AP sources: Senators near bipartisan health deal

[Peacetrain]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Henry Waxman, D-Calif., speaks after he and other Blue Dog Democrats met with AP – Henry Waxman, D-Calif., speaks after he and other Blue Dog Democrats met with President Barack Obama …
By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers David Espo And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 17 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of senators is closing in on a health care compromise that omits key Democratic priorities but seeks to hold down costs, as lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol labor to deliver sweeping health legislation to President Barack Obama.

After weeks of secretive talks, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee were edging closer to a compromise that excludes a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite Obama's support for such a plan, officials said.

The Finance senators were considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs. Also likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare.

"We're going to get agreement here," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, said Monday. "The group of six really wants to get to 'yes.'"

[MNDemNY]

1. No STRONG public option, NO BILL !!!!!!

NO bill would be better than this. Baucus can suck eggs.

[natrat]

4. steny whore would disagree with you

they will end up with something that allows for no competition as well as a subsidy to low income people and thereby maintain or increase the corporate stranglehold. Change you can believe in

[Cali_Democrat]

9. +1

[Jennicut]

2. This is Baucus doing this...some other Dems are pissed at him.

Screw the bipartisanship. I hope Baucus's ideas get thrown out in the conference committee. What a jerk.

[Sebass1271]

5. has anybody contacted sen baucus office yet?

he is a disgraced to our party.

[RDANGELO]

3. Hopefully this won't be the end of it.

I don't believe it will be. This is going ot continue to evolve during Obama's presidency. I suspect that this measure will expand on the number of people covered, but not lower costs. As that happens, people will demand more reform.

[hadrons]

6. "The group of six really wants to get to 'yes.'" ....

This says it all ... talk about elitism

[flpoljunkie]

7. I see the Blue Dogs want to decrease the size of subsidies offered to poor people.

They said it touched on the 10 items in a list of demands the Blue Dogs have given Waxman, including increasing an exemption for small businesses from a requirement to provide insurance coverage, and decreasing the size of subsidies offered to poor people to help them buy care.

[CanonRay]

8. THIS is what we worked our asses off for last fall?

[endarkenment]

10. If true this is abject capitulation.

"reform" that has as a goal reducing the health care delivered to people. Yes that's exactly the change we voted for. No public option, no mandate on employers, punishing taxes on plans that provide too much coverage, whatever the hell that means, and new restrictions on medicare. Fucking bullshit. If true.

[ericgtr]

11. These few hold power over everyone it seems

sad

[Mass]

12. 6 Senators representing 2.74 % of the population made this deal.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/

The Powers That Be
He's got the beet sugar.

He's got the beet sugar.

Not to just keep flogging a dead horse endlessly, but it does strike me as worth noting that when you read a puff piece in The New York Times about the Gang of Six bipartisan dealmakers in the Senate that vast power is being wielded by people who, in a democratic system of government, would have almost no power. We’re talking, after all, about Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Collectively those six states contain about 2.74 percent of the population, less than New Jersey, or about one fifth the population of California. The six largest states, by contrast, contain about 40 percent of Americans.

The largest metropolitan area contained in whole or in part within any of those six states is the Albuquerque MSA, population 846,000, the 59th largest in the United States—smaller than New Haven or Fresno or Richmond. And of course if you got together a group of Senators from large states that contain big cities—California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois—those senators would still represent plenty of farmers and rural communities. Indeed, California is the most important farm state in America. But when you get the inverse group together you wind up completely excluding the interests of residents of large metropolitan areas—not just city dwellers, but the vast number of Americans who live in the suburbs of large cities—even though such places contain a majority of the country’s population and economic activity.

[Uzybone]

17. Thanks, I'd wish people would think before overreacting

fuck the group of six. Their plan will not even make it to the floor.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Call me crazy - I'm hopeful...

I believe President Obama is right. I believe the problems with health care access are real, that insurance costs keep going up while coverage keeps going down. I believe that a nation can not afford to have tens of millions of citizens who have no access to health care. I believe that employer provided health care insurance is a significant drag on wages and the profitability of companies and I believe these problems will not go away.

So way am I hopeful? Here goes... If and when the congress passes some anemic fucked-up bill that does not address the root problems in the industry, it will flop. It will be a painful testament to corporate greed and congressional corruption. Meanwhile 14,000 + Americans will continue to lose health care access each and every day, companies will continue to be forced into bankruptcy, and the emergency rooms will explode with ordinary citizens accessing health care the only way they can. As painful as this is - it will force the congress to solve the problem once and for all. Not in ten years, not in five years, but they will be forced to come back to it next year and every year until they get it right. It will not always be the Blue Dog's day. As the problem spirals out of control it will take more "drastic" action less likely to please the insurance industry and the Blue Dogs and that suits me just fine.

[uponit7771]

14. **PASS THE BILL AND AMEND IT IN COMMITTEE***

[PhilosopherKing]

15. That seems to be

the best alternative at this point.

[Robbins]

16. Health Care

What the hell are they doing with all the bipartisan shit?

No public opotion means the Insurance companys win and the public lose.Noone who doesn't have Helath care now will still not have
it.

I hope Liberals say screw this and vote against It.And If all comes Obama should veto It.No true Health Care reform could hurt
Democrats In the longterm.I know Baucus and His Democrats In Name only only care about money from Insurance companys and kissing
Republican asses and care nothing about Democrats.

[BlueIdaho]

18. Let Max know how you feel...

http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

[4lbs]

19. This health "deal" has a major loophole in it that the insurance companies will take full advantage.

This deal supposedly contains two 'good' things:

1.) Insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions who apply for coverage.

2.) Insurance companies CANNOT charge people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage than others on their plan(s).


Sounds great right? Ummm... Not necessarily.

Here's the loophole:

The insurance companies will accept those with pre-existing conditions but then raise EVERYONE's monthly premium to compensate for the supposed extra cost of supporting people with pre-existing conditions.

That will still adhere to both 'deal' conditions above.

For example, take Insurance A that has 2000 people on it, each paying $200 monthly premiums for their health coverage.

They take in $400,000 monthly in premiums.

Now, with this 'deal', they add 500 people with pre-existing conditions to the coverage rolls.

These are 500 people that have the money to pay for the premium, but could not find coverage due to the pre-existing condition.

You now have 2500 people that should be paying $200 monthly, for a total of $500,000 monthly in premiums.

Well, Insurance A expects the 500 new entrants, with pre-existing conditions, to use up most of the $500,000 monthly money, paying for expensive medication and procedures to deal with those pre-existing conditions.

However, they cannot have these 500 pay more than the 2000 without pre-existing conditions.

Raising the monthly premium so that all 2500 (2000 original + 500 pre-existing condition) pay $400 monthly should do it.

With double the premium, Insurance A now takes in $1 million monthly in premiums, and doles out $600K monthly in reimbursements (which are mainly for the 500 with pre-existing).