Feinstein Insurance Reform Kicked Out Of Health Care Bill

The Senate parliamentarian told Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday afternoon that her proposal to create a National Insurance Rate Authority runs afoul of reconciliation rules, Feinstein told HuffPost after the conversation.

"I'm crushed it's out," she said. But she added that she would bring it up with him one more time to try to make the case that it would be a legitimate use of reconciliation. "I'm going to make one last effort with the parliamentarian," she said.

It'll be a difficult effort. Reconciliation rules require that legislation must have a direct and substantial effect on the budget to qualify for the majority-vote procedure. Merely an incidental budget effect is not enough. Feinstein's rate authority would save the government money by reducing private insurance premiums, which would then reduce the amount of subsidies needed -- but such an effect is apparently too indirect for the parliamentarian to give it the thumbs-up.

Including the Feinstein's rate authority would be a risky move for Democrats. If Senate Republicans are able to alter the package in any way through parliamentary points of order, then it must go back to the House for yet another vote -- the last thing Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants. If the Senate passes the House version unchanged, it goes directly to the president for his signature.

Feinstein introduced her measure as a stand-alone bill in reaction to radical premium increases in California. Obama embraced the idea, including it in his proposed changes to the bill passed by the Senate.

Congressional observers such as health care blogger Jon Walker have speculated from the beginning that the rate authority proposal would be ruled out of order under reconciliation.

Comments

[ArchangelMichael]

12:58 AM on 03/19/2010

Until Congress members, politicians & the rich experience the equivalent high costs of medical care, nothing substantial will be done. Thus all pay 6% of gross income plus 10% of liquid assets for all medical costs (family of four).
........................................................... HEALTHCARE REFORM
.........................................................ALL PAY THEIR FARE SHARE
.........................................6% GROSS INCOME & 10% LIQUID ASSETS (family of four)
Adjust percentages so funds collected equal costs.
Work out details of transition from profit based to functional based healthcare.
Republicans and Democrates represent the rich Americans, not the 97% of Americans.
Please wake up America.

[parlimentMike]

05:53 PM on 03/18/2010

What a sincere and brave effort. Her leadership has left me in awe.

not

[MyLeftMind]

05:32 PM on 03/18/2010

If Feinstein’s proposal to create a National Insurance Rate Authority runs afoul of reconciliation rules, how did this non-budgetary insurance regulations addition get past a Byrd Rule Point of Order?

This is an amendment to a Section 1251 of the Senate bill, “Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage”.
Sec. 2301 Insurance Reforms
(a) Extending certain insurance reforms to grandfathered plans
(b) Clarification regarding dependent coverage

Gee, stuff that helps working and middle class Americans gets nixed last minute, but something that helps the stinkin’ crooked insurance companies get slipped in.

But keep on trusting ole Obama. He’s got our backs, right?

[Dosadi]

05:38 PM on 03/18/2010

The Senate bill has been passed and therefore does not need to go through reconcilliation. Feinstein was submitting a new proposal.

[meko]

05:12 PM on 03/18/2010

Breaking news: the CBO says the increases in affordability tax credits are only temporary:

"An important component of the longer-term analysis is that, beginning in 2019, the reconciliation proposal would change the annual indexing provisions so that the premium subsidies offered through the exchanges would grow more slowly; over time, the spending on exchange subsidies would therefore fall back toward the level under H.R. 3590 by itself."

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/18/health-care-reconciliation-increases-in-affordability-tax-credits-only-temporary/

Yesterday we lost all hope of a public option, state single-payer plans, and a rate authority. The tax on high-cost plans (which are usually those for small businesses that have someone with a pre-existing condition on the payroll) also went up.

[Dosadi]

05:39 PM on 03/18/2010

Keep going.

[MyLeftMind]

05:02 PM on 03/18/2010

Obama and other Dems who are currently selling out to big business have offered all of these carrots to get the left to support this monstrosity. Everything they’ve offered (or claimed to support, in Obama’s case) have been withdrawn.
1) Public Option,
2) Medicare buy-in,
3) Direct Medicare drug price negotiation,
4) 90% minimum medical loss ratio,
5) The National Exchange.

But that’s OK, Obamapologists can still Hope he’ll Change this someday and make it better, because he really does care about us.

