Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats pare back subsidies in health care bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:41 PM
Original message
Democrats pare back subsidies in health care bill
WASHINGTON – Key Senate Democrats, bidding for bipartisan support on health care, pared back subsidies designed to make insurance more affordable on Thursday and floated a compromise that rules out direct government competition against private insurers.

Despite the cost-cutting, the proposal backed by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, requires most individuals to purchase coverage and forbids insurance companies from denying it on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

The brief outline did not specify how the government's costs would be covered, although Baucus and many Republicans favor a tax on certain employer-provided health benefits. The Montana Democrat has said he intends to hold the cost of the legislation to about $1 trillion, well below the $1.6 trillion estimate the Congressional Budget Office made of an earlier set of options.

Across the Capitol, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee privately circulated a list of possible tax increases to pay for expanded health care.

They ranged from raising the Medicare tax, slapping a 10 percent tax on a can of sweetened drink, raising the alcohol tax, imposing a new tax on employers equal to 3 percent of payroll and taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels.

Also under consideration was a value added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more, with housing, education, financial services and medical care potentially exempt.

House Democrats were expected to unveil an outline of their own to expand health coverage on Friday, although several officials said they did not plan to include mention of the tax increases under consideration.

Taken together, the developments reflected an eagerness by congressional Democrats in both houses to meet a self-imposed deadline of having health care legislation to the floor of both houses of Congress by summer. President Barack Obama has made the issue one of his top priorities.

Neither the Senate Finance Committee outline nor the list of tax options under review by House Democrats was made public. The Associated Press obtained copies of both.

"There's no doubt in my mind we're going to get a bipartisan bill," Baucus told reporters as he emerged from a meeting with a small group of Republicans he referred to as a "coalition of the willing."

The senior Republican on the Finance Committee was not nearly as bullish.

"I'm still at the table. I wouldn't be at the table if I didn't think there was some hope for it," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "But tomorrow it could be an entirely different story."

According to a 10-page outline that described the proposal, federal subsidies would be available to help families up to 300 percent of poverty, or $66,000, purchase insurance. An earlier proposal set the level at 400 percent of poverty, or $88,000.

At the same time, the new outline could require higher out of pocket costs from individuals because companies would be permitted to offer policies that cover less of an insured's anticipated medical costs than was earlier proposed.

Many Democrats want the government to be able to offer insurance in competition with the private industry, a provision they say would hold down costs. But most Republicans are opposed.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul

Bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can we all agree by now that single-payer would be easier, if not more effective than this mess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No, we cannot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Well, this most certainly is shaping out to be super simple and potentially effective
So, I guess you are right about the "uniquely American" solution

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. What the hell makes you think single payer would make it through
when not even a public option is making it through congress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Its an established system with real concepts to rally behind if the leadership was there
The "public option" remains undefined after months, existing in multiple versions, mishmashed and devoid of all principle except an initial compromise of "bipartisanship".

Who is going to get off their couch to throw their weight behind that crap. It sonly there in reality for a bait-and-switch

After this mess, when people's health care still sucks in 5 years, I think the argument from pragmatism is going to take a serious backseat (to an argument from necessity).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. key phrase being: IF THE LEADERSHIP WAS THERE
and the LEADERSHIP AIN'T THERE.

WTF makes you think they're gonna just ROLL OUT THE RED carpet for single payer when they're fighting tooth and nail against a public option?

And you seriously think they'd throw their weight behind single payer? Seriously? You honestly think it'd be different if it was HR 676 on the table???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Maybe there would be some more leadership for it...
if politicians weren't too busy dividing the liberal base and selling half of them off on a piece of shit shell game to weaken the overall party.

Ive laid out how I feel that you can get both people and politicians behind this (and its not HR 676, which is more expansive than most current single-payer systems). To appeal to the pragmatists, you start with catastrophic single payer, with income-based deductibles. That way, you absorb risk and expense from the private market (thereby giving them more stable risk models that result in lower premiums instantly). It leaves the existing structure in place, could actually be used to help private insurers make more profits, lowers premiums for everyone, and makes sure no one dies or loses their homes from health care costs again.

