Spokane7
42°
November 19, 2009 in Nation/World
Reid offers up $849 billion health reform bill to Senate
Backers hail public option, projected deficit reductions
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., front, with Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., left, Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaks to the media about the Democratic health care bill Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
(Full-size photo)
WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid presented an $849 billion health care overhaul package Wednesday that would extend coverage to 31 million Americans and reform insurance practices while adding an array of tax increases, including a rise in payroll taxes for high earners.
Democratic leaders were jubilant that early estimates from congressional budget analysts indicated that the Senate bill would cut federal deficits by $127 billion over the next decade. That projection represents the biggest cost savings of any legislation to come before the House or Senate this year, but the measure’s effective date also was pushed back by one year, to 2014. Savings could prove far more significant in the long run, Democrats said, noting estimates that suggest the Senate bill would cut as much as $650 billion from federal deficits over the second 10 years after becoming law.
Those projected reductions could prove critical in winning the support of three wavering moderate Democrats whose votes Reid, D-Nev., must secure to bring the legislation to the floor before the Senate breaks for Thanksgiving. But Reid also stacked the bill with provisions sought by liberals, including a public insurance option, albeit a version with an opt-out clause for states.
The legislation received a positive response from across the Democratic spectrum. “This is the bill that we’ve been fighting for,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who pressed Reid to revive the public option. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the budget chairman and a leading Democratic fiscal hawk, said after a briefing on the bill, “I was very impressed by what Senator Reid has done.”
The Senate measure is similar in scope to legislation the House approved earlier this month. It would require most people to buy insurance, and if their employers did not offer affordable coverage, they would be able to shop for policies on new state-based “exchanges” that would function as marketplaces for individual coverage. Insurance companies would have to abide by broad new rules that would ban practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
But the bills diverge on other key provisions. The House version would require all but the smallest businesses to offer insurance, while the Senate measure would merely fine companies for not offering affordable coverage. The Senate bill would bar illegal immigrants from buying insurance through the exchanges, while the House would restrict access only to subsidies and federal programs such as Medicaid, which would be vastly expanded under both bills.
Another potential flashpoint is abortion coverage. The issue sparked a major battle in the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to agree to an amendment that would bar people who receive federal subsidies for insurance coverage from using that money to purchase policies that pay for abortion.
Reid took a different approach that may or may not pass muster with abortion opponents, proposing to establish a “firewall” that would segregate private premiums from federal funding if abortion coverage were offered in the public insurance plan. “I couldn’t be happier,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an abortion rights advocate who was working to forge a compromise on the issue. “For those who want to keep abortion out of this bill, Senator Reid did it the right way.”
Like the House bill, Reid’s proposal would be financed through billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, as well as new taxes. But while the House would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families, the Senate would rely primarily on a new tax on high-cost insurance policies that has been hugely unpopular among House members.
To blunt opposition, Reid would impose the 40 percent tax on fewer policies, raising the threshold to $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for family coverage. That change required him to come up with about $60 billion in additional revenue, most of which would come from raising the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent on individual income over $200,000 and household income over $250,000. Reid is also proposing a new 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.
The bill’s first test is expected on Friday or Saturday, with a procedural vote required to start debate. Republicans are expected to rally all 40 of their senators to block the legislation from advancing, requiring Reid to keep all 60 members of his Democratic caucus in line.
GOP leaders pledged to use all their parliamentary powers to delay a final vote. “This will not be a short debate,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. But Reid said Wednesday night that he is “cautiously optimistic” that he can move the bill to the floor, and one of the three undecided Democrats – Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska – suggested in a statement that he would support Reid’s effort.
“It is motion to start debate on a bill and to try to improve it,” Nelson said of the upcoming vote. “If you don’t like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?”
Obama sends 2013 budget proposal to Congress 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
Erik_T on November 19 at 2:27 a.m.
I wonder what they consider “high earners”……. I hope this is not another; If you make 150k per year you get screwed at the same tax percentage as those that make 8 times that much.
Hell, 150k income in 3 years will be equal to what it was like making 45k in 2005… I just hope I do not have to float the bill for the lazy people in this country that have sand in the vajayjay with no TRUE want to work for a living. True being used as most of those I have spoken with say they want to work, but find out it is just that, work… And would much rather sit and do little.
rshroll on November 19 at 5:39 a.m.
High earners in the House Bill is $500,000 for individuals and 1,000,000 for married couples. This is gross adjusted income. An individual would have to have 500,000 left after all deductions, etc.. It is about 0.3% of the workers. Very few doctors and lawyers would be effected. The bills could be better, but getting rid of the health insurance anti-trust law exemption, and making it illegal to deny insurance to those with pre existing conditions and not being able to drop your coverage when you get sick is huge. I don’t think it goes quite far enough in controlling premium cost, which is where a stronger public option could have really helped, but with all the non informed opposition, this is probably the best that can be done at this time. All this, and it brings the deficit down.
IHike4Fun on November 19 at 7:28 a.m.
This is total insanity. Any senitor (ours included!) should be voted out of office if they vote for this fiasco.
New taxes, Higher taxed, cuts in Medicare. They have become a law unto themselves. They are not represening the people that voted them into office.
liarsinnews on November 19 at 7:32 a.m.
Anyone who believes this proposed bill will reduce the deficit is either drunk or a stupid political pimp who is a liar.
Detoxer on November 19 at 12:04 p.m.
My concern is that these “reforms” will continue the practice of not paying doctors to diagnose and cure problems but paying them to treat the symptoms because this takes much less time. They treat the symptoms by giving drugs that almost never treat the problem but will be very costly because the patient will be on them for years—if not for the rest of their life.
These drugs will also lead to side effects that will need to be treated with more drugs.
Steve
http://novusdetox.com