Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Public option rejected by Senate panel

September 30, 2009

Advertisement

— In a long-anticipated showdown, liberal Democrats twice failed on Tuesday to inject a government-run insurance option into sweeping health care legislation taking shape in the Senate, despite bipartisan agreement that private insurers must change their ways.

The two votes marked a victory for Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who is hoping to push his middle-of-the-road measure through the panel by week’s end. It also kept alive the possibility that at least one Republican may yet swing behind the overhaul, a key goal of both Baucus and the White House.

The developments occurred as Democrats in the House sought savings to reduce their companion legislation to roughly $900 billion over a decade, the price tag President Barack Obama has suggested.

One option under consideration would reduce the number of individuals and families eligible for federal health coverage subsidies to those earning less than 400 percent of poverty, or about $43,000 for a single person and $88,000 for a family of four, officials said, commenting only on condition of anonymity. The subsidies are designed to make insurance more affordable, and account for a significant percentage of spending in the bill.

Without disclosing any of the details of a marathon closed-door leadership meeting, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters, “It’s hard work, but we’re determined to get it (the bill’s cost) down.”

Crossing the finish line

If anything, the health care debate was growing more intense. According to one independent organization, television advertising around the issue has been running at a level of more than $1.1 million a day for the past week and now stands over $100 million since the beginning of the year.

Inside the Senate Finance Committee, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said his proposal to allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry was far from the federal takeover that critics portray. “It’s not. It’s optional,” he said, adding it was designed to offer competition and a lower-priced, reliable choice for consumers shopping for coverage.

“Washington is not the answer,” countered Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The key votes were cast by Baucus and four other Democrats, who sided with Republicans who were united against the proposed change in the bill. “The public option would help to hold insurance companies’ feet to the fire, I don’t think there’s much doubt about that, but my first job is to get this bill across the finish line,” said the chairman.

“No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option,” he said, employing the term used to describe a new government role in health care. It would take 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome any filibuster Republicans might attempt.

Supporters of a new role for government repeatedly accused private insurers of placing profits over coverage, and said they would try for a federal option again when the full Senate votes.

“With some work and some compromise, we can get the 60 votes on the floor of the Senate that will make our system better by providing for a strong, fair and viable public option,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who sponsored the second proposal to inject more competition into the insurance market.

Debate carries on

For the Finance Committee, the day marked the beginning of a second week of public debate over sweeping legislation that generally adheres to conditions that Obama has called for.

The bill includes numerous new consumer protections, including a ban on companies denying insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions. At the same time it provides government subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford insurance that is currently beyond their means. It also includes steps that supporters say will begin to slow the growth in health care costs nationwide.

After weeks of delay, both the House and Senate now appear on track to vote on different versions of health care legislation this fall. Passage in both houses would set the stage for a compromise to be voted on by year’s end.

Rockefeller, whose measure was rejected, 15-8, assailed the insurance industry in withering terms. “I hate to use the word ‘rapacious,”’ he said — but quickly added it was warranted. He said omission of a government option from the measure was a virtual invitation to insurance companies to continue placing profits over people, and he predicted they would raise their premiums substantially once the legislation went into effect.

Republicans countered that the proposals would lead to the demise of the private insurance industry and result in a system that is completely run by the government.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited private studies — one by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the other by the Lewin Group, owned by United HealthCare — saying millions would be pushed out of private insurance as the government held fees to doctors at artificially low levels. He said the result would be a violation of Obama’s pledge that consumers would be able to keep their current insurance if they wanted once the legislation went into effect.

While Baucus voted against the proposal, he was at pains to counter Rockefeller’s charge that the legislation increased subsidies that would go to insurance companies without dictating changes in past practices.

He said the legislation would raise taxes on insurers, ban denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions and limit the extra premiums that could be charged on the basis of age.

Republican support?

All 10 Republicans on the committee voted against the Rockefeller proposal to allow the government to compete directly with insurance companies, Sen. Olympia Snowe among them. Democrats are hoping the Maine lawmaker will eventually break ranks with her party and support the legislation.

Also opposed were Baucus and fellow Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida and Tom Carper of Delaware.

Schumer backed an alternative approach that he said would introduce more competition into the insurance market nationwide. His version differed from Rockefeller’s chiefly in that it would have allowed for the government to negotiate payments with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for an initial two-year period rather than pay them at the same rates as under Medicare.

Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln joined all Republicans to defeat the proposal on a vote of 13-10.

According to Evan Tracey, who heads a private data tracking company called the Campaign Media Analysis Group, about $47 million has been spent for ads favoring a health overhaul and $32 million has gone to opposing the effort. The rest has been spent on commercials that generally mention the issues.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"Go figure……."

By my figures, only the last two years of his last term-- the previous 6 years, Republicans were mostly in control of Congress. But regardless, Democrats (as a whole) are only marginally better than Republicans. I'll take that, but I don't rejoice over it.

0

mr_right_wing 4 years, 6 months ago

I know, it's so strange that things were so horrible under Bush AND a democratically-controlled Congress...

Go figure.......

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"Being irresponsible and impulsive is very popular these days!"

But now that BushCo is gone, things are improving, if ever so slightly.

0

mr_right_wing 4 years, 6 months ago

I got around to watching the 9/22 city commission meeting online. There was actually a guy who suggested that Lawrence provide universal healthcare if our nation does not. As if City Hall is overflowing with $$$!

If only there were a way to truly find out how many folks cannot get health insurance, vs. how many choose not to. After all, health insurance premiums aren't as fun as paying for other luxuries. (I personally think it's a fairly small minority that truly "cannot".) Being irresponsible and impulsive is very popular these days!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"The developments occurred as Democrats in the House sought savings to reduce their companion legislation to roughly $900 billion over a decade, the price tag President Barack Obama has suggested."

And what's that $900 billion pay for? Subsidies to private insurance companies.

Under a single-payer plan, this country could cover everyone AND save $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

That's not the only option available (the Swiss model is another,) but merely tweaking the badly broken status quo is downright criminal.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.