Healthcare overhaul bill clears Senate Finance Committee

[velkly]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2205296.story

Healthcare overhaul bill clears Senate Finance Committee
Sen. Olympia Snowe is the sole Republican to side with Democrats as the bill passes, 14 to 9. Her support for the bill requiring health insurance for all Americans is seen as victory for Obama.

By James Oliphant

October 13, 2009 | 11:53 a.m


Reporting from Washington - Legislation that would transform the nation's healthcare system cleared a significant hurdle today as the Senate Finance Committee voted (14-9) for a sweeping overhaul.

Just one Republican, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, voted for the bill. But that represented a victory for the White House, which had heavily courted Snowe, and it allowed overhaul advocates to claim that there was a vestige of GOP support for the measure.

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it," Snowe said in announcing her vote. "But when history calls, history calls."

The bill would require Americans to have health insurance, provide federal subsidies to help low-income workers buy insurance, establish new insurance marketplaces, regulate health insurer practices and expand Medicaid. The plan as drafted is estimated to cost $829 billion over the next 10 years.

Some cast the vote in landmark terms.

"This is our opportunity to make history," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). "Now is the time to get this done."

The long-anticipated committee vote sets the legislation up for debate on the Senate floor. But first its terms must be reconciled with those of a bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this summer.

"I never count chickens before they are hatched, but this is obviously another step forward," President Barack Obama said today after Snowe announced her support and the Senate Finance Committee was nearing its vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will work behind the scenes with help from the White House to craft a compromise in the coming days. Because the finance committee bill explicitly sets forth how the bill would pay for the cost of covering uninsured Americans as well as set penalties for the failure to have insurance, its terms are expected to comprise the bulk of the bill that ultimately is debated on the floor.

Floor debate could begin before the end of the month.

Despite the committee's approval, key provisions of the legislation remain to be resolved, including whether the bill ultimately will include some form of a government-run health insurer, the so-called "public option." Some senators favor a provision that would allow states to exempt themselves from providing a government option to consumers--a bid to sway moderates who otherwise might oppose a mandatory plan.

It's unclear whether Reid will include any sort of a public option in the bill during the merger process or instead invite an amendment during the Senate floor debate. Also, there remains some significant disagreement about whether to pay for the expansion of healthcare coverage to millions of uninsured Americans with an excise tax on high-end insurance plans -- as well as the threshold at which that tax would take effect. Furthermore, the insurance industry has objected strenuously to the finance committee's loosening of the requirement in the bill that all Americans purchase health insurance. The committee approved an amendment that weakened the penalties for failing to buy a plan.

Still, the Finance Committee's endorsement was undeniably a signature moment in a healthcare debate that has consumed Capitol Hill for much of the year. The vote was the culmination of months of work by Baucus and members of the committee. Before the vote, the committee met for eight contentious days and considered 135 amendments to the bill.

Up until the vote, the support of some Democrats such as Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D.-W.Va.) and Ron Wyden (D.-Ore.) remained in doubt. All eyes, however, were on Snowe, whose imprimatur was deemed crucial for Baucus and the White House to claim that there was some vestige of bipartisan support for the effort and to help create a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate to ward off a potential Republican filibuster.

The Maine moderate remained cagey about her vote until today's meeting, as many believed she would withhold her approval to ensure she would maintain a role as the final bill is written. In remarks before the vote, she made clear that her support going forward hinges on maintaining the bill's $829-billion price tag.

"My vote today is my vote today," Snowe said. "It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."

Congressional Democrats have striven to keep the cost of the bill beneath $900 billion. The finance committee bill does that, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would shave the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next decade, as well.

Before a packed committee room this morning, senators on the committee alternately praised and criticized the bill before the vote, with Republicans arguing that it would result in higher premiums for Americans and higher taxes for businesses. Sen. Charles Grassley (R- Iowa.), the senior Republican on the committee, complained that Democratic leaders in the Senate scuttled a series of bipartisan talks between the so-called Gang of Six that occurred over the summer. He charged the bill had "moved leftward" as a result.

"Today, we see the fears that we had were legitimate and justified," Grassley said. "I still hold out hope the doorway to bipartisanship will be opened once again."

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah), too, slammed the process, saying that the ultimate bill would be written by Reid without GOP input. "It almost seems like hundreds of hours of debate were all for naught," Hatch said. "The real bill is currently being written behind closed doors."

Many Democrats addressed a report released Monday by an insurance industry trade group that claimed that the bill would cause premiums for many Americans to skyrocket. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) attempted to debunk the report and suggested that it would fuel momentum for a public option as a means to make the insurance market more competitive. "It's a powerful argument, frankly, of why we should have a public plan," Kerry said.

As it stands, the bill would result in 94% of Americans having insurance, Baucus said, with 23 million taking advantage of new insurance exchanges that would be created by the bill and 14 million added to Medicaid rolls. The bill would subsidize the cost of insurance for Americans who earn incomes just above the federal poverty level. It would also prohibit insurance companies from denying or rating coverage based on preexisting medical conditions.

