iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Baucus Changes Bill To Address Democrats' Concerns

ERICA WERNER   09/21/09 09:47 PM ET   AP

Baucus

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was revising his sweeping health care bill Monday to address serious concerns from fellow Democrats and a key Republican about insurance costs, part of his ongoing struggle to deliver on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The changes – which include possibly halving a penalty for people who don't comply with a new requirement to purchase insurance – came a day ahead of a committee session beginning Tuesday to amend and vote on the bill, which Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., hopes his panel will approve by the end of the week.

"We've come a long, long way to satisfying the affordability concerns," Baucus said Monday evening after meeting with committee Democrats.

"There will still be amendments offered, as there should be ... But my sense is the meeting today went a long way to dealing with a lot of the concerns that senators had," he said.

Baucus' 10-year, $856 billion package would extend coverage to about 29 million Americans who lack it now and institute insurance market reforms, such as prohibiting higher premiums for women or the denial of coverage to sick people. It would make almost everyone buy insurance or pay a fee, give subsidies to the poor to help them buy coverage and create new online exchanges where small businesses and people without government or employer-provided insurance could shop for plans and compare prices.

Release of the bill last week gave a boost to Obama's health care agenda after a summer of angry town hall meetings, though plenty of political and policy hurdles remain before Congress could send a bill to Obama's desk.

In the days ahead, Baucus faces the difficult task of keeping his 13 committee Democrats on board without moving so far to the left that he alienates Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, the only one of the panel's 10 Republicans seen as likely to vote for the bill.

Snowe's support could become even more critical presuming health overhaul legislation makes it to the Senate floor, as Democrats look for the 60 votes needed to advance the bill.

Snowe and a number of Finance Committee Democrats had raised concerns about whether subsidies in Baucus' bill are generous enough to make insurance truly affordable for low-income people. There were also concerns about a new tax on high-value insurance plans, which some fear would hit middle-class workers even though Baucus is directing it at so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans that he says are enjoyed by a minority of U.S. workers.

Senators offered a raft of amendments on both those issues, and Baucus was incorporating some of the approaches in revised legislation he'll unveil at Tuesday's committee meeting. Details weren't final, but Baucus said he was looking at lowering a $3,800 penalty that his bill would levy on households that don't comply with a new "individual mandate" to purchase insurance.

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a key Finance Democrat, said senators were discussing cutting that penalty in half, to $1,900. The $950 penalty for individuals who don't buy coverage, however, would not be changed.

Also under discussion, according to Conrad, was lowering the maximum amount of income people could pay in premiums before becoming eligible for subsidies. It's now 13 percent. Senators were also looking at adjusting the new insurance excise tax – now set to hit plans valued at $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual – so that it's limited to even more expensive plans over time, Conrad said.

The changes could add to the cost of the $856 billion bill, but since the bill would raise about $50 billion more than it spends over 10 years, there is some wiggle room. Conrad said new cuts were being considered to pay for the changes but he declined to specify what they were. The bill already would cut planned Medicare spending by $500 billion over a decade.

Baucus' legislation is the most conservative, and cheapest, of five health care bills in Congress. The four other bills have already passed committees in the House and Senate, but Baucus' is the most closely watched because he tried for a bipartisan deal, though without succeeding. In the other committees, majority Democrats passed legislation without GOP support that reflected mostly liberal priorities.

Also, the Finance Committee has a moderate makeup that resembles the Senate as a whole, so legislation that passes Finance could find favor on the Senate floor.

Affordability emerged as perhaps the biggest concern for Snowe and committee Democrats after the bill was released last week, but it's hardly the only one. Liberals like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., want the bill to include a new public insurance plan to compete with the private market. Baucus included nonprofit co-ops instead, and Rockefeller plans to try to delete those and incorporate a public plan. Committee Republicans, for their part, have readied amendments to strike core portions of the bill and replace them with GOP priorities such as caps on medical malpractice payouts.

A total of 564 amendments were filed, though the number taken up this week will likely be much lower.

Once the Finance Committee approves the bill, Senate leaders would have to combine it with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee before bringing legislation to the Senate floor. A similar process is happening in the House with bills passed by three committees there. House and Senate Democratic leaders are both aiming for floor action this fall. Obama wants to sign a bill this year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recommitted herself to that timetable during an appearance in Philadelphia on Monday after touring a hospital there. "We will have legislation that will be passed in a matter of weeks, it will be signed in a matter of months by Barack Obama and it will have a very positive impact on America's families," Pelosi said. Pelosi also said, as she has in the past, that the House couldn't pass a bill without a public insurance plan.

___

Associated Press writer Joann Loviglio in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was revising his sweeping health care bill Monday to address serious concerns from fellow Democrats and a key Republican about insurance...
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was revising his sweeping health care bill Monday to address serious concerns from fellow Democrats and a key Republican about insurance...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 92
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
12:56 AM on 09/30/2009
Baucus and Snowe today voted against the public option.

Help pay for the ads
to make Baucus and Snowe accountable for their actions.

http://www.actblue.com/page/baucuspublicoption?refcode=hccw_baucus-dfakick

When they deny health care options, they kill people. Make them face their responsibility.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:39 PM on 09/29/2009
".....The changes – which include possibly halving a penalty for people who don't comply with a new requirement to purchase insurance......"