Sometimes it take creative thinking. Id rather have an incremental plan like this on the pathway to full single-payer than some convoluted plan purported to maybe make it there through some magic mechanism if it even survives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Nah, that ain't it
The only reason there isn't leadership is because the congresspeople who are against public option/single payer are owned by Insurance Companies. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Then you have no hope
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 09:20 PM by Oregone
Might as well be for single-payer with no hope than some magic "public option". Shoot for the stars since you got nothing to lose. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You wish; I still have hope
and single payer is no less "magic" than public option; in fact, it's more magic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Right, despite the fact that there exists observable models that work in real life
Whereas, a "public option" (that remains undefined) competing in a near laissez faire market, against for-profit unethical insurance companies (that have a track record of failing to serve people, and contributing to bankruptcy) is a completely "uniquely American" solution without any reality to base its success upon (and no, other mixed market systems do not even compare).

There is nothing magic about having a single, publicly owned insurance entity owned by the state, funded by the people, which operates without profit, and doesn't require deductibles & copays. I actually already have this, and it is unbelievably wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. I dunno about anyone else
But I strongly believe that if Obama was fully and loudly putting his weight behing hr 676, it would be on the table. And the people would swamp their representatives with the need to pass it, the same way we swamped the polls to elect him. But you are right. The leadership ain't there. So the people are sitting back and saying, "aw fuck, the same ol shit, I hate politicians".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. democrats blow republicans yet again. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. You know what this sounds like?!!!
People will be forced to buy health insurance
that is really really crappy!

This is so fucking horrible!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. It sounds to me like
handing the Republicans the best chance for a political recovery possible. It makes no sense. The first ones to go down will be the democrats in tough states, and they are the ones most forcing this. Why do they want to lose their jobs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Why do they want to lose their jobs?
Because they've already been assured by the insurance/health care lobby that they will make a lot more money after getting the public option defeated by coming to work for them should it cost them their Senate seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. That's worse than nothing.
I agree with Howard Dean on this.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks Thrill!! To Baucus: Shut Up! To House Dems: Please come through---Please WhiteHouse. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. Congress: "It Costs Too Much!" "Raise some taxes?" "Nah, let's just make the program weaker"
I am always astonished at the disconnect when "fiscally responsible" Democrats object to things like cutting ag subsidies or closing tax deductions or raising any taxes - then they complain that there's no funding for major programs.

Ezra Klein pointed out on his blog that, while this bill does have a few good things,* Finance basically has two choices in pairing down the cost of the bill. They can either go for a bare-bones, incrementalist bill, or they could go all out and back something serious - single-payer would be ideal, but if that can't happen, then Wyden-Bennett, or Pete Stark's Americare plan, or Jay Rockefeller's new bill, or the original Hacker plan (the one that the Obama, Hillary and Edwards plans were all based on) *ALL* cover far more people and contain costs - and end up costing far less - than Baucus' original bill that came out to $1.6 trillion.

The new Baucus bill will probably meet his $1 trillion target, but the result will be no real universal coverage. It'll proclaim it's universal, but probably leave nearly half the uninsured still uninsured and it'll do nothing to contain costs while providing a very weak, timid "public" plan in the form of totally vague, untested coops.

(* By a few good things I mean things like, the increase in subsidies for health care coverage, increased Medicaid expansion, and community-rating. But, seriously, we can do better. The HELP Committee better step up to the plate, as must the House. Our best hope is to get something through the Senate with 60 votes, and then make the bill better in conference - a bill coming out of conference only needs 50 votes to pass. But to do that the House bill needs to be as good as possible).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
20. Why are democrats such WUSSES or are they just STUPID?
Please tell me, are there constituents who are electing these people into congress because i cant imagine the will of the people prefer trash like this.

My god the democrats are such babies.

The real reason republicans are alive is because democrats have no balls to kill them. I just cant figure out why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC