iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

New HELP Bill Covers 97 Percent Of Americans, Costs $600 Billion

DAVID ESPO   07/ 1/09 10:49 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.

"We must not settle for legislation that merely gestures at reform," the two Democrats wrote. "We must deliver on the promise of true change."

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

The same provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.

Kennedy, D-Mass., and Dodd, D-Conn., circulated their letter a few days before lawmakers return from their July 4 vacation, with the Health Committee one of several panels expected to take action on health care legislation that President Barack Obama has placed atop his domestic agenda.

Kennedy, the committee chairman, was diagnosed with a brain tumor more than a year ago and has been absent from the Senate for weeks, although he and his aides have been heavily involved in the deliberations on a health care bill. Dodd, the next senior Democrat on the committee, has presided at committee sessions and taken an increasingly public role.

With its government option, the proposal is unlikely to gain any bipartisan support in the committee.

Separately, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are at work trying to reach agreement on an alternative that calls for creation of nonprofit cooperatives to sell insurance in competition with private industry. Agreement has been elusive on that and other issues, and it is not clear whether a deal is possible before Democrats opt for a more partisan approach.

In their letter, Kennedy and Dodd said the Congressional Budget Office "has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion. ...The completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans.

"In addition, our bill, combined with the work being done by our colleagues in the Finance Committee, will dramatically reduce the number of uninsured _ fully 97 percent of Americans will have coverage, a major achievement."

Three committees in the House have been at work for weeks on a plan expected to come to a vote by the end of July.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on empl...
WASHINGTON — Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on empl...
Filed by Marcus Baram  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,320
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
02:45 AM on 07/24/2009
All, do you read anything else but what the liberal press puts in front of you? We have the British TELLING us NOT to go down the road of socialized medicine - "it doesn't work". They are living the hell that is SOCIALIZED medicine. We know they have a higher cancer death rate than we do and their prostate survival rate is much lower. Simple hospital wait times for SIMPLE treatments are incredibly long. The Canadian's are telling us not to go toward socialized medicine. They are coming here for treatments because of cost cutting measures in their programs. Hawaii just cancelled a simplified socialized healthcare program for children because COSTS have exceeded projections. The state of Massachusetts is going into debt trying to maintain it's socialized health care program.... and the illegals in California have contributed to the bankruptcy of California and seen it's socialized health care program bankrupt numerous hospitals.

The only way socialized medicine can compete is to cut costs? Cost cutting comes in the form of services and availability of medicines and treatment. Read the bill, the first to be affected will be the ELDERLY. They may suffer the most... after all "THEY HAVE A DUTY TO DIE", in so far as Progressives and Obama think. So who wants to step up and be the first to DIE for sociaized medicine? AARP members ? are you paying attention? National Health Care will be paid for on YOUR backs. Ask any progressive about it, it's their idea.
01:32 PM on 07/03/2009
Am I understanding the Bill correctly? It calls for a "gateway" in each state like MA's Connector? Which will help you get the insurance you are REQUIRED to buy? Where is the pubic option?
01:06 PM on 07/03/2009
How come the article mentions the employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?
06:07 AM on 07/03/2009
The public plan will fail. Progressives are suffering from long term memory loss in supporting it. The only federal public welfare plans that work are those that are universal entitlements that are not means-tested. Think social security and medicare. Medicaid and food stamps are failures because they are not entitlements, and they are means tested. The public plan is not an entitlement, and it is means tested. Furthermore, it is employer based, and uses mandates. If a public plan is passed, 10 years from now, tens of millions of Americans will be uninsured or underinsured. Entirely predictable. Hide and watch. Entirely the fault of progressives who have jumped on the public plan bandwagon. Sad.

Jeff Cox
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Berryives
09:50 AM on 07/03/2009
I agree fully with the feeling of disappointment with progressives who "jumped ship" to embrace the public plan bandwagon. Even to start with, they claim only 97% inclusion. Why do I say "only"? That 3% is about 9 million Americans. I'd like to hear some facts about who those 9 million unfortunate Americans are. This is clearly NOT universal coverage as promised during the campaign.

And HELP seems pleased that the cost is only $600 billion over 10 years. Contrast that to the $4 trillion SAVINGS with single-payer. The means testing is indeed a serious flaw. That makes it into a welfare program for those with low income and no insurance. One of the many advantages of single-payer is having a single universal risk pool, so there are no regulatory complexities involving differential costs of multiple risk pools.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ScreenName05
04:33 PM on 07/02/2009
Opt now. We won't stand for coops, at a minimum we want a publicly run option to private insurance. I am even willing to take the $12K+ I currently pay the Blue Cross and give it to the government. No coops, no BS. Health Care Reform now and that means a public plan at a minimum.
03:22 PM on 07/02/2009
Is the bill available to read yet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
J-Rome
Forward & Beyond!
06:30 PM on 07/02/2009
Here you go:

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
MyrtleJune
STOP negotiating! End the American hostage crisis!
12:40 PM on 07/02/2009
"Separately, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are at work trying to reach agreement on an alternative that calls for creation of nonprofit cooperatives to sell insurance in competition with private industry. Agreement has been elusive on that and other issues, and it is not clear whether a deal is possible before Democrats opt for a more partisan approach.

