AP: Health Care Bill May Cut Employer Mandate

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - AP: Health Care Bill May Cut Employer Mandate stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DAVID ESPO | 10/25/09 11:14 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Reid

WASHINGTON — Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.

For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.

These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the private negotiations involving key Senate Democrats and the White House. They also stressed that no final decisions have been made on the details of the measure, expected to reach the Senate floor in about two weeks.

In general, the bill taking shape in private talks led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is designed to answer President Barack Obama's call to remake the nation's health care system. It would expand coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and slow the growth in medical spending nationally.

Like a companion measure in the House, it would create a new federally regulated marketplace, termed an exchange, where individuals and families could purchase insurance sold by private industry. Federal subsidies would be available to help those at lower incomes afford the cost.

Subsidies would also be available to smaller businesses as an incentive for them to provide insurance.

Nominally, Reid's task is to meld bills already approved by the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. In reality, however, he has a virtual free hand in coming up with a measure, with a goal of amassing a 60-vote majority to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

Story continues below
advertisement

Reid has told fellow senators he is strongly considering including a provision for a government-run insurance plan in the bill as a way to assure consumers have a choice and to create competition for private companies. States would be permitted to drop out under the plan.

That is a somewhat weaker version than the HELP Committee voted for, but the Finance Committee omitted any federal role in the sale of coverage in favor of nonprofit co-ops competing with private industry.

The issue is the most contentious in the effort to overhaul the nation's health care system, and it is not known whether Reid has the 60 votes for his plan.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading advocate for a government-run insurance provision, said on NBC's Meet The Press he thought the drive for 60 votes was close to success.

One critic, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said on CNN he was not enthusiastic with the proposal, but did not rule out giving Reid his vote on a key procedural vote.

"Well, I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out. ... I'll take a look at the one where states could opt in if they make the decision themselves," he said.

Numerous other issues are involved in the bill.

The requirement for individuals to purchase insurance would include provisions to exempt individuals or families unable to find affordable coverage. Those who are obligated to buy coverage and refuse would face a fine of perhaps $100 in the first year of the program.

There is no penalty for individuals in the first year of the program in the Senate Finance Committee bill, a provision inserted at the request of Sen. Olympia Snowe. The Maine Republican is the only member of her party in either house of Congress to vote for a Democratic-backed health care bill in committee this year.

The switch Reid is considering is an attempt to increase the number of people with insurance, a key goal of the legislation.

Officials familiar with the Senate negotiations said the bill is likely to maintain a federal health care program for lower-income children as a stand-alone program, rather than folding it into the broad national insurance exchange. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is an ardent proponent of the arrangement and did not announce publicly he would vote for the Senate Finance Committee bill until after his proposal was approved.

The legislation is also expected to include an option for states to negotiate with private industry to provide group coverage for lower income residents. The proposal is backed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and patterned after a program in her home state.

Reid is also searching for ways to scale back a tax on high-cost insurance policies approved by the Senate Finance Committee. Organized labor strongly opposes the proposal, and the House bill is not expected to include it.

WASHINGTON — Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed ...
WASHINGTON — Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
150
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

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: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
photo

Look I'm well aware that for this to work a majority of the population has to be covered but i'm extremely leery of any just-out-of the gate government insurance plan or the lovely options the private insurers have lined up for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'll probably be signing up because I don't think I'd rather be dead, but a mandate speaks ill of things somehow.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 10/27/2009
- sarabono I'm a Fan of sarabono 16 fans permalink

Yiu have to have mandates. That is the only way to get 100% coverage. Without "All In" the program won't work properly.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 AM on 10/27/2009
- sej100 I'm a Fan of sej100 27 fans permalink

Triggers are a joke, they are basically a lie by government representatives to the people pretending they did something when they and we know it would never come to pass and is virtually meaningless. Ms Snowe wanted that and should be ashamed of herself.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 10/26/2009

Senator Olympia Snowe IS a Republican. Has she "played" the President and some Democrats well regarding the health care issue? Only 10% or less of the population will even be able to choose the "public option" unless they improve that area. In addition, government negotiation on drug prices still aren't allowed (thanks to the President). Should be interesting to see whether "mandates" are in a final bill.

I still find it hard to believe that Senator Snowes constituents in Maine will appreciate her voting no on any type of public option when the final bill is on the floor. Anyone here from Maine with the "pulse of the people" there?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 10/26/2009
- FirstShirt I'm a Fan of FirstShirt 60 fans permalink

Unions are against it. Look close. Call it anything you want. Guaranteed someone is making money. It is the way Congress is wired.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 10/26/2009
- Write4U I'm a Fan of Write4U 2 fans permalink

In the proposed Bill the government would subsidize low income people?
In effect this subsidy would profit the Insurance companies. And this subsidy would presumably be paid for by taxes on wage earners. Why do we always end up with paying taxes to help the For Profit companies, instead of the People.
Low cost Health Care and Profit are mutually exclusive!
A Single Payer Non Profit Health Care system (be it private or government) is the only cost effective system which will ensure maximum health care delivery for the least amount of cost.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:44 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

Health care reform should be renamed "get rich and die anyway", because that will be the only end result of insurance reform without substantive improvements in medical R&D, which is a completely separate independant issue that has absolutely no bearing on one another

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

No mandate, no cost control, no public option...

Where is the reform exactly?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 10/26/2009
- mrtutto I'm a Fan of mrtutto 3 fans permalink

I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. " I want a strong Public Option.... I need a strong Public Option.
I will not sign a bill without a strong Public Option in it. Listen up Blue Dogs. This is my party and I'm not going to let you rain on it " Then and only then I will believe that the President is committed to a strong Public Option.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 AM on 10/26/2009
- Arrech I'm a Fan of Arrech 72 fans permalink
photo

We told you before that 68 members of Congress signed a letter pledging to vote against any bill without a robust public option. That meant no "triggers," which would kill any chance of a public option taking off.

But triggers are rearing their ugly heads again - we need to let those members know that triggers aren't acceptable. They're a white flag to the insurance industry to ensure a public option won't ever exist.

Sign our petition to the 68 members of Congress: - a robust public option means no triggers. We'll make sure they get the message this week.

Click the link to sign:

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/notriggers

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 10/26/2009

Everyone now sees the Democratic Party/President has just played their true hand. They have been gaming us all along, with very few exceptions. None of us will qualify for subdify if you work at all. Any fool can see it will be cheaper to pay the penalties rather than for coverage. Even that will be gamed - it'll probably only kick in when 95% of workers need the subsidy - so there ain't going to be no subsidy or penalties, people. Also, without the benefit of being in a large group - that average cost of family health insurance, $13,000 - will be bornesolely by the consumer - and then some. Do your homework, find out what the Federal and State eligibily regs are for Public Assistance/Social Services for health care, or any other help.There is no safety net for working poor/middle class.
Vermon's Catamount plan, touted to the nation as" innovative" costs a single person making $10/hr $390/mo. Is 25% of your income affordable? Add rent, heat, utilities, car, food,etc, Vermont's exorbitant housing costs/low wagesg results in rapid exodus of young people.
I for one will not be voting Democratic again. I will support the Progressiv­es/Indepen­dents - any party that supports the American people. Even Republicans stick together, represent their constituents - Big Banks, Corporations, Big Pharma/Insurance. Democratic initiatives end up smoke and mirrors including "Reform".

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 10/26/2009

Vermonters. I hear you but I hope you are wrong on this one. A strong Public Option is too important to give up on now. We the people must do our part. Write, email and/or call your Senators and Representatives and DEMAND a strong PO without "triggers" or an "opt-out" clause. They only respond to money and voter anger.

Anyone from Louisiana or Nebraska - home of the two main Democratic holdouts in the Senate? Call Senator Landrieu (202-224-5824) and Senator Nelson (202-224-6551) and DEMAND a PO. Even if you are not a constituent, call them anyway since they (unfortunately) hold the key to ALL American's future health care choices. Please act now. Thank you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 10/26/2009
- FirstShirt I'm a Fan of FirstShirt 60 fans permalink

Very thoughtful. My comment is less esoteric. If the government ran the Sahara we would eventually have a shortage of sand. Everything the government does gets mixed up and never turns out the way it was planned.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 10/26/2009
- kylie I'm a Fan of kylie 22 fans permalink

It is not the government.
It is the government taken over by big corporations.
Who will have the wisdom and courage to discover the majority is for corporations to stop controlling, and government to to function for the people, again.
What do we have to do?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

If a republican wins to make harry reid go away I'm all for it !
~

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 10/26/2009
- Cheryl2 I'm a Fan of Cheryl2 3 fans permalink

How can a minimum wage worker possibly afford any health care when the costs would leave them with less than 5,000 dollars a year for housing, transportation, food and everything else. If the US is protecting and expanding the employer paid model then they have to enforce it or go with universal health care. It is not fair to workers to force them to pay for something that will not allow them to afford to live.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 10/26/2009
photo

Some version of the public option? A trigger? An opt-out? That part is debateable. Employer mandate? Debatable. The insurance industry mandate over citizens isn't being debated. People are going to be forced to buy a crummy, over priced product that won't protect them. They are going to be forced to buy it from the insurance industry that owns the congressmen who passed the law. Corporate servitude to the industry that defeated meaningful reform.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 10/26/2009
- Malkin72 I'm a Fan of Malkin72 45 fans permalink
photo

No one talks about this, but the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The federal government has no authority to force you to buy a product or service from a private company.

Show me in the Constitution, quote it, where they derive that authority?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 10/26/2009
photo

There should be a law against government forcing us to buy products from a private company. I wish some attorney would publish now. If it is truly unconstitutional.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 10/27/2009
- Wood-Harp I'm a Fan of Wood-Harp 26 fans permalink
photo

Again, health insurance will become a requirement - by mandate. At this point, will it be a requirement for the government to Provide? No. Employers (big business)? No. Yet, for individuals, they must soon Provide for themselves (bootstraps) - you know, like in “personal responsibility,” and just like they have since the corporate bailout. Yes, "It would expand coverage to millions who lack it. . . .” However, that expansion is coming - by force - and, will be based on mandatory spending of at least 10% of income toward a policy - sold by Private insurers (a new major tax, and an endless cycle of abuse). If there is a Public Option, "states would be permitted to drop out. . . .” Won’t that be wonderful for people who are at the mercy of Governors like Rick Perry who serve their corporate masters’ vulturous ideology? “Feingold: No Public Option A ‘Strong Reason’ Not To Support Reform.” Exactly. Step by step: From Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option ("Opt-Out") to a "Trigger." This was planned, from the beginning. “It’s just politics” - without morals or souls. The president sold us out, from day one (just like in other areas). He is not a Progressive, though he promoted himself as one. In fact, he is closer to the republicans than blue dogs. While witnessing a national con job, we must now prepare for those second and third jobs.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 10/26/2009
- Tiger99 I'm a Fan of Tiger99 18 fans permalink
photo

The more we deal with what has become the Joke Of This Century(Health Care Reform) the more it has become obvious that it is time to stop all the rhetoric calling for a Robust Public Option... You can't call it an option if you require mandates... Now that we have been informed that the savings that would be incurred through the mandated public option on private citizens is only 11% it would seem that we have been lead like sheep to precipice... 11% does not equate to any real significant savings for working class Americans... Deals with Big Pharma, Mandates and paying for it by reducing "fraud and waste" in medicare was not what we were promised by this Administration... Stop calling for support of Bad Plans...
-The Obama-Biden Plan-
Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.
•Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.
http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 10/26/2009
- Rivercs I'm a Fan of Rivercs 18 fans permalink

"-The Obama-Biden Plan-
•Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level."

THAT'S what we voted for, not this Snowe-job of a trigger or an opt-out plan where, if a Republican or other opposed administration takes power, all of a sudden your state doesn't have any meaningful competition. We voted FOR the reimportation of pharmaceuticals so that they'd cost less. We voted FOR the rollback of the Bush tax cuts. We voted FOR real competition for the insurance cartels (they call it "unfair" but what it is is fair, and that's the problem they have with it). The fix was in when President Obama made back-door deals with Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Hospitals, and Big Medicine and excluded the people who have been fighting for years for genuine reform, transformational rather than incremental change. We've been sold a bill of goods, I'm afraid, and if what we get in return for all our hard work is an Aegean stable to muck out, I fear the Democratic Party will quickly find itself abandoned by many.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 10/26/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

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

Connect