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 | 07/ 1/09 09:49 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

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...
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 10 11 12 13 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
- Drdemocrat I'm a Fan of Drdemocrat 27 fans permalink
photo

This is an improvement. Keep working on it to get the very BEST bill that you can get.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

You know, the VA already has a model fo a universal program. It just is not supported enough.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

As a free market capitalist I want to compete on a level playing fiield with Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, all of whom have relieved their business communities from the expense of health care in their products or services.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 AM on 07/02/2009
- aznurse I'm a Fan of aznurse 65 fans permalink

Isn't Medicare a gov run program? That seems to work well for people over 65. That was fought against , but we adapted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 AM on 07/02/2009

VA is a model of government waste and inefficiency. The only thing good about it its "free" to the Vets.
Actually, many Vets paid a high price... service to our country....
It is really a shame how they are being treated at these VAs...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

So where did you serve?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 AM on 07/02/2009
- b93950 I'm a Fan of b93950 4 fans permalink
photo

Well, the VA has been very kind to me, yes, Uncle Sam is my favorite Uncle and overall the VA does a pretty good job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

Actually:

A study led by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) indicates that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was able to significantly improve the quality of the health care services it provides through a major overhaul of its system that began in 1995.

The VA health care system has been deemed one of the best and it's biggest scandal recently - which was the appalling situation at Walter Reed Hospital was caused by the "privatization" of the facility when the contract to run it was awarded to private company run by ex-Halliburton official, Al Neffgen. This precipitated an 80% drop in care workers leading to the horrible standards there. In fact, an internal memo regarding the care at Walter Reed shows that officials were aware that the reduction in workers and the increase in casualties was going to present a problem but so much for how great the private sector is vs the big bad government.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

There must be a public health care option in any reform.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink

however make things too onerous on business owners.......games will be played.........maybe split a company in 10 maybe 15 different companies so as to never hit the target number of EMPs on the books to avoid forced health care coverage........

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

If we don't get Health Care with a serious Public Option Mr. President your political career will essentially be over and you will hand over power to The Republicans and our country will be toast.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink

so all i need to do is divide the EMPs among multiple companies as to never have more than 24 EMPs......then i can cancel health care for all except management.....and charge back the main company to keep the money flowing to pay just the payrolls...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 AM on 07/02/2009
- ladyv I'm a Fan of ladyv 26 fans permalink

I am on your side, but this is illogical.

If people are so serious about getting a public option that they will turn on the President and end his career over it, why would they switch their support to the Republicans? The President might get a challenge out of his own party but he's not going to have Dem competition for the 2012 nomination, so any challenge would just be to bolster that individual's credentials, not threaten the President's career.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:15 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

With all due respect, your threats of splitting your company or moving it appears to be part of the problem not the solution. I'm curious what your solution is (as a business owner) to meet in the middle . . .

I appreciate your opinion wdw505. Do what you need to do for profit and the rest of us EMPs who might work for your company in order for you to be profitable will do what we need to do to stop being slaves to your profit while we (essentially now) must pay through the nose (without profit) to be employed by corp execs such as you . . . Let me ask you this, if insurance-health-care status quo remains as it is now, if one of your (I assume) valued employees becomes sick and can't afford health care, will you - being the caring individual (I hope) you are - step up and help them pay for their health care? Will you give them the time off they need to get well and keep their job available for them? As it now stands most businesses are reducing work weeks to 32 hours per week so as to not pay benefits - therefore how do your threats of "splits" really mean anything constructive for us EMPS to consider as a valid argument against health care reform?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink

right now i pay for health care coverage for my EMPs........i will not in anyway pay for it if this passes...i will fight it with every action i do.........come on in just two minutes from reading that i found a way around it........give me time to think about it.........i will defeat it......if it goes into play......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 AM on 07/02/2009
- Peabodies I'm a Fan of Peabodies 25 fans permalink

Get business (employers, providers) out of the health care loop. Problem solved. Health care is not a commodity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 07/02/2009
- ynp7 I'm a Fan of ynp7 2 fans permalink

Remind me again why dropping from employer-sponsored insurance is a bad thing? Any system for PAYING BILLS that requires a third party with a profit motive is of the highest order of stupidity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 AM on 07/02/2009
- KQuark I'm a Fan of KQuark 267 fans permalink
photo

All I hope now is Baucus and his Finance committee is so incompetent that they don't even try to put forward a plan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 07/02/2009

Walmart's all excited about this bill. After all, Walmart already OFFERS health insurance to all its employees. The problem is that most Walmart employees aren't paid enough to afford the company health insurance plan and many are on food stamps and other forms of public assistance. This deal just keeps getting worse and worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 AM on 07/02/2009
- KQuark I'm a Fan of KQuark 267 fans permalink
photo

Huh now those employees you mentioned would get subsides to help them pay for public or private premiums. How is this worse?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 AM on 07/02/2009
- Sensiblebg I'm a Fan of Sensiblebg 33 fans permalink

Wow if we could cut out almost $600B already, surely we can wait a little longer and come up with an even more efficient plan..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

Everyone should wear a button that says "I am not a patient - I am your customer" when you go to your physician.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink

why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 AM on 07/02/2009
- KQuark I'm a Fan of KQuark 267 fans permalink
photo

It's honest for one thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

Because it is you that is paying the bill instead of your insurance company. Duh...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

Because I am a Vietnam Vet and I want care I can depend on to be affordable, excellent, and available.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 AM on 07/02/2009
- Kohimama I'm a Fan of Kohimama 8 fans permalink
photo

So does that $750 per year for each full time employee take into account the Worker's Comp that every employer pays? I haven't heard anyone address that issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

Don't forget, the more money you have the better health care you can receive because . . . with enough money you don't need insurance. Go figure this one . . . is health care a basic human right or a privilege? . . . If you believe it to be a privilege because you can afford to have it now just wait until you need it for a catastrophic illness; and, in the mean time, prepare yourself to continue to pay for those who aren't as lucky, and are forced to go to the emergency room when they are sick.

Without Health Care Reform in the current "insurance for profit" system "we" will continue to subsidize insurance company profit with very little actual health care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

Sorry didn't realize I repeated - see full comment below.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 AM on 07/02/2009
- langej I'm a Fan of langej 10 fans permalink
photo

Linda Lou
Health care is usually NOT a right - such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Health care is usually a choice. It is a method to reach happiness and, like any choice, should be paid for by the chooser.

The exception is emergency health care, which is a right: everyone has the right to expect other people to come to their assistance when injured or stuck down by a heart-attack. This is what insurance should cover. (The difficulty that national health systems have is deciding whether a given procedure is emergency care or a life-style choice. Various lobby groups compete and we end up with weird outcomes, such as in the UK where the public insurer (the taxpayer) funds cosmetic surgery for teens and in vitro fertilization for women 40 and over.)

Preventative medicine is neither a right or a choice, it is a tactic: a method of reducing the overall cost of health-care per individual, and hence can legitimately be funded by insurance schemes, whether public or private. Such schemes might offer incentives to those who actively participte and penalise (charge more to) those who fail to diet and exercise.

Much of modern medicine, however, is elective and should be paid for directly out of the pockets of patients.

An insurance scheme that recognized these distinctions would be affordable by anyone with a job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

The intrinsic problem w/Health Care "Reform" is this - health care in the US is (bottom line - no pun intended) for profit - period; meaning a companies profit must come before "your" care. If you have money (enough money to afford insurance in your budget) you can get care - albeit "basic care" as long as the insurance company can't figure how to wriggle out of covering you - excuse me, but this is not insurance. This premise is wrong to start with. Insure means to "guarantee against loss or harm". Which insurance company do you know whose operative word = "guarantee"? If anyone can answer this bottom line question I've love to hear it.

When votes come down on this issue do the research, follow the money, and you will find that for every "no vote" will be a representative that has received large sums of money from insurance companies who are fighting for their very profit filled, compromised promises to insure, lives. These will be the representatives who (regardless of party) need to be voted from office on the next election cycle, they are part of the "lobby" problem . . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

Don't forget, the more money you have the better health care you can receive because . . . with enough money you don't need insurance. Go figure this one . . . is health care a basic human right or a privilege? . . . If you believe it to be a privilege because you can afford to have it now just wait until you need it for a catastrophic illness; and, in the mean time, prepare yourself to continue to pay for those who aren't as lucky, and are forced to go to the emergency room when they are sick.

Without Health Care Reform in the current "insurance for profit" system "we" will continue to subsidize insurance company profit with very little actual health care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 AM on 07/02/2009
- Ruh17 I'm a Fan of Ruh17 7 fans permalink
photo

When you have something like healthcare, which every citizen needs, for profit there becomes huuuuge conflict of interests. Doctors having stock options in companies that produce certain drugs or provide certain exams. Then they send people to these specific companies to increase their stock value. No conflict there.
What about the fact that if pharmaceutical companies actually were doing the research they say the are to "cure diseases" they would basically kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If they cure cancer all of these drugs that they offer just to treat cancer and chemo and everything become worthless. No conflict there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 AM on 07/02/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 78 fans permalink

however make things too onerous on business owners........games will be played.........maybe split a company in 10 maybe 15 different companies so as to never hit the target number of EMPs on the books to avoid forced health care coverage........i can easily split my company.........my lawyer already asked for a flow chart of work and job descriptions......in case i want to split the company......

threaten me with a with forced health care or a union again i will move the company or split it

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 AM on 07/02/2009
- endbush I'm a Fan of endbush 2 fans permalink

So you have a pretty large company, you don't offer health care, nor are you willing to help pay for it so workers can get it elsewhere. Your scam will be caught because it's so damn obvious. In fact, I hope lawmakers read your email so they make sure to enact legislation against such unpatriotic and criminal activities. Your lawyer will be disbarred, your company will go out of business and more jobs will be lost--but who would want to work for you anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 AM on 07/02/2009
- LindaLouS I'm a Fan of LindaLouS 6 fans permalink
photo

I appreciate your opinion wdw505. Do what you need to do for profit and the rest of us EMPs who might work for your company in order for you to be profitable will do what we need to do to stop being slaves to your profit while we (essentially now) must pay through the nose (without profit) to be employed by corp execs such as you . . . Let me ask you this, if insurance-health-care status quo remains as it is now, if one of your (I assume) valued employees becomes sick and can't afford health care, will you - being the caring individual (I hope) you are - step up and help them pay for their health care? Will you give them the time off they need to get well and keep their job available for them? As it now stands most businesses are reducing work weeks to 32 hours per week so as to not pay benefits - therefore how do your threats of "splits" really mean anything constructive for us EMPS to consider as a valid argument against health care reform?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 AM on 07/02/2009
- saron123 I'm a Fan of saron123 2 fans permalink

It's a good start. But,

U.S. Population ~= 306,806,000

Which means 3% is ~ 9,204,180 people. So, it STILL leaves millions uninsured. Who are these 9 million or so people?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 07/02/2009
- KQuark I'm a Fan of KQuark 267 fans permalink
photo

I agree that is more than double what it should be and who would those people be anyway?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 AM on 07/02/2009

That's a very good question. I hope someone answers this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

Anybody out there want to pay the $1600/mo I pay to the South Carolina Health Insurance Pool for my health care insurance managed by Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 AM on 07/02/2009
- lisak2008 I'm a Fan of lisak2008 11 fans permalink
photo

Man, I thought my $466 Aetna premium was high, which almost doubled from two years ago. I couldn't imagine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 AM on 07/02/2009
photo

I get Social Security because my wife died of breast cancer in 1999 - SCHIP takes it all. Talk about "wealth transfer". My wealth is transfered directly from me to an insurance company.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 AM on 07/02/2009
- andhakari I'm a Fan of andhakari 7 fans permalink

I live in Norway and my insurance premium is ZERO, and I will never pay more than 300 dollars a year out of pocket. No exclusions. No uncovered preconditions.
And 100% of Norwegian residents are covered.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 AM on 07/02/2009

"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."

And in the budget Obama had $600 billion set aside as a down payment on real health care reform. If we don't win on the public option then the world truly makes no sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 07/02/2009

That 600 Billion is for getting all doctor records off paper and to the computer. Not for care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 AM on 07/02/2009

I have not heard anywhere mentioned the estimated cost for the digitalization of records. I seriously doubt it is $600billion. At any rate though, digitalization of records will improve patient care and reduce red tape. So I'm definitely for it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 07/02/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next › Last » (16 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect