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

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.

Comments

[obamanomics]

Only another half a trillion. Gee, where can I get some of that at such a bargain. We are broke people, we cannot afford socialized health care. If Obama really wanted maybe he shouldn't have flushed a trillion buck down the crapper on a stimulus that was never designed to stimulate.

[nellie]

What we can't afford is a continuation of the Bush economic policieis that drove the country toward bankruptcy.

[obamanomics]

lol, look around you. How much money has Obama spent and proposed to spend now? How many trillions more is than Bush spent? Sure like to spend money for a country that is bankrupt.

[billw8017]

In as much as "socialized" health care is the least expensive kind, so cheap that insurance companies warn they cannot compete, if we cannot afford it, we cannot afford any health care at all.

The United States has just made a $12.4 TRILLION contribution to the health of the biggest banks. Are we so broke we cannot contribute another $12 trillion ... to the banks?

[punkindmb]

Wasn't that passed before he got in?

[obamanomics]

Nope, that was passed in February, and we were told if we would just go along with it unemployment would not go above 8%. Unemployment is now at 9.5% and rising.

[poco767c]

I know, how many bombs could we get instead. We could blow up a couple of cities for the price of making sure Americans live longer healthier lives.

[obamanomics]

Might be healthier if you're young, but under this plan you are f**ked if you are old.

[Icantbelieveher]

President Obama's stimulus accounts for only 7% of the deficit. The part of the stimulus bill that didn't work was the 40% that was tax breaks to get the republicans on board. Whenever you have a bipartisan bill with republicans, you can bet it won't help the people!

[GunnyJ]

Sen Kennedy has been working for so long on health care coupled with his longevity in the Senate probably make this a good bet that this new plan is workable. If it is not completely workable, as most things are, we'll modify it as it goes. WE MUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MAJORITY WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING! This will be so much better than doing nothing. Our Republican friends want us to continue to wait for the "perfect" plan, while saving health insurers. It's time for change and change is now!

[MIKEBC]

Thats the change I voted for!! I'm sure if rightwing conservatives had their way then the ones who couldn't afford health ins. would be left to expire in the gutters.

[billw8017]

Right. That's what garbage pick up is about.

[nellie]

I've never understood why we saddled businesses with the responsibility of providing health care. Single payer makes so much more sense. I hope the public option is single payer in miniature, so that the public program can simply expand until it covers everyone.

[melodramy]

I agree...take the burden of health care entirely off employers, it's creating roadblocks to real problem solving in these proposals. Let the people freely choose public or private plan participation and get rid of this problem of incentives and disincentives to employers. Employer provided insurance constrains people to too few options and keeps them bound to jobs they'd rather leave anyway.

[dogdiva]

I understand that they have to get the basics agreed to, but no one seems to realize they need to put out some real details before people can get behind it. Every time something like this is talked about and we get no details we have to conclude that it is vague by design. The idea that we could get everything we need for only $600 billion begs the question of what or who is missing. Something has to have been slashed if suddenly the price tag has dropped so far.

Just when I think they have finally gotten the message that the public is demanding a good public option, reports like this come out. Maybe it's brilliant, but for all the information it contains it has too much "would lead toward" and not enough "IS". I remind myself that they have to have some kind of details and consumer costs to have it scored by the CBO. We're never privy to those plans. It's always "trust us...it's a plan and it will be called "public option". Maybe it's a terrific plan, but we won't know until it has been bestowed or perpetrated on us.

[constitutional 1]

the devil is in the details, hope this is a good as is portrayed

[SoClearToMe]

I am not sure that requiring employers to subsidize our health care costs is the best way to go. And here's why:

1. Employers are not required to subsidize our retirement (unless a union requires it), but many do in the form of a 401k or some other pension. And there are many other retirement vehicles outside of the employment arena. And this seems to work pretty well.

2. The contracts employers have with medical insurers are annual, and employers always look for the best value for the company and the employees and often change insurers in order to get that best value. Which means people are often changing insurers annually and sometimes doctors leading to a lack of continuity in care.

3. When people separate from their job, they separate from the health insurance unless they pay high COBRA rates.

4. If people want to be "noble" and volunteer in the peace corps or something, not having employer based subsidized health care can stop some people from following through.

5. If people want to become entrepreneurs, not having employer based subsidized health care can be a stumbling block, especially if they have a family they are responsible for.

To have people buy insurance outside of their job is not the norm, but if it were, people could have a higher salary instead. And companies could get out of the health care business completely. I don't know what the best answer is, I'm just sharing some thoughts.

[Joyana]

The HELP bill will, if I understand it correctly, offer coverage to people who are unemployed or entrepreneurs or others uninsured from the fee revenue of companies that chose not to offer health coverage to their employees. However, you raise a good point about the 3% that would not be covered by the HELP bill. Send your comment to WhiteHouse.gov and to your congresspersons.

