enough to take down [the legislation]. I'm not just going to roll over."
Finally, after yesterday afternoon's weekly Democratic policy luncheon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked by a reporter whether the notoriously foul-mouthed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had consulted with Reid on the Senate bill. Reid's response: "Any guidance from Rahm? No, but he did call me twice during lunch. And I would like to say his language is getting better, but I think it's getting worse."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Health Care "Public Option" Is Hardly Optional
For those of you closely following the health care debates in both houses of Congress, the phrase "public option" is undoubtedly a familiar one. It is utterly misleading, however. Buried on page 16 of the 1,018 page House version of the health care legislation is a provision innocuously headed "Protection The Choice To Keep Current Coverage" is a provision prohibiting any insurance company from selling new individual health insurance policies after the bill becomes law. So, if this measure passes, everyone will be required to purchase health insurance, but health insurance will only be available by means of a group policy through your employer, or through Medicare, Medicaid, or the so called "public option" plan run by the federal government. No matter what your situation, you are prohibited from getting health insurance by means of an individual policy.
This law will be a disaster for the construction industry. How many construction companies are there out there where the owner is the only non-union employee? The owner covers his tradespeople through a union health and welfare plan, which provides them with solid gold Cadillac benefits, but he will no longer be able to buy comparable coverage for himself, because the "public option" benefit levels will never be as generous as union health and welfare plans, and private sector insurers will be prohibited by law from selling a policy to the owner. If you fall into this situation, you need to get on the phone to your Congressman right now and get this horrible provision stricken from the bill before you are forced into the government monopoly "public option" health insurance.
This law will be a disaster for the construction industry. How many construction companies are there out there where the owner is the only non-union employee? The owner covers his tradespeople through a union health and welfare plan, which provides them with solid gold Cadillac benefits, but he will no longer be able to buy comparable coverage for himself, because the "public option" benefit levels will never be as generous as union health and welfare plans, and private sector insurers will be prohibited by law from selling a policy to the owner. If you fall into this situation, you need to get on the phone to your Congressman right now and get this horrible provision stricken from the bill before you are forced into the government monopoly "public option" health insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
