Print
E-mail
Baucus, Other Dem Health Care Bills Too Costly
 |
| Sen. Max Baucus reads the names of six Montana military personnel, before making a speech to the joint session of the Montana Legislature calling to improve health care for all citizens. (Independent Record, George Lane/Associated Press) |
By JOHN ROSSOMANDO, For The Bulletin
Instead of producing a bipartisan consensus health care bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has instead produced a bipartisan firestorm from liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike with the legislation he unveiled Wednesday.
The Montana senator spent much of the summer working with Republican U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi to produce a bill lacking a public health insurance option. But in the end his Republican colleagues found they were unable to support the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates would cost $774 billion over 10 years.
Sen. Snowe called the chairman’s bill a “first step in the process” and said she couldn’t support the legislation as it presently stands due to its costs, but she expressed hope it could be further refined.
Sen. Grassley likewise expressed his disappointment with the bill, saying it doesn’t realize the goal of making health insurance more affordable and reducing costs.
Democrat Ron Wyden, who has offered his own health care bill, said the plan doesn’t go far enough to address affordability because it would require those making in excess of 300 percent of the federal poverty line, or $22,040, for a family of four, to spend up to 13 percent of their income on health insurance before they could be eligible for federal assistance.
Key provisions of the Baucus bill would require all Americans to obtain health insurance or face a fine; setup health care exchanges where individuals and families could obtain insurance; significantly expand Medicaid eligibility; and reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services.
It would impose an excise tax on health insurance companies that sell plans costing more than $21,000 for families and $8,000 for individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, medical-device makers, clinical laboratories would also pay fees.
CBO estimates the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $16 billion in 2019.
The legislation would encourage the creation of non-profit health insurance cooperatives that would operate at the state, regional or national levels and would offer non-profit member health plans to compete with existing health insurers. The bill would provide $6 billion of federal seed money help the cooperatives with their startup costs and solvency requirements.
Individuals making between 100 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level would face a $750 annual fine for failing to obtain health insurance, and families making in the same income range would face a $1,500 fine. Individuals making in excess of 300 percent of the federal poverty line would be subject to a $950 fine and families in the same income range would be subject to a $3,800 fine. However, it would not require employers to obtain health insurance.
Unlike the other bills floating around on Capitol Hill, Baucus’ bill would block illegal immigrants from benefiting and prevent the funding of abortions. It also includes a provision that would allow health insurers to compete across state lines, which is similar to a Republican bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
It isn’t often the Heritage Foundation and the AFL-CIO see eye to eye on something, but both groups are united in their opposition to the Baucus bill.
“If carried out on a far wider scale with members of both parties, in both houses, and with the good-faith involvement of the president, such a process could lead to the kind of bipartisan health reforms Americans would believe in,” Heritage Foundation analyst Stuart Butler wrote in an entry on the Heritage Foundation’s Web site. “To do that, the President needs to hit the “reset” button and bring together a wide set of members with a fresh roadmap ─ and the Baucus bill is not that roadmap. Many of its key provisions are badly flawed.”
Like Sen. Snowe, the Heritage Foundation worries about increased consumer costs from the legislation and would fail to realize the president’s pledge to reduce insurance costs.
Conversely, the AFL-CIO is upset with the Baucus’ bill’s abandonment of the public option, which is contained in a competing bill being considered by the Senate Health, Education and Welfare Committee.
“[The bill] fails to meet the basic health care needs of working families, and it fails to meet the expectations of working families,” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement.
The competing bill would create a federally administered public plan, which CBO say would add over $1 trillion to the federal deficit by 2019 as a result of is Medicaid expansion provision if it were enacted.
Unlike Sen. Baucus’ bill, the competing legislation would mandate employers with more than 25 workers to offer health insurance.
“CBO believes that firms that are subject to the penalty but opt not to offer health insurance would pass on that cost to their workers, primarily in the form of lower wages than they otherwise would, keeping their total compensation costs about the same,” CBO wrote in a letter to Sen. Enzi. “[A]s a result, employment of those workers might be adversely affected, though the impact is likely to be small.”
Everyone involved with the health care debate say the Baucus bill is only one part of the larger process, and it is scheduled for committee markup next week when further amendments will be offered.