Gee, Max, what a guy!
04:49 PM on 09/22/2009
This just in - a new amendment:

"If you do not buy insurance, you will be fined $950 as an individual. Please write a check directly to United Healthcare in the amount of $950. You can also write it to the CEO's personal house address."
photo
somsoc
All humans are atheists at birth.
01:24 PM on 09/22/2009
It is ludicrous for the gang of six to claim authorship of the "Baucus bull" it is clearly a product of the health insurance industry. Pull this pike-with-legs and send it back to CIGNA/BCBS/United Health Care from whence it was spawned, and simply expand Medicaid/Medicare to all citizens and be done with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
philosopherkingtomas
11:21 AM on 09/22/2009
include all kids (under 18);
require weight, smoking, exercise for coverage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rodger leMonde
I call them as I see them.
10:22 AM on 09/22/2009
The least he could do. Seems to be his mantra.
The more they kiss industry butts the more I want to nationalize the whole mess.
There has to be a lot of conversations going on in Washington that would curl the toes of the people if they were heard. The more noise the less we hear about the objective of decent care for all.

Once we get this issue sorted out the NEXT ISSUE we should get on with is a "vote of no confidence" amendment to the constitution. Where the nation can demand a referendum vote on any or all of our leaders when the bullshit gets too deep.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 PM on 09/29/2009
Cosign!
05:44 AM on 09/22/2009
This bill is not reform... it is nothing but a mandate that insures insurance companies.

Single payer...everybody in, nobody out.

http://www.madashelldoctors.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dems08
Above all... avoid the moor
11:25 PM on 09/21/2009
baucus bill is STILL a gift to the insurance industry
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnjam101
10:43 PM on 09/21/2009
It's not rocket science. Read this and pass it on .
Read it and pass it on. Then lets join the other industrialized democracies and NEVER have to play this stupid game again. Everyone benefits. Even the free market small business people like me. The trick is to get past the politicians that are blocking this.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health-care-abroad-questions-for-tr-reid/?ref=health
10:20 PM on 09/21/2009
Sadly, Not Baucus, or any Dem, or Repub, or any of the American people can or will address my concerns before it's too late.

But that's all right, I'm terminally ill but I have insurance, so I don't matter, right? That is what everyone is saying
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sueinmn
09:43 PM on 09/21/2009
Soon children will have certain tests to pass before they will be covered. The elderly seems to believe the death panels dont exist presently? Every excuse under the sun is being used these days to deny people. Where are the consumer protections laws requiring delivery of what many people have already paid for in insurance premiums? Congress had better wake up snd grow a pair OR we had better wake up and get rid of all those voting against us. We must remember in 2010, 2012. They know our memory is short when the choices on the ballet are few.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
XLintLuvR
02:24 AM on 09/22/2009
It's times like these that I wish they'd require people to pass a test to vote because the stupid have no right to ruin things for the rest of us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sueinmn
09:40 PM on 09/21/2009
prohibiting higher premiums for women or the denial of coverage to sick people

How on earth do idiots not see the discrimination and rationing we presently have? How do idiots sleep at night as ignorance is not blissful when your own economics must say differently!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ruh17
09:24 PM on 09/21/2009
Are we just going to come back every year and increase the subsidy that people get to go along with the increase in premiums people will see? So, essentially we'll just come back every couple years to increase the amount of money taxpayers give to insurance companies, along with the amount of money taxpayers pay in premiums. .... Where is the cost control in that?
09:08 PM on 09/21/2009
I don't want a subsidy to pay for my heath care insurance. I want insurance I can afford.
Are they going to fine me for not buying or subsidize me? What fine line will I have to walk now?
My mama always said, if there's only a razor thin path, through a pile of sh*t, to get to the front door, don't go through the gate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ruh17
08:53 PM on 09/21/2009
I don't understand why we can't just have insurance federally regulated, and then every person gets the exact same list of insurers to choose from? Public option, private option ... whatever. If we regulate every company the same, and put those companies into competition with each other for customers then it really shouldn't matter whether we have a public option or not. The public option is just a back door way of regulating the industry. Cut the crap and just regulate it. Then it cuts out the "boogy man" which is "government run" public option. With the scary public option gone the GOP loses their target. Sure they'll target "regulation," but they'd be hardpressed to to sell that garbage after what has happened the last 9 years.
It's either regulation or government run. Those are the only choices for getting costs under control.
09:10 PM on 09/21/2009
Figuring out the correct regulation is often difficult, especially with each big insurance company sending lobbyists to Washington to make sure the regulation favors them over others. The safe assumption is, whatever the regulation, insurance companies will be able to get around it when it suits them. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try regulation; but we should also have a backup, which is the public option.

And at any rate, government-run health care already exists. So if someone does not otherwise qualify for it, why shouldn't they be allowed to pay for it? This wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, and would introduce another player into the competition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ruh17
09:20 PM on 09/21/2009
I'm for medicare for all, so you don't have to convince me. But you are ALWAYS going to have that group of society that under no circumstances wants government to run anything other than the military and such. That group is much smaller when it comes to regulation. And you can present it to the insurers that either you do this or we will have to take you over completely. The public option is just a back door to regulation. If you want a public option then you should be for single payer.

Regulation wouldn't be that hard. There are a lot that can be agreed on. Getting rid of pre existing conditions. No dropping coverage if premiums paid. No yearly caps.
A lot of regulations majority of the country agrees on. Its the big bad GOVERNMENT that people are so afraid of.