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

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - New HELP Bill Covers 97 Percent Of Americans, Costs $600 Billion stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DAVID ESPO | July 1, 2009 09:49 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Barack Obama speaks about health care during a town hall meeting at the Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Va., Wednesday, July 1, 2009. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

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.

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...
Loading...
 
Filed by Marcus Baram  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
1320
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
- peachfuzz I'm a Fan of peachfuzz 12 fans permalink
photo

I never see other countries bitching about how much their healthcare costs.
They accept it as an expense and pay it....as it should be. For profit
healthcare is a conflict of interest that makes no sense for the consumer,
and the fact that our government left it go this long, shows its corruption,
ineptitude & barbarism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

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

This is EXACTLY a mere gesture at reform. Real reform really changes things. This just heaves a great big glob of plaster at the gaping hole in the wall.

But it's cheap and easy so go for it! We can wait another generation for real reform can't we?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

I has a real public option. That alone will give it power if passed..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

Really? How? Since the "public option" will be using the same system we have now exactly what gives it this "power"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 07/02/2009
- mtnyogini I'm a Fan of mtnyogini 3 fans permalink

How can we judge this proposal without details?
I would like to see details of this plan. For example, how much would a family have to pay in premiums to get on the govt-run health care option. What are they coinsidering "affordable"?
What kinds of care will be covered in the public option? Can anyone pay for an recieving the gov-sponsered health care option? Will people still go bankrupt due to insufficient coverage?

Where can I get more info? Does anyone have access to a link that provides any details at all?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

Like all the best things in a democracy all that is a secret, hashed out in closed meetings by your betters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 AM on 07/02/2009

The average healthcare plan in the US cost over $12,000. Even if the gov. plan cuts that in half, how many poor families do you know who have $6,000 in cash laying around?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 07/02/2009

If we force employers to pay to health insurance we are still leaving one of the problems with the current system: U.S. employers are put at a competitive disadvantage with companies from countries with socialized medicine: it would still be more prudent for GM to open a factory in Canada rather than the U.S. to reduce production costs.

A possible solution would be to combine options long desired by each side, offering a single payer plan where each individual would have a choice between a public plan and a voucher. The public plan would be for a fully funded policy while the voucher would be for a comparable amount that private insurance companies could compete for. This would remove the burden from employers while giving Democrats socialized medicine and Republicans vouchers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

That's one of the little problems with not doing real reform. You don't really change anything so you don't really fix anything.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 07/02/2009

No vouchers for purchasing private insurance. That is nothing more than a give-away to the insurance industry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 07/02/2009

The insurance industry could only collect the voucher if they could provide a better plan than the public option, which should provide full coverage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 07/02/2009
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 72 fans permalink

I wonder what prices did they use to come up with this number. I have to ask why the same medicine
in Germany costs only a fraction of what we pay here in the USA? A bypass operation in the USA is
$ 150,000 to $ 200,000 and in Germany it is $ 35,000. Makes no sense. So don't get taken in by these fake numbers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

Since there are no actual cost controls in this plan the only way left to control the expense is by paying less. Either covering fewer conditions or paying less to doctors for their services.

No real reform, no real savings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 07/02/2009

Good points vippy. Two years ago on a Saturday afternoon I had chest pains while on my treadmill. I called my heart doctor who would not even advise me as to whether on not I should go to the ER. I went. Spent the whole weekend in the hosp. because the cath. lab is closed on weekends (which just happens to be when most heart attack occur). After spending about five minutes with my doctor in the hosp. I was realed into the cath. lab on Monday and had four stents put in my heart, took about an hour. I went home the same day.
Total cost...ove­r 100k. We are being robbed.
And by the way; all the numbers in my previous post are low ball figures that do not include retirees whose health plans are fully or partly funded with tax money. Nor do they include VA, Medicare, Medicaid or other gov. funded programs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 07/02/2009
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 72 fans permalink

Take the healthcare coverage away from the Republicans in congress if they vote against it.
Maybe that will give them incentive. As Rep. Davis said that going hungry in school without the free lunches provides motivation! Let us use their own words for this as well.
However, only 600 billion, I don't hear anyone crowing when we give away billions to the IMF and
for useless war for the rich to get richer. If it is good for us, they tell you it is really bad for us LOL.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 07/02/2009
- jsgaetano I'm a Fan of jsgaetano 212 fans permalink
photo

Conservatives will never let it pass. Anything good for America is against all their Core Conservative Values.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 07/02/2009
- deepsigh I'm a Fan of deepsigh 2 fans permalink

lol good for america! you have no idea [ neither does congress ] what they are planing to do. yet your soooo sure itz good . poop thing head back in the sand try and find some facts about the bill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 07/02/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 224 fans permalink

[poop thing head back ]

Yup, I should definitely believe your opinions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

And what exactly makes this "non-reform" good for America?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 07/02/2009
- Haus I'm a Fan of Haus 5 fans permalink
photo

So dems need to stand up and pass it. No more blaming conservatives for failure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 07/02/2009
- dRwOOD I'm a Fan of dRwOOD 10 fans permalink
photo

Soooo, I may have to stay with my employers crappy health insurance, that continuously raises the rates yet provides minimal coverage??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 AM on 07/02/2009
- 1dogs2 I'm a Fan of 1dogs2 132 fans permalink

It's not clear whether you could opt out of your employer's insurance, but my guess is that you could. Otherwise, the promise of offering a choice to all Americans would be empty. What I'd like to know is whether employers can choose the public option for its employees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 07/02/2009
- ChknFngr I'm a Fan of ChknFngr 3 fans permalink

What if I'm one of the 3% that is not covered? That's just as bad as our current system...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 07/02/2009
- paganmist I'm a Fan of paganmist 67 fans permalink

Are you complaining because they've reduced the number of uninsured from 17% to 3%?

