"Sebelius: Obama will have 'one proposal' for health reform at summit"

[Clio the Leo]

Sebelius: Obama will have 'one proposal' for health reform at summit
By Jeffrey Young - 02/18/10 12:14 PM ET

President Barack Obama will make public a single plan for healthcare reform in advance of the bipartisan summit on the issue next Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

"There will be one proposal," Sebelius said at a press conference Thursday.

When Obama announced the summit, he promised to publish online his plan for healthcare reform. Trouble is, Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to reconcile the differences between the bills already passed by the two chambers, prompting questions about just what Obama planned to unveil.

Moreover, Republican leaders invited to the summit have publicly questioned the point of holding a meeting if Obama and the Democrats already know what their final bill is going to look like.

Democratic leaders say they continue to work behind the scenes to hash our their differences but neither Obama nor those leaders has settled on a way to move forward. Senior House Democrats told reporters on Wednesday they were "very close" but also could not explain what Obama planned to do or whether it would be coordinated with the Democratic leadership.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81897-sebelius-obama-will-have-one-proposal-for-health-reform-at-summit

[Clio the Leo]

1. Would the WH be making a big show of "one plan" if there was currently in-fighting over the PO?

I'd like to think/hope not.

Next week cannot get here soon enough!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x187194

[amborin]

2. Obama is sticking to wanting an excise tax on middle class folks!

despite Dem opposition

[karynnj]

3. Likely because it is a cost containment feature and it affects only 4 % at most

of the plans. Those people, even with the tax, have a very sweet deal. They have received a huge tax break on over $23,000 of compensation (in the form of healthcare insurance).

The union argument assumes continuing double digit annual premium increases - something that will not happen because it is unsustainable.

[Romulox]

4. It's a knife in the back of a loyal constituency, and ANOTHER broken promise. nt

[cliffordu]

6. Yeah. Pretty astute for not having read the bill.

Kudos.

[Romulox]

8. It's a tired excuse by now Cliff. nt

[cliffordu]

10. Tired as your hyperbole?

Prolly not.

Knife in the back. Pleeeeze.

[Romulox]

12. Your frame is weak and hasn't carried the day. Not my fault. nt

[Phx_Dem]

26. Anyone who bitches about a proposal they have not yet seen is

full of sh*t.

[amborin]

15. the excise tax would clobber the middle class! another double crossing n/t

[damonm]

25. Just as tired as the rebuttal you give,

unless you HAVE read the bill.

[karynnj]

9. It is not a knife in the back of a loyal constituency

At most the threshold needs to be tweeked to the point where the unions HAD agreed to it - the family number was $25,000.

As to broken promise, I assume that you mean no taxes on those under $250,000. Now, I could try to be clever and point out that this is really simply taking away part of a big tax break that the FOUR percent get a huge amount more than others through. But, I would rather argue that IF this acts to constrain costs, it might long term benefit even the people in the unions. The fact is that companies will not, because they can't, commit larger and larger amounts to healthcare of employees. If the premium increases occurred that they project, the companies and the unions would scale down the plans - even with no tax.

Not to mention, the unions are being extremely inconsistent. They have backed single payer - where their members would have a plan like everyone else. It would not be at the level of a Cadillac plan. The tax break for healthcare to employers is likely the single thing that started an employer paid healthcare system and the thing that keeps it going.

[Romulox]

11. A TRUE public option controls costs without any linguistic (not to say logical) gymnastics required

Nonsense on the idea that this is simply about "controlling costs"--it's about appeasing corporate interests, or a real public option wouldn't have been taken off the table before this "debate" even began. :hi:

"Not to mention, the unions are being extremely inconsistent."

Who is being inconsistent here? You are talking about "controlling costs" while insisting that corporate profits must be guaranteed. That's neither a free market approach nor a robust government response--it's a triangulated mess. So what of "consistency"? :shrug:

[karynnj]

14. This has nothing to do with a public option

I have no idea what a TRUE public option is - but I assume that you are suggesting the public option in the House plan is not a TRUE public option. As, you say it was off the table, I assume you were speaking of single payer. I agree that would be better, but it would never pass. So, it is likely that what you are referring to could not pass either House.

I am not against a public option and I have never insisted that corporate profits be guaranteed. The fact is that there are ALWAYS things between a free market and a government plan.

[Romulox]

21. LOL. Of course it has *something* to do with a public option (the "cost control" excuse, remember)

"I have never insisted that corporate profits be guaranteed. "

If you support the President's plan (mandatory private insurance) then you surely do. :hi:

[amborin]

16. you are attacking unions! incredible, not! the excise tax hits the middle class, totally unfair!

[karynnj]

20. I once was in a union and I support unions

I think they are wrong here. They are not always right.

As to hitting the middle class, how do you explain that the tax is not triggered until you get premiums equal to nearly twice the median cost?

[Clio the Leo]

7. Thanks for trying to inject some sense into the discussion Karynn. NT

[amborin]

13. it affects a large % of middle class and might force them to choose lousier coverage, too

[karynnj]

19. How can it affect a large percentage of the middle class, when it is projected to affect about 4%

of the country? Did you buy that the estate tax was hurting people passing small businesses and family farms too?

Look at the numbers, it currently kicks in at $23,000 and it is indeed to inflation. The median premium cost is around half of that.

[Romulox]

22. By the same token then, how can it significantly contain costs?

Double edged swords--they cut on both sides. :hi:

[amborin]

23. it will experience "bracket creep" each year hitting larger and larger %

[damonm]

24. indexing prevents bracket creep.

[amborin]

27. no, it will not prevent it n/t

[niceypoo]

5. Lets just hope it isnt 'tort reform'

EOM

[amborin]

17. Robert Reich, on how UNFAIR the excise tax is:

Robert Reich on Why the Senate HCR is so unfair:

The dirty little secret under the hood is that less than 4 percent of the variation in the cost of current health-care plans has to do with how many benefits they provide. Most plans that cost more do so because (1) a particular set of employees is older and tends to get sicker than the average set of employees (that’s true for a lot of old rust-belt firms), (2) the plan is offered by a small business that lacks bargaining clout with insurers (small businesses pay, on average, 16 percent more for the health insurance they provide, per capita), (3) the work that employees do subjects them to greater risk of medical problems (health-care workers, for example), or (4) most employees are women (who tend to have higher health-care costs than men because women are the ones who bear children). Plans could also cost more but deliver average benefits because (5) insurers in the area don’t face much competition (one main reason for the public option).

So by taxing so-called Cadillac plans, the Senate bill would actually end up taxing the Chevy plans of a large portion of the middle class. And as time goes by, a still larger portion, since the Senate plan is geared to the overall rate of inflation rather than to the (much higher) rate of increases in health-care costs.

Defenders of the Senate plan say not to worry. Employers who bear the tax and therefore have an incentive to cut back on health care for their employees will make it up to employees in higher wages. But anyone taking even a passing glance at today’s labor market knows this is wishful thinking. Employers have no incentive to raise wages when almost everyone is worried about keeping their jobs. (Besides, a dollar’s worth of tax-free health benefit is worth more than a taxable dollar of wages.)"

snip

robert reich.org

[brand404]

18. Clearly it wont be the Public Option -- I see this "one plan" as way to bury the PO once in for all

In recent days the PO has come back into light and i see the WH, who has been desparate to smuther the only remaining idea that could cost control the siutation, just wants to make their voice heard which will clearly not include it. Shame.