[meko]

05:14 PM on 03/18/2010

6) States won't get ERISA waivers so they can't set up single payer if they want to or even Hawaii style employer mandates
7) The Rate Authority idea was dropped yesterday
8) The Affordability Tax Credits are only temporary according to the CBO

[nikky]

04:45 PM on 03/18/2010

diane is no longer trustworthy every since jan 2009 you could see the changes in her

[madprogressive]

02:45 PM on 03/18/2010

This is the parliamentarian appointed by the Republicans right! Let me get this straight, an insurance rate commission does not fit within the context of reconcilliation. Doesn't the reconcilliation deal with things related to the budget. Doesn't the control of health care costs fall within the budget process, given the government will be offering subsidies to private insurance companies for low income customers. So quite naturally, the republican appointed parliamentarian would think that a commission that controls excessive rate increases wouldn't fit into the "budget" reconcilliation process.

[scottymac11]

12:44 PM on 03/18/2010

After kicking out her empty gesture. Hopefully her primary voters will kick her out. Get someone sincere about decent medical care for all.

[wdw505]

12:47 PM on 03/18/2010

i'm all for kicking her out

[NXQZs]

02:58 PM on 03/18/2010

Absatively!

[TeeLolly]

11:10 AM on 03/18/2010

Had Obama been honest about his back-room deal with the hospitals to keep the public option out of the "reform" bill, both the House and Senate might have included a mechanism for preventing private insurers from hiking premiums unless warranted by their health care expenditures. Now we will all pay the price for Obama's dishonesty.

[tompoe]

11:50 AM on 03/18/2010

Try to focus, chum. The rate authority lowers government subsidies, directly impacting on the budget. The idiot parliamentarian twists the words and says the rate authority restricts premium prices, so it doesn't impact directly on the budget. Keeping public option in or not, has nothing to do with this issue of idiots in Congress. Sign the Buy Into Medicare For All petition that Grayson introduced, and leave these jerks to their political absurdities.

[wdw505]

12:44 PM on 03/18/2010

no thanks keep your medicare

[busterbrownthefirst]

10:57 AM on 03/18/2010

I think we all know that current health care legislation has been corrupted beyond belief because of corporate sellouts. From the President on down. So I want to pass on a thought on how we can make a difference:

Michael Moore was on Dylan Ratigan yesterday and said that what we need to do is pass a constitutional amendment banning corporate and lobbying monies from government. Period. Not allowed for any election or at any point thereafter. This would be staggering. One person, one vote, finally. Government officials with no choice but to answer to us directly, finally.

If your state has not caucused and you're a Democrat, I urge you to attend your caucus and submit such a resolution to be part of the Democratic Party platform. I see absolutely no reason why this should not be wildly popular.

I was totally fried after I saw his interview, because my state had caucused just the night before and I had not had the common sense to submit anything similar. But if everybody does in a state yet to caucus, it can still become a platform of the Democratic Party.

So, come on, Democrats, let's get a Democratic Party platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning all funds, except those from public funding or individuals, from every aspect of government!

[wdw505]

11:29 AM on 03/18/2010

mike who?

[missouriwatcher]

12:04 PM on 03/18/2010

MIchael Moore is right on this one. Getting "bribery" out of government is exactly what we need to do. My question is "how?", seeing that those taking the money are those making the rules. Government officials, like the regular government worker, should only be permitted their paychecks and reasonable benefit packages. Any "gifts" with the purpose of purchasing influence should be outright banned! Those making such offers, and those accepting them, should be locked away in the big house--general population, not some "country club" prison--for a very long time.

[busterbrownthefirst]

12:25 PM on 03/18/2010

Right, obviously an uphill battle. But take it to your caucus because I didn't!!

And right on all your points. All of that should be excluded through constitutional amendment.

Look, seems to me this is so obvious and huge Moore might be able to actually organize protests, who knows even civil disobedience. This is one we should all be willing to go to the mats for, assuming we happen to want our country back.

So do help me out by making up for my incompetence. I swear I've been thinking politics 24/7 since last July, and always with an eye to how corporations have stolen the country, so I am feeling pretty stupid to have missed this one.

[Kassandra]

10:15 AM on 03/18/2010

Funny that, as soon as Kucinich caved, the bill got exponentially WORSE.
But don't worry, if you can afford your premiums, you won't be able to afford the fine or the bail to keep you out of jail and you'll lose your job ( if you have one) so, so much for the middle class who's supposed to take it on the chin for this bill to increase The Corporation's profits.

I gotta love the way everyone thinks Obama is better than Bush and is still in a torpor of hope and on the couch watching TEEVEE because he's got a "D" instead of an "R" behind his name.

I wonder if he even wants to keep his majorities in Congress this fall?
Gads! What a mess. CAN this bill get any worse? Stay tuned

[Fotios]

10:33 AM on 03/18/2010

Ok, let's compare Bush's actions with health care to Obama's.

Bush passed the Medicare Advantage bill that drastically increased deficits and left Medicare costs at the mercy of ever increasing private insurance rate hikes.

Obama is passing a bill that reigns in insurance abuses, pools together individual insurance purchasers to reduce their rates, provides insurance to 32 million additional people who don't have it now, offers more subsidies to all kinds of people in need and reduces the deficit by well over $100 billion in 10 years and over a trillion in 20.

I'm sure you have complaints about the current health care bill, because we all do, but you can't deny that the things I listed above are not positive steps. Either way, I hope both Republicans and Democrats come to the table in 2011 with ideas to add or remove things from this bill to make reform even stronger.

[wdw505]

11:31 AM on 03/18/2010

agreed both plans are bad............put forward by bad presidents

[MyLeftMind]

04:19 PM on 03/18/2010

Reality check:
“Obama is passing a bill that reigns in insurance abuses…”
NO, he’s passing a bill that FORCES US TO PAY MORE for them to stop kicking us off and refusing service.

“pools together individual insurance purchasers to reduce their rates”
NO, the bill allows us to PAY MORE for insurance pools that will NOT be like the pool Congress has, in spite of what Obama says.

“provides insurance to 32 million additional people who don't have it now”
Welfare doesn’t work. Haven’t we learned that yet?

“offers more subsidies to all kinds of people in need”
The bill creates a new entitlement, at the same time Obama is setting up a commission to figure out how to REDUCE federal entitlement programs. I get it – screw the old folks on Medicare & Social Security but give more freebies to slackers who choose not to work for a living or pay for their own kids.

“reduces the deficit by well over $100 billion in 10 years and over a trillion in 20”
Yup, it reduces the deficit by $150 Bil by raising working & middle class taxes to pay for the $940 Bil faux healthcare plan.

At least of Bush & the Repubs had come up with this boondoggle, our side would be able to recognize it for what it is: massive corporate welfare.

[milkman]

10:36 AM on 03/18/2010

you're a delusional faux watcher

[Jay Dickson]

10:09 AM on 03/18/2010

I sure could use this 1000 plus pages of a so called healthcare biill for my toilet paper.That would really be some good use.

[JanPoore]

10:13 AM on 03/18/2010

Son of a Dick.

[Kassandra]

10:23 AM on 03/18/2010

I know, I'd change my name...real fast!

[Fotios]

10:35 AM on 03/18/2010

I prefer real toilet paper. It isn't as rough as office paper. But good argument... very well thought out.

[sposton]

10:07 AM on 03/18/2010

"Feinstein's rate authority would save the government money by reducing private insurance premiums, which would then reduce the amount of subsidies needed..."

Well, we can't have anything like that! Those insurance companies need higher premiums; that is how they make their profits which enable those hundreds of millions in bonuses. Imagine what would happen if those premiums were reduced even a bit, well that would mean the end of our free enterprise system. I say my friends, socialism is destroying this country. ;-)

[Kassandra]

10:22 AM on 03/18/2010

Not so much anymore....................

[oldguru]

10:58 AM on 03/18/2010

The mandate is the poison pill. It will not take long for the insurance bandits to make it so clear that they are going to continue to screw the public that even the Rethugs will be asking for government intervention. The only way to control the cost of insurance AND health care is a single payer (a la medicare). The mandate will prove so expensive to the government that they will have to step in.

[sposton]

11:08 AM on 03/18/2010

Yes, the current bill is not a solution but isn't it odd that this is the best our political system can produce? If you are manufacturer, how long would you last if you produced such flawed product? Would we buy a car that is an equivalent to this bill? No governmental bailout could save that company. Why do we tolerate such political system, which is supposed to be working for us? Why are we as citizens even weaker than we are as consumers?

Kleptocracy rules this country because we let it rule!

[Joel Redman]

11:25 AM on 03/18/2010

The mandate is there to make the ban on recission and pre-existing conditions possible. You can't _only_ put new sick people into the insurance system or the insurance system would go broke.

[liveordie]

10:03 AM on 03/18/2010

One of the few adults in congress. I thought congress made the laws and not some lone gun? I guess that's what I get for thinking.

[doubtingdavid]

09:54 AM on 03/18/2010

So much for any hope of cost control. The bill is a complete boondoggle for the insurance companies and their pet dogs the democrats. How's the bill tasting now libbies.

[wdw505]

10:02 AM on 03/18/2010

agreed

[Kassandra]

10:24 AM on 03/18/2010

But, but the CBO says it's gonna SAVE 130 bbillion over 10 years! For who, I'd like to know.
While I may not be a "R" the taste of this bill makes me want to spit

[wdw505]

10:48 AM on 03/18/2010

so help kill the bill