THIS is not a P UBLIC option. So if anything out of this committee finds it way into the legislation then this is NOT what we voted for in November.

The HELP bill seems to be the only thing I've seen that is a true public option. Though I think it should cover 100%. I will buy in for that. I don't really care if the insurance companies go out of business. Look what they've done to this country and job loss. I don't care ONE bit about them or their industry. They sure as hell don't care about us.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
02:06 PM on 07/02/2009
That is EXACTLY what the "public option" has been all along. It's why a few of us have been saying it would do no good. We fought for single payer instead.

Do you see now why taking single payer off the table and replacing it with this "public option" was such a critical mistake by Obama? It was the whole game and he gave it away before we started.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Goliadkin
Irony: it's not just for smart people anymore.
02:33 PM on 07/02/2009
I agree wholeheartedly. Bait and switch.
12:29 PM on 07/02/2009
Why do we put up with this nonsense? Every plan coming out or congress is just plain BS. This one, and none of the others as well, will do anything to stop the rising cost of healthcare. In twenty years one out of every three dollars spent in the US will be spent on healthcare. The system we have now already takes nearly one in six dollars out of the total economy and makes our homeland corporations unable to compete against nations who have single payer systems. Which forces them to try to compete by cutting cost elsewhere, usually by cutting wages.

This new plan will cost us at least 600 billion over ten years but will do nothing to stop the rising cost of the present system.

Putting all gov. employees into a single payer system will save over 100 billion a year in taxes.

Some numbers:
Number of people in US who work for federal, state, county, city, special municipal districts and receive taxpayer funded health insurance = 40 to 50 million.
Average cost of healthcare plan covering the average family of four = $12,000 dollars.
Average cost savings of single payers system over for profit system = 25%.
Average savings per gov. employee in single payer over for profit = $3,000.
$3,000 times 40 million = 120 billion in savings per year.

We are being screwed. Why aren't we in the street?.
MyrtleJune
STOP negotiating! End the American hostage crisis!
12:45 PM on 07/02/2009
How can you say the HELP plan won't stop the rising costs? It will stop the insurance companies. And that will bring costs into line.

Is the HELP plan NOT a single payor? Because it sounds like it is!

As for the drug companies, they could bring their costs into line by stopping their commercial advertising budget and that would in turn stop people from running to the doctor for every little pill or whatever in those hidious commercials. There's TONS to be saved by doing that one thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Veeve
Biochem/Psych/Hist/Econ/Techie
01:09 PM on 07/02/2009
A robust public option amounts to a 'single payer like' mechanism and might eventually lead to single payer if most Americans eventually opt for it. All of which, I would be very happy with. While I have no love for insurance companies and much less than that for big pharma and medical device companies, I do care about the Americans that work for them. Right now is not a good time to add to unemployment rolls. A robust public option is the best of both worlds at this point in time and if I remember correctly, it is already paid for because Obama put $654,000,000,000 in the budget over the next ten years for healthcare reform and we've already passed that budget. The best news, Ben Nelson and Max Bacchus no longer have an excuse not to vote for it. The money is already there.

Furthermore, with Wallmart coming out in favor of a public option, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, the Democratic Senators representing Wallmart, um... uh... Arkansas have a green light to vote for it. Now if we can arm twist Conrad, Cantwell, Wyden, Landrieu and Lieberman, we have our 60 votes.
04:10 PM on 07/02/2009
No MyrtleJune, it is not any where close to a single payer system. All it does is set up a gov. agency that will sell you insurance. The fifty million people who don't have health insurance, mostly because they cannot afford it, will in all probability not be able to afford this either, even with gov. assistance. And I fail to see anywhere in the article that drup companies will not be allowed to advertise their drugs.
12:54 PM on 07/02/2009
I don't like single payer health insurance. I've compared pretty much all health insurance plans and I want to choose which plan I want. I don't think everybody needs to have the same exact coverage.

Unless it was a plan where you could pick and choose the specialists that you want to pay for.
01:10 PM on 07/02/2009
How do you know you wouldn't like single payer? You've never had it or been close to it. Do you like your health care being decided by "for profit" beaurocrats at insurance companies? Do you really think they are in it for your welfare. You're duped again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Veeve
Biochem/Psych/Hist/Econ/Techie
01:16 PM on 07/02/2009
We aren't even debating single payer. We are pushing for a public option because people of means and some folks like you would like to have the option to choose the plan that makes the most sense for you.
Trust me, if you get laid off, you might like to take the public option. If it had been around 4.5 years ago; the last time I got laid off and couldn't afford the $681/month COBRA payment to stay in my former employer's group plan, I wouldn't have amassed $30,000 in debt when my wife got sick. I'm almost done paying it off. I only owe another $1200. Of course, I wasn't able to buy a house as we had planned to...
12:26 PM on 07/02/2009
Why isn't this on the front page???
12:13 PM on 07/02/2009
"The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans."