Some Democrats have expressed reservations about the bill, even as they voted for it. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), a moderate up for reelection next year, said her support for the bill today did not mean she would vote for it on the Senate floor. She said her constituents remained concerned about the legislation.

"Americans out there are frightened," Lincoln said. "They're alarmed about big bills that are difficult to understand."

Wyden continued to insist the bill did too little to ensure that middle-class Americans would be able to afford health insurance. He predicted that in its current form, many working families would choose to be exempted from the mandatory insurance requirement because they will not be able to afford a suitable plan.

"People want coverage. People want coverage to be affordable," Wyden said. "We've got a lot more work to do with respect to affordability."

[Al-Mumit]

By the time it passes it will be watered down so much that it will do NOTHING to alleviate the problems it sought to fix. Than after a decade of reforming the bill it will end up as it was originally written but the damage will be long done.

This is something our nation has done again and again and again...

[cgbudde]

The democrats are in a rush to pass some form of reform to make themselfs look good to the people who don't know the difference between a good bill and a do nothing bill. It just means more possible votes for them.

[Al-Mumit]

They're just passing it so they can lay the foundation for what they actually want to do and pull in some votes while doing it. No program they institute will actually benefit our nation until quite a few years of legislative tweaking takes place. As I said before: in a decade we'll have a working system. Between now and than, not so much.

[PocketProtector]

It needs to be renamed to what it is....Hellth Control Bill.

[Al-Mumit]

They're just trying to do the same thing Britain did back in '46: The country is going through a crap time so screw it, throw the people a bone.

Only we're doing it 60 years later.

[arrrrgh15]

They're just trying to do the same thing Britain did back in '46: The country is going through a crap time so screw it, throw the people a bone.

Only we're doing it 60 years later.

What bone? I don't want this bill.

This bill is going to put a burden on my existing health insurance program offered by my employer. My employer is going to get taxed because my health insurance program is considered a "cadillac". So when faced with the option my employer may decide to REDUCE our coverage or raise our contribution to help pay for it, out of my paycheck. One of my employees is young and healthy and would ralther keep his money than pay for health insurance (he's one of the un-insured.....by choice....they forget to mention that). Now he's going to get fined for not having health insurance, or he's going to have to sign up for the now super expensive health insurance so that his neighbor down the street that WON'T get a job can get health coverage.

Olympia Snowe simply buckled under pressure and should be thrown under a bus for it. Trying to backpedal and say that this doesn't mean she'll vote for the final bill is a token gesture. With the majority, they'll ramrod whatever the fuck they want now. My only hope is that this things stalls long enough for the republican party to reclaim some seats in 2010 and put together some REAL reform that won't screw over everybody.

The clowns in washington really don't give a shit whether the people they work for really want this thing or not. They are above us and we will simply need to bow down to THEIR wishes.

I think there needs to be some reform but not to the extent that they are proposing. Taxing employers and workers to pay for this peice of shit legislation without the majority of americans in favor of it is taxation without representation. Cutting side deals with pharma behind closed doors and drafting bills but NOT making them available for the public to read, on and on and on.

Washington is a cesspool of corruption...both parties.

The majority will suffer for the sake of a few. And our politicians will get to enjoy the same superior health coverage they've always enjoyed and they WON'T sign up for "regular people" insurance whether private or public after they're done fucking it all up for us.

[arrrrgh15]

"Congressional Democrats have striven to keep the cost of the bill beneath $900 billion. The finance committee bill does that, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would shave the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next decade, as well."

Wait......WHAT?

The bill is going to COST us $900 Billion, but is estimated that it will SAVE us $81 Billion over the next decade. ????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, it's going to COST us $819 Billion dollars. It hasn't SAVED us anything.

The national debt is somewhere around what....$1.3 to $1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS.

So that alleged $81 billion in phony savings is going to cost us......only 5.8% over the next decade. All to completly fuck up MY HEALTH AND WELL BEING AND TAX ME EVEN MORE!!!

Perhaps this is what people are so pissed off about. Smoke and mirrors.

Ugh. Now my head hurts. Better go see a doctor while my co pay is only $25.

[dsnover]

I wouldn't give a rat's hind-quarters if this was the absolute best bill in the history of our government, with funding that was rock-solid stable, costs us all less, results in fantastic care, and cured aids, cancer, and H1N1 (pretty much the opposite of what it will be/is). Unless, and until a Constitutional amendment is procured which would authorize the federal government to put their hands in this, it is unconstitutional (like so many other things). What I can't for the life of me fathom is why more of this fecal material isn't and hasn't been challenged by the SCOTUS.

Continued abuse of the constitution will ultimately either lead to its formal demise, or some sort of armed conflict, or both.

$0.02

[BenP]

The cost of this bill is a slight of hand. Immediately the cuts in medicare and taxes kick in but the benefits don't kick in until 2013. So you have 10 years of taxes and cuts but only 7 years of spending. The piper will be paid in the next 10 years.