Hopefully, the HELP bill will eliminate COBRA. COBRA is health insurance "sticker shock" when you are laid off or quit your job. Many simply can't afford it.

[nellie]

Very good points. I also think the administrative burden on employers is enormous when it comes to health care. Just those cost savings alone could make a big difference for most companies. Also, it's not clear from the article whether businesses can choose the public program for their employees. If the public option isn't available to employers, then they need to go back to the drawing board.

[billw8017]

I'd like to go through your points. I understand this can be a complex matter and a flip rejoinder probably glosses over important matters. So, I'm not taking myself too seriously and you shouldn't either.
1) This we have now but it is a little inadequate.
2) These contracts are designed and sold by the insurance companies. The employer is led about as if by a ring in its nose. They serve the interests of the insurance companies particularly as people with newly chronic disorders have to reveal themselves.
3) Yeah.
4) I don't know the conditions of such employment.
5) Companies with less than 25 employees are not mandated, so it is easier to start this way while the employees (and the entrepreneur) will still have coverage.

When an essential expense is met otherwise than out of pocket, the beneficiary can be paid less. An insurance program, like Social Security, assures the benefit while spreading the cost. This covers unexpected unplanned or un-planable contingincies. Some services, like pensions and health care, are as precious as roads, armies, and schools which we liberally "socialize."

[DeeDee001]

The key is pre-existing medical conditions. Right now, health insurance companies want to insure only healthy people for routine ailments + payment for a single, catastrophic event. The majority of health care that is consumed in this country is consumed by people with chronic ailments (diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, asthma, etc.). Health insurance companies identify and eliminate from their coverage such people. Only by working for the government or a fortune 500 firm can the chronically ill obtain health insurance. The only way having people buy insurance outside of their job works is if (1) health insurance companies must take all comers; (2) health insurance companies must offer only one price for their product .... no underwriting designed to price the chronically ill out of coverage; and (3) a standard set of benefits required to be used by health insurance companies (otherwise the companies will not cover the treatments the chronically ill require).

Thinking about it, maybe single payer is the way to go.

[schatsie]

and these fees would be tax deductible so in essence only costing them $50 per month, they should be wondering where the tax increase is going to come from because the bottom 50% will not be able to afford the government plan.....unless it is really cheaper than medicare....well maybe it will be as cheap as Medicare.... interesting....

[desktop]

Why do I think I will be in that 3 percent? I also suspect that the 3% is a Washington statistical number. Kind of like the unemployment number. Unemployment is twice or more of the reported unemployment number.

[Peacein09]

The bill seems too complicated. It is difficult to understand. Why not take the simpler road of Medicare expansion to anyone who cannot get health insurance for any reason? Our health has been damaged over the past century by corporate abuse of our environment. A special tax should be levied on multi-national corporations. Also, one or two percent of our income tax should be dedicated by law to pay for the expansion of medicare.

[spqesq]

Agreed.

Universal, single-payer, medicare-for-all. Right now. Whatever it takes. We need to start taking care of each other and let the insurance companies fend for themselves instead of the other way around.

[MacQ]

Shouldn't you be in class or something? I'm sure you haven't had Econ 101 yet, or better yet, paid your own bills.
If there's no class today, you could do some homework of your own. Start by looking up the current state of medicare (it's going broke and doctors don't want medicare patients).
Then get back to us and let us know how you want to make that universal.

[Joyana]

Great idea! Penalties for environmental contamination that are funneled into a govt health plan. Please pass this on to your congresspersons and WhiteHouse.gov.

[Genep34]

Heath Insurance companies are a con. They are completely unnecessary to the process of receiving medical care. they are middlemen - and they have created this hallucination that they are somehow fundamentally necessary.

But what a rich con they are.

[CalBearinIllinois]

I bet it drops support for the CLASS act, among other things. CLASS is a program to let folks with disabilities work and live in their communities without jeopardizing their Medicaid eligibility permanently, but it probably scored really poorly with the CBO since any savings/productivity gains can't be predicted.

[TrueSense]

Hopefully, some of you can help me with a few questions.

What was the problem with the other Kennedy proposal that would leave so many uninsured and cause employers to drop their coverages ? I do not remember.
I know the CBO scoring is flawed because of what is will and won't consider, but I guess there were some other issues.

Will this new plan allow people to have portable insurance/coverage ?

How will this plan help with the unemployeed that have no coverage ?

How do we keep private insurance from dumping their sick or more risky people onto the Public Plan ?

Thanks for your time !

[LeftCoastLarry]

The easy question is your last one.
The insurance companies dump their sick and risky now for the flimsiest of reasons. That's one of the things that's broken about our current system.
The insurance companies aren't insurance companies at all. They are maximize-profits-at-all-cost-leaches who have no business being involved in our health care system.

