Posted on 07/02/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by BGHater
Senate Democrats unveiled their plans to create a government-run public health insurance option and require most employers to provide healthcare benefits to their workers Thursday, partially filling in the blanks on two of the biggest unsettled questions in the effort to reform the healthcare system.
According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. Combined with separate legislation being developed by the Senate Finance Committee, senators said their healthcare reform plan would bring the total number of newly insurance people to 41 million by 2019, or 97 percent of the projected U.S. population, excluding illegal immigrants.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is overseeing the committee in the absence of ailing Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), said he anticipates the Finance Committee bill would extend coverage to 20 million people via an expansion of the Medicaid program.
Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the number of people receiving health benefits at work would remain steady at about 160 million people over the 10-year time period, which could disarm the frequent Republican critique that Democrats' healthcare reform plans would destabilize insurance coverage for the middle class.
Under the new provisions, employers with more than 25 workers would be required to either provide "affordable" coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time employee and $375 for part-timers. "It's a cost, I realize that, but a modest cost indeed," said Dodd. The business community in general, and groups representing small employers in particular, strongly opposes such requirements, though Wal-Mart this week endorsed the concept of the employer mandate.
The public option would not receive federal subsidies and would be funded through premiums. The Department of Health and Human Services would run the plan and set payment rates for medical services and products. Republicans, health insurance, many medical provider groups and big-business organizations oppose the public option, contending that a government program cannot compete fairly with private companies.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) rejected that argument, noting that private student-loan providers coexist with government loans, and contending that health insurance companies need to be checked in the marketplace by a stable, not-for-profit option. "Ultimately, the public option will keep insurance companies more honest," Brown said. "We're convinced it will make both [public and private plans] better."
The coverage figures and costs estimates are considerably better than projected for an earlier draft of the bill because committee Democrats initially left out both the public option and the so-called "play or pay" mandate for employers. When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the original draft, it estimated its price tag at more than $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to 16 million people. Those unflattering numbers threatened to stall the momentum for the Democrats' healthcare reform plan last month.
President Obama praised the HELP Committee bill in a statement. "Today the Senate HELP committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans," Obama said. "The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out," he said, such the creation of a health insurance "exchange" through which people can shop for insurance, a ban on insurance companies excluding people with pre-existing conditions and the public option. The bill also includes a mandate that individuals obtain health coverage, a policy Obama opposed during his presidential campaign but has since indicated he would support if those who prove that doing so would pose a financial hardship.
The Finance Committee has not announced its plans for an expansion of Medicaid, nor has the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored its projected cost, but a senior HELP Committee Democratic aide said their calculations were based on an assumption that all legal U.S. residents with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid under the combined HELP-Finance legislation.
The CBO score, of the HELP Committee bill does not tell the full story about how much healthcare reform will cost. The bulk of the cost-cutting and revenue-raising provisions of healthcare reform will come from the Finance Committee, which has sole authority over reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending and on raising taxes. The Finance Committee has not yet released its bill or any cost estimates.
The HELP Committee spent two weeks marking up their draft legislation before Congress broke for its July 4th recess despite the bill lacking two of the most important -- and contentious -- elements of healthcare reform. Even without these issues on the table, the committee's public meetings were marked by partisan rancor, despite votes to include 87 amendments offered by Republicans.
Obama and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate want healthcare reform bills passed in both chambers by the end of July, a timeline that will prove especially difficult in the Senate.
The HELP Committee must return to its mark up to debate the most controversial elements of reform. The Finance Committee left for the congressional recess without introducing a bill and the panel's expected bipartisan product will more than likely include no public option. The two committees must then consolidate their different bills and the Senate schedule floor debate. Floor time could prove precious with the Senate poised to begin considering the confirmation Obama's nominee for Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
"That's going to require a lot of work and I believe it can be done," Dodd said. "One step at a time. This is a long process," he said. Dodd acknowledged, however, that Republican support will be hard to come by. "We may not achieve the level of bipartisanship I'd like at the first stage," he said.
The key difference cost of the two drafts of the HELP Committee bill is the employer mandate, which keeps companies in the business of providing health insurance -- and keeps the cost of that coverage off the federal government's books. Dodd said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on both the HELP and Finance committees, developed the "play or pay" provisions.
Under the CBO estimate of the earlier draft bill, roughly 15 million people were projected to move out of the employer-sponsored insurance market into other coverage. In addition, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said, the committee lowered the price tag by reducing the upper limit for eligibility for insurance subsidies from 500 percent of the poverty level to 400 percent.
Most of the expansion of insurance coverage would come via policies purchased on a national exchange, or gateway that would open in 2012. People who are not offered coverage through work -- or whose benefits cost more than 12.5 percent of their salary -- would be able to choose among accredited plans, including the public option, and people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty level would have access to federal subsidies. According to the CBO, 27 million people would get private or public insurance through this mechanism.
I call BS.
Accordingly, once they push out all private insurance companies via their single-payer goal, it will be 100%.
Ironic....
“require most employers to provide healthcare benefits”
Easy to break. You have a part-time employee who makes $1200 a month. You offer them health coverage for $200 a month(pretty standard). They won’t do it because they have to make their cell phone, truck and satellite dish payment out of that $1200
Now there’s an idea! A hefty tax on pickups, flat screens, manicures/pedicures, tattoos, wine sold in bottles with twist caps and and satellite TV should cover a lot of the people who are chosing NOT to buy health insurance because they have come to think it is an entitlement
Again dems are trying to deceive everybody with cooked up numbers and statistics which does not pass the smell test.
They are in fact lies and liars.
But they will resort to all manner of lies to get it passed but reasonable logical and thoughtful people will not be deceived by the lies.
My first question is “who is exempt from this?” My second question is, “why”?
At a cost of only a couple TRILLION dollars, a few million people can have an insurance plan (medicaid) that most Doctors REFUSE to accept as payment for service.
It looks like those uninsured are right back where they were...the free clinic or the hospital ER, and the taxpayers are out ANOTHER 2 trillion dollars!
Screw caps on wine bottles is no longer a sign of cheap wine. Many winemakers are using screw caps because corks can go bad
Agreed.....those that believe them are bigger fools than the Democrats.
It’s the same with liberal science.
The only science liberals believe is liberal science.
Like global warming.
Which is a complete scam, deception, lie and fiction; a crisis that has been overhyped to milk it for special interests at the expense of the taxpayers like most government programs.
More than 12.5%. That of course is a hell of alot of people. And 400% above poverty?! For a single person that means that an income of $43,320 (4 x $10,830) would qualify that person for a federal subsidy. 2 person $58,280,: 3 - $73,240; 4 - $88,200.
As it is said, figures don't lie but liars figure!
I'm sure there will be a provision in this bill where "no refusal allowed" is the policy.
Every single employer that is forced to provide health insurance for its employees will lower the wages of those it is forced to insure to make up for it.
Everyone making $10 an hour needs to understand that if this passes they will be making $8 and hour and will get the pleasure of waiting for rationed care in return.
Another possibility is that the employers will pass all the costs onto the consumer for their products and services ino ther words enormous inflation which will result in even more job loss, poverty, outsourcing and businesses going bankrupt.
It would be a windfall to me as an employer if this was implemented and I decided to forgo the insurance on my employees and simply pay $750 a head to the government. My group would save $1.6 million a year, but the employees would probably revolt.
And that will add more cost that will be tacked on the bill of those with private insurance.
There is no free lunch, which BTW, is the only thing the libtard voters will settle for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.