I pay about $300.00 for health insurance every month and there are some things that I STILL pay for out of pocket which is a bunch of crap.

Now if anyone can explain to me in sesame street terms why a government-run health insurance plan is a bad idea when I'm paying this much for Blue Cross Blue Shield (Basic Option) I would REALLY like to hear it. I'm starting to think that maybe I will have BETTER and CHEAPER coverage with the government. Either that or Blue Cross Blue Shield will lower their prices.

I feel like I'm missing something here. Are these people that are complaining about this doctors who are mad they won't be getting 300% profits from Americans with no insurance? OR do they work for a private insurance company and are maybe afraid of losing their job? OR is it just "I'm a Republican" issue because that's not a good enough reason for me to not have at least some support for this.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
02:11 PM on 07/02/2009
It's a bad thing because all it will do is give you the opportunity to have the government do to you what the insurance companies are doing to you. Also it is the government's excuse to take single payer off the table.

Finally, do you really think you'll be able to sign up for the public option? I believe it's only for people who's employer doesn't provide insurance (and employers will face stiff fines if they don't) and/or they can't afford private insurance.

Why will you be able to choose the "public option"?
11:32 AM on 07/02/2009
Lets face it. Single payer would be the best option but that would never, ever pass in a million years because of the Republicans and the centrist Democrats in Congress. It's all about the insurance lobbyists and the millions they get from them. At lease a federal public option will hopefully make it so I someday will have insurance at a decent rate instead of the 752.00 we currently spend per month through my husbands employer. At this point a federal public option sounds good to me.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
02:12 PM on 07/02/2009
Because of Obama we'll never discuss the single payer plan or educate the nation about WHY it's the best option. Obama gave away the bully pulpit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kkdc
chiropractor, functional medicine approach, therap
11:32 AM on 07/02/2009
For all those barking and snarking about how expensive this will be, don't understand the costs we are subsidizing by funding hospitals to accept all indigents and uninsureds into the ER. So take some of those funds and have those people seen in clinics, plus throw some money from the trillions we won't be spending in Iraq. The expense to us in not being able to compete globally because of the burden on industry is huge.
11:31 AM on 07/02/2009
How can any proposal be looked at as credible without limits on malpractice payouts? Costs of insurance for medical providers significantly adds to the current cost of health care.
The Democrats are simply unwilling to risk the dollars from the trial attorneys.
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
11:49 AM on 07/02/2009
2% is significant, but 25% profits and 30% adminstration costs are not?
12:54 PM on 07/02/2009
I read a research report some time back that 95% of all malpractice lawsuits were caused by 5% of doctors. What we need is for 95% of doctors to NOT protect the 5% of doctors who are incompetent. That would prevent a lot of lawsuits!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Goliadkin
Irony: it's not just for smart people anymore.
02:39 PM on 07/02/2009
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell cites studies showing that doctors who treat their patients as equals and communicate fully and honestly have a far lower rate of malpractice claims than doctors who practice in "I am God" mode. Even when the doc makes a mistake, patients are unwilling to sue.
11:19 AM on 07/02/2009
So costs are forced on to employers.

Sounds good for business.
11:16 AM on 07/02/2009
Things are beginning to move on Health care bill!!!!!: Revised Bill from HELP, Wall Mart and AMA support for the President's bill is great Insurance. The proposed employers mandate will charge companies with at most 25 employees to pay $ 750 @ year per full time employee and 350 per part time employee...this is great news!. What I need to know, does this cover the family or just the employee?????. In all, this is good news for those people without any insurance now. If Wall mart and AMA is considering these proposals..no matter what the Repubs says...this health care wil be passed this year. I know many people are underestimating this President but I for one will not like to play poker with him!
04:29 PM on 07/02/2009
Listen WANSU, and listem well. The $750 for full time employees and $350 for temps does not buy anyone insurnce. It sets a gov. agency that would sell you insurance. The average health plan in the US cost over $12,000. If the gov. plan undercuts that by $2,000 you are still left with a $10,000 bill. Do you think some full or part time employee of Wallmart is going to be able to afford that?
08:47 AM on 07/03/2009
The way I understand this new bill is that if you work for an employer with more than 25 employees and they wish not to provide insurance through private insurance companies, the penalty is $750 per year, per full time employee and $350 per year, per part time employee. This does not apply toward any insurance that would be offered to the employees of that company through the gov plan. But, based on your annual before tax income, if your earning are 150% above poverty or more (caped at 400% above poverty) and depending on the plan you choose, the cost to you, on a sliding scale, is 1% to 12.5% of your annual income. A quick calculation of a family with $40,000 annual income would pay approx $2,000 a year for basic coverage, set down in the bill.