The lack of Republican support for the Baucus bill, however, has renewed speculation the Democrats will use the budgetary reconciliation process that will allow them to pass a health care bill with 51 votes, avoiding a GOP filibuster.
The Montana senator spent much of the summer working with Republican U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi to produce a bill lacking a public health insurance option. But in the end his Republican colleagues found they were unable to support the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates would cost $774 billion over 10 years.
Sen. Snowe called the chairman’s bill a “first step in the process” and said she couldn’t support the legislation as it presently stands due to its costs, but she expressed hope it could be further refined.
Sen. Grassley likewise expressed his disappointment with the bill, saying it doesn’t realize the goal of making health insurance more affordable and reducing costs.
Democrat Ron Wyden, who has offered his own health care bill, said the plan doesn’t go far enough to address affordability because it would require those making in excess of 300 percent of the federal poverty line, or $22,040, for a family of four, to spend up to 13 percent of their income on health insurance before they could be eligible for federal assistance.
Key provisions of the Baucus bill would require all Americans to obtain health insurance or face a fine; setup health care exchanges where individuals and families could obtain insurance; significantly expand Medicaid eligibility; and reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services.
It would impose an excise tax on health insurance companies that sell plans costing more than $21,000 for families and $8,000 for individuals. Pharmaceutical companies, medical-device makers, clinical laboratories would also pay fees.
CBO estimates the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $16 billion in 2019.
The legislation would encourage the creation of non-profit health insurance cooperatives that would operate at the state, regional or national levels and would offer non-profit member health plans to compete with existing health insurers. The bill would provide $6 billion of federal seed money help the cooperatives with their startup costs and solvency requirements.
Individuals making between 100 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level would face a $750 annual fine for failing to obtain health insurance, and families making in the same income range would face a $1,500 fine. Individuals making in excess of 300 percent of the federal poverty line would be subject to a $950 fine and families in the same income range would be subject to a $3,800 fine. However, it would not require employers to obtain health insurance.
Unlike the other bills floating around on Capitol Hill, Baucus’ bill would block illegal immigrants from benefiting and prevent the funding of abortions. It also includes a provision that would allow health insurers to compete across state lines, which is similar to a Republican bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
It isn’t often the Heritage Foundation and the AFL-CIO see eye to eye on something, but both groups are united in their opposition to the Baucus bill.
“If carried out on a far wider scale with members of both parties, in both houses, and with the good-faith involvement of the president, such a process could lead to the kind of bipartisan health reforms Americans would believe in,” Heritage Foundation analyst Stuart Butler wrote in an entry on the Heritage Foundation’s Web site. “To do that, the President needs to hit the “reset” button and bring together a wide set of members with a fresh roadmap ─ and the Baucus bill is not that roadmap. Many of its key provisions are badly flawed.”
Like Sen. Snowe, the Heritage Foundation worries about increased consumer costs from the legislation and would fail to realize the president’s pledge to reduce insurance costs.
Conversely, the AFL-CIO is upset with the Baucus’ bill’s abandonment of the public option, which is contained in a competing bill being considered by the Senate Health, Education and Welfare Committee.
“[The bill] fails to meet the basic health care needs of working families, and it fails to meet the expectations of working families,” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement.
The competing bill would create a federally administered public plan, which CBO say would add over $1 trillion to the federal deficit by 2019 as a result of is Medicaid expansion provision if it were enacted.
Unlike Sen. Baucus’ bill, the competing legislation would mandate employers with more than 25 workers to offer health insurance.
“CBO believes that firms that are subject to the penalty but opt not to offer health insurance would pass on that cost to their workers, primarily in the form of lower wages than they otherwise would, keeping their total compensation costs about the same,” CBO wrote in a letter to Sen. Enzi. “[A]s a result, employment of those workers might be adversely affected, though the impact is likely to be small.”
Everyone involved with the health care debate say the Baucus bill is only one part of the larger process, and it is scheduled for committee markup next week when further amendments will be offered.
The lack of Republican support for the Baucus bill, however, has renewed speculation the Democrats will use the budgetary reconciliation process that will allow them to pass a health care bill with 51 votes, avoiding a GOP filibuster.
 |
 |
|
| Obama Nominates Outspoken Abortion Supporter To Legal Post | Government Holds Hearings Over Cell Phone Use Dangers |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