[Oldsop]

This is just plain BS. Hey LeftcoastLarry, go back to your commune.

[Peabodies]

hear, hear, LeftCoast.

[kbkw54]

Where are the detail?

[Joyana]

"details." used in the plural normally. ;)

[LeftCoastLarry]

Maybe he was detailing his car.

[TrueSense]

Has anyone noticed how the WasPo seems to be anti-healthcare access and reform ?
The poll they did was vritually a push poll against any public option. They claimed in one question, as if it were fact, that the public plan would destroy their private plan and their access to it.

Where is their analysis of national health care systems around the world ?

They won't do a single-payer analysis because the President says it is not on the table.

What ?!!

Is that supposed to be how they cover issues ? They are supposed to bring analysis and objectivity

What system would be the most effective ? What are the experiences across the world ?

What are the burdens on our employers, employee mobility, and general costs ?

In some ways, Medicare is a subsidy to insurance companies. Also, their poor outcomes increase cost to Medicare when they finally come under Medicare.

Lastly, I heard the government is already involved in 40 %, may be 55% of medical payment and coverage already but I do not know if that is true. Is it ?

[Genep34]

Can;t expect more from the Washington Post. FOX lite at times.

[schatsie]

I do believe the numbers I have seen are about 2 trillion a year for health care...I think the feds spend 500 billion for Medicare (that is the actual dollars paid and does not reflect the coinsurance and deductibles which are probably another 100 billion... and then i think the federal piece of Medicaid is 400 billlion...(that may or may not include what the states pay.) and I do not know how much of the 2 trillion is Rich Class Stuff, like spending money to make your teeth ultrawhite or breast augmentation or nose jobs and liposuction....

[Peabodies]

gave up on the Post a long time ago, after Katharine Graham, the publisher, died in mysterious circumstances.

[kdp59]

good start ( though not a lot of details).

a couple things :

ALL employers should be required to provide (and pay a part of) a basic health insurance plan OR...

pay a tax based on payroll to help pay the cost of their employees being forced to buy insurance.

it should NOT be a set (small) fee of $750/year.

that will buy one months coverage for a family in the USA today.

I say this as a 20 year small business owner AND employer, who administers a health insurance plan (and we pay over 75% of the costs) fro our 10-12 employees.

W e need to KEEP the employer a part of health insurance to keep the cost from shifting to the individual and governements, entirely.

$750 a year doesn't do it.

we mandate Unemployment, Social security, Workers comp, Medicare...time to roll Wokrers comp and medicare together and add a mandate to cover all employees with a basic healthcare plan.

[jonbw]

The cbo (which is the only expert that matters) says 750 a year is enough.

[schatsie]

Those are the left over Repugs who want to see Obama fail...These numbers seem way too low....

[Lynnce]

To much fraud in workers compensation and how do cover illegals in a public health care plan. The cost to the program would be to burdensome. Workers comp is afforded by insurance premiums paid by the employer you mingle that in health care cost and you are looking at trillions and trillions of debt passed on to generations to come with no hopes of any future for themselves because there will be no opportunity. They will be to broke and busy paying off The past medical bills. .YOU must always look ahead when deciding programs? I feel sorry for the future of Americans out of college looking for jobs and hope. All these programs do is take jobs from one private secotrs and rearrange them into the government occupation funded by tax payer dollars. YOU think your taxes won't go up think again.

[rkm0619]

The problem is that the more you tax and assess fees to employers the more those taxes and fees are going to begin to affect the employees in the form of pay cuts. Plus, the other issue is that the more complex taxes and fees become the more room for corporate loop holes and more red tape. A simple flat fee based on employment status is simple and apparently all that is needed. Let's not over complicate an already complicated situation. And the government would only insure those that are not already insured, so my guess is that some type of roll over clause would be in the bill preventing companies from dumping all employees from insurance and forcing the government to pay for them.

[desktop]

Wrong. If health care was completely taken over by the government like most other civilized countries in the world, costs could be dramatically cut and controlled. When you tell a hospital, doctor, or pharmaceutical company this is all you are going to get, they will bitch and complain and some may drop out, but there will be plenty of others willing to step up and take it. This will happen because profits are 10 to 100 fold over costs, as the American consumers are being gouged. Socialism? You bet it is, and there is not a damn thing wrong with it.

[rkm0619]

No, when you tell a medical company this is all your going to get they stop research and development. When that stops, medical technology declines and you get a system that you have in england and canada, 3 months for emergency heart surgery. And about this completely taken over by the government thing, what does the government ever do right or effeciently? I challenge you to name 1 national program that the federal government runs quickly and effeciently on as large a scale as providing insurance for over 300,000,000 people. Don't even say the IRS because even the libs on this site can't lie that good.