Health Care Draft For Summit Looks Like Health Care Compromise From A Month Ago

[vegiegals]

I read only Senators so far have signed the memo for the PO.


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/19/health-care-draft-for-summit-looks-like-health-care-compromise-from-a-month-ago/

Health Care Draft For Summit Looks Like Health Care Compromise From A Month Ago
By: David Dayen Friday February 19, 2010 12:15 pm
♻ Tweet Share

Greg Sargent gets the scoop on the health care proposal being written by the White House in advance of the health care summit. Big surprise, it’s what the House and Senate would have voted on if Martha Coakley won her election in Massachusetts. In other words, only the deal on the excise tax already forged with the unions, and no public option.

Bottom line: It’s all but certain to have the Cadillac tax in it, even though House Dems oppose it, and no public option, aides say.

According to multiple reports this morning, Obama will bring some version of a bill containing elements of the Senate and House proposals to the summit next week.

The White House has arrived at a general outline of what this proposal will look like, a senior Dem leadership aide tells me. It will largely reflect the compromise reached between the House and Senate in January: It will likely contain the national exchange sought by House Dems, and tougher penalties on businesses that don’t insure workers.

Also, the White House has told the House Dem leadership that it isn’t prepared to raise the threshold of the Cadillac tax, as many House Dems want, the leadership aide says. The White House prefers instead to keep the version already agreed upon with unions, the aide adds.

I’m not seeing how exchange design is germane in a reconciliation bill, and how it would survive a Parliamentary inquiry. Actually, there are a lot of questions about that (more later). But on the other points, this is pretty much as expected.

Eric Cantor is trying to flip the script rhetorically by citing reconciliation as a partisan action rather than what gets done when the two chambers differ on issues in a bill that impacts the budget. I don’t think Parliamentary process of this type will resonate very much with the public, but expect the conservative noise machine to get pretty frenzied about that.

Obviously the mini-storm over the public option will have to increase exponentially to find a place in any bill.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Excellent....Pass the billl...then go to work to make it better.

[msongs]

2. lol this slacker PR stunt coulda been done a year ago - the car has no driver nt

[Windy]

3. You are such an idiot. Words just cannot amptly describe your knee jerk as opposed to thinking

personality.

I think I, like many others here will put you on ignore!

[bigdarryl]

4. Why the fuck is the White House AGAINST the public option

when it is in the platform of the party

[IndianaGreen]

6. Because the Obama Administration is bought and paid for by the health industry

Our government represents the ruling class, and only the ruling class. The 2-major parties represent different factions of the same ruling class, but they need the people to vote them into power in order to maintain the façade of freedom and democracy. One party appeals to our baser instincts, while the other to the better angels of our nature, in order to motivate us to go to the polls. It is all a charade!

[brand404]

9. +1000

[IndianaGreen]

5. Taxing health benefits of union families and not having a public option is unacceptable!

We are being sold the same snake oil as before, by the same snake oil salesman in the White House!

[frazzled]

7. If union families are paying more than $24,000 a year for health insurance

then something is wrong. It's a huge giveaway to the health insurance industry.

It's also an insult to the rest of the nation, who pay an average of $13,000 a year for pretty decent insurance (that includes the health plans of senators and representatives, by the way, who pay nowhere NEAR $24K for private insurance on their exchanges). It's especially an insult to the tens of millions who can't get any insurance at all. And the millions who are out of work and can't afford a nickel for it.

Secondly this is not aimed at unions. God, I'm getting tired of this selfishness. The unions accepted this provision back in early January and declared it a total victory. Give it up.

[IndianaGreen]

8. LGBT families will be taxed at the single rate because of DOMA

LGBT families will get penalized under this bill!

[frazzled]

10. That needs to be fixed, if true (but the tax isn't on individuals but on insurers)

My nephew and his partner (married in California before Prop. 8 and then again in Iowa, just to make sure) have a child. So they are paying for dependent "family" insurance that, if you are correct, would certainly exceed the $8K for individuals.

But are you sure this is correct? Because I thought it was simply that a individual plan that exceeded $8K or a family plan that exceeded $24 K would accrue an excise tax for the insurance company. If an employer is offering "family, dependent" insurance to a gay couple and their children for, say, the average cost of around $13K, the insurance company won't be paying an excise tax on that cadillac plan the insurer sells to the employer. And no extra costs wil be passed down to the employer or the employee. it really has nothing to do with whether a couple files jointly or individually. The tax is not included in your income taxes. It's the insurance company that will have to pay it.

I'd like more details from you before I see this as an issue. I'm pretty sure it may not be.

[karynnj]

11. Excellent points that I doubt anyone has the answer for

It might actually be that there is no problem. The company is buying family and individual plans from insurance companies. It may be that there is nothing in the legislation that prevents a company from giving some of their family plans to non-traditional families.

[depakid]

12. Talk about self-destructive

Toss the popular aspects of the bill out- and incorporate unpopular and counterproductive elements.

Seems the Dems are bound and determined to ride political corruption and "bipartisanship" to an major electoral thumping in November.