3% uncovered is "just as bad" as 17% uncovered?

I want some of what you're smoking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

You're right.
100% of Americans should have the health care they need. We should be no different than Great Britain, Sweden, Canada, or any other civilized country.
Our current system is so third-world and the Republicans like it that way.
Compromise to a Republican means complete capitulation and any pandering to the Republicans by the Democrats is to betray their pledge to the American people to represent them, not the corporations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 07/02/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 171 fans permalink

Because they went with something besides real reform we're not going to get real change. We're just going to shove more people through the worst system resulting in higher costs and a few people left behind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 07/02/2009

All credible sources agree that the U.S. spends 40% or more per capita for health care compared to other industrialized countries.

The reason all these "new plans" cost more is because they are bastardized versions meant to mollify the insurance companies and their bought and paid for legislators.

Implement the exact system used by Canada, the UK, France, whichever, and you cut the per capita spending by 30%. This is more than enough money to pay for those who have no insurance now (50 million or 17% of the population).

As long as we insist on a bastardized system, we will be paying more instead of saving more.

By the way, most of these other countries have private insurance that people can buy for all the bells and whistles they want.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 07/02/2009
- CJWebber I'm a Fan of CJWebber 22 fans permalink

Exactly.

There are several models of health insurance for the U.S. to use as a template.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 AM on 07/02/2009
- talkpeople I'm a Fan of talkpeople 3 fans permalink
photo

Our insurance from has gone from (just last year) a $25 office visit with a $500 per person deductable to just this year a flat $3000 per person deductable and to really stick it to us...... they charge more for this. My husbands employer covers him, but No way could I afford those terms for my family and myself. We are the families the government is, so they say, trying to help. Something needs to be done. My husband can't go to the doctor cause we can't afford the deductable. so basically we have no insurance.
I hope Congress goes back to the drawing board on helping homeowners as well. The situation is getting worse and worse. lets not all forget who voted against Durbins HR 1106 amendment. I say time to really hold these sleeze balls accountable. Only if we all stand up to corruption will there ever be change. If we don't they won't.
I'm tired of the politicians who preach their Christian values and take bribes. Jesus would starve and give to the poor and helpless. He would go without. Congress says they have Christian values yet they never go without. Their wallets are so fat and still they think THEY need more (cough, cough) contributi­ons...brib­es.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 AM on 07/02/2009

Hopefully the public plan will evolve into single payer in the future

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 07/02/2009
- dRwOOD I'm a Fan of dRwOOD 10 fans permalink
photo

The Repubs/MSM­/Corporati­ons will push back on that with all furious anger - why do you think they do NOT want the OPTION in it now......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 07/02/2009
- Highwind I'm a Fan of Highwind 7 fans permalink
photo

600 billion or 1 trillion. It really doesn't matter. If it isn't comprehensive then what is the point of passing the bill. Cutting down how much the government pays out is irrelevant to what is going on here. It's going to cost money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 07/02/2009
- mbondr1 I'm a Fan of mbondr1 4 fans permalink
photo

Sooocialism (spitting), that's money that belongs to the rich!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 07/02/2009
- aj88 I'm a Fan of aj88 6 fans permalink

611 billion dollars, over 10 years, to cover 300 million people for full medical coverage? All you need is a calculator and a little common sense to know that the numbers just don't make sense. A $750.00 annual premium in New York barely gets you full dental coverage for a family of 4. Our President is going to have to post this bill online like he duly promised over and over again prior to his election. We need health care reform but it has to make sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 AM on 07/02/2009
- burt2009 I'm a Fan of burt2009 16 fans permalink

Hold your breath on that score

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 07/02/2009

aj88,
I agree we need to see the details. But your math is ridiculous- this plan is not to cover ALL Americans, since it leaves private insurance in the mix. This plan will cover SOME Americans that don't have coverage now. Exactly how many needs to be made clear in addition to the details.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 07/02/2009

750 is the fee for employers that won't offer health insurance. It's not the premium.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 07/02/2009
- aj88 I'm a Fan of aj88 6 fans permalink

longhorn33-

$750.00 is the "fee" for employers who will undoubtedly opt for government insurance because of the savings. However, who might be paying for the premium then? Ah, yes, you and I. With 40% of our population not paying any Federal Taxes that leaves the remaining 60% to fund the off-sets. It just does not seem to add up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 07/02/2009
- deluk I'm a Fan of deluk 21 fans permalink
photo

Britain faced that obstacle in 1948, just when we were flat broke, after ww2, and overcame it and while our system isn't perfect it's a whole lot better than many yanks care to imagine. Despite a worldbeating penchant for binge drinking and drug abuse, we still have a higher life expectancy than the US and spend a lot less money.

Trouble is the insurance and medical industries have sunk their claws so far into the American people it's going to be hard to break free of their grip, concessions here. concessions there, vested interests.­..

Kick their @rses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 07/02/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 224 fans permalink

It will be more per head since not everyone will sign up, not to mention the fact that most people will be paying some level of out of pcoket premium on it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 07/02/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect