Health Care Reform Bill Clears Final Senate Panel

[Beco]

Health care reform cleared a momentous hurdle Tuesday, as the Senate Finance Committee voted to send its version of the legislation to the Senate floor after months of closely watched deliberations.

The committee voted 14-9 in favor of the package. One Republican, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, broke with her party to support the bill. All 13 Democrats on the panel voted in favor of it, while the rest of the Republicans opposed it.

The panel was the last of five to act on health legislation, and the vote marked the biggest advance so far toward health care reform, as the committee's legislation is considered the best building block for a compromise plan in the full Senate.

But much work still remains on the package, and Senate Republicans made clear after the committee vote that they will continue to fight the bill.

"It's going to cost us an arm and a leg," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. "The costs of this are astronomical."

The House still needs to bring a unified version to the floor, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will begin working with White House staff, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- before bringing a final product to the Senate floor.

If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences before heading to the president's desk.

The 10-year, $829 billion Finance Committee bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.

Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement not enough people would get insured, and premiums would jump for everyone else.

The road to the Tuesday vote was paved with bickering and complaints. At the start of discussion, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee said that he's still concerned about the potential for more government control over health care.

Sen. Charles Grassley's comments, and those of other Republicans, aired the lingering partisan divisions on the panel, even as Baucus stressed that his bill is a "balanced plan" that should win bipartisan support and eventually pass the full Senate.

"With this markup nearing its conclusion, we can now see clearly that the bill continues its march leftward," Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

[JackAssJim]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by JackAssJim

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Bachman, Turner Overdrive.

[rosco rathbone]

Socialism here we come!

[JackAssJim]

Originally Posted by koalabear

Bachman, Turner Overdrive.

There's never been any reason.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by JackAssJim

There's never been any reason.

Head East.

[vetteman]

Typical always governing against the will of the people:


Health Care Reform
44% Favor Health Care Reform, 50% Oppose


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Typical always governing against the will of the people:


Health Care Reform
44% Favor Health Care Reform, 50% Oppose


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

But it is free.

[tinylittlegnat]

Originally Posted by rosco rathbone

Socialism here we come!

Thank god we will be joining the civilized world.

[Beco]

Originally Posted by tinylittlegnat

Thank god we will be joining the civilized world.

and that, says it all....

[tinylittlegnat]

Originally Posted by Beco

and that, says it all....

[vetteman]

PRESS RELEASES

McConnell Statement on Finance Committee Proposal
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the Finance Committee vote on partisan health care reform:

“Sen. Snowe called me this morning to let me know that while she continues to have serious, substantive policy reservations with this proposal, she wanted to keep the process moving. I share her concerns about the direction of this bill once it leaves the committee, and her call for transparency before we vote to proceed to any bill on the floor.

"The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate. But what we do know is that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover. We know it will slash a half-trillion dollars from seniors’ Medicare, add new taxes and raise premiums. That’s not reform.”

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.c...318892&start=1

[LadyFunkenstein]

It would really benefit this country to do away with insurance altogether for routine care, and go straight back to being cash-based. The per-person costs would go do considerably, people would have an incentive to take care of their bodies, people would no longer hold on to a job they really no longer want because their health insurance is tied there, we'd go back to having neighborhood doctors again, and there would be more time to interact with the doctors. A nice local doctor with a small staff and low overhead could be close by because he isn't paying all the fees associated with getting paid by filing five pieces of paperwork per visit.

[Killswitch]

Originally Posted by vetteman

[

Just say No.

No no noo no. I got mine, no no no no no.

I get free govment health care through the va fuck everyone else no no no no no.


Whats your solution? Other than saying. No to everything.

[The_Trouvere]

Originally Posted by Killswitch

Just say No.

No no noo no. I got mine, no no no no no.

I get free govment health care through the va fuck everyone else no no no
no no.


Whats your solution? Other than saying. No to everything.

This is the basic attitude behind all that talk about "freedom" on the right:
I've got mine. Get yours or get lost.

[The_Trouvere]

**************

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by Killswitch

Just say No.

No no noo no. I got mine, no no no no no.

I get free govment health care through the va fuck everyone else no no no no no.


Whats your solution? Other than saying. No to everything.

Doesn't matter what any Republican thinks, you have plenty of Democrat votes to do anything you want. So, get on with it.

[firespin]

Originally Posted by LadyFunkenstein

It would really benefit this country to do away with insurance altogether for routine care, and go straight back to being cash-based. The per-person costs would go do considerably, people would have an incentive to take care of their bodies, people would no longer hold on to a job they really no longer want because their health insurance is tied there, we'd go back to having neighborhood doctors again, and there would be more time to interact with the doctors. A nice local doctor with a small staff and low overhead could be close by because he isn't paying all the fees associated with getting paid by filing five pieces of paperwork per visit.

Well said.

Insurance is a high overhead way to pay for likely expenses.

[RobDownSouth]

Like Republicans used to say....get it out of committee and let's have an up-or-down vote!

[LadyFunkenstein]

Originally Posted by firespin

Well said.

Insurance is a high overhead way to pay for likely expenses.

Don't you find it peculiar that neither republicans nor democrats will talk about that? I guess the insurance companies really have all of our politicians by the balls.

[Drixxx]

Originally Posted by LadyFunkenstein

Don't you find it peculiar that neither republicans nor democrats will talk about that? I guess the insurance companies really have all of our politicians by the balls.

The problem isn't insurance. It's "for profit" insurance. Just as a "for profit" fire department would be a disaster. And no, I don't want to go back to neighborhood fire brigades either.

[Oliver Clozoff]

Originally Posted by LadyFunkenstein

It would really benefit this country to do away with insurance altogether for routine care, and go straight back to being cash-based. The per-person costs would go do considerably, people would have an incentive to take care of their bodies, people would no longer hold on to a job they really no longer want because their health insurance is tied there, we'd go back to having neighborhood doctors again, and there would be more time to interact with the doctors. A nice local doctor with a small staff and low overhead could be close by because he isn't paying all the fees associated with getting paid by filing five pieces of paperwork per visit.

I think China did something like this - they formerly had a national health insurance system and now have a mostly patient-pay-for-service model. People there now save ~25% of their income because if you get sick, it's on you...

[LadyFunkenstein]

Originally Posted by Drixxx

The problem isn't insurance. It's "for profit" insurance. Just as a "for profit" fire department would be a disaster. And no, I don't want to go back to neighborhood fire brigades either.

Why have insurance at all? Just nationalize (for real) our health care system altogether, then there would be no need for insurance at all - it's just a middle man anyway. Nationalizing it would also be a better option than what we have, and a better option than this health plan in the works.

[Drixxx]

Originally Posted by LadyFunkenstein

Why have insurance at all? Just nationalize (for real) our health care system altogether, then there would be no need for insurance at all - it's just a middle man anyway. Nationalizing it would also be a better option than what we have, and a better option than this health plan in the works.

I agree. It's just not politically feasible right now.

[firespin]

Originally Posted by LadyFunkenstein

Don't you find it peculiar that neither republicans nor democrats will talk about that? I guess the insurance companies really have all of our politicians by the balls.

Democrats want to appease those who want somebody else to pay for it. If you take out the 3rd party payer, it gets harder to make that work.

Some Republicans advocate changing the system, but you're right, more of them don't see any need to rock the boat.

Originally Posted by Drixxx

The problem isn't insurance. It's "for profit" insurance. Just as a "for profit" fire department would be a disaster. And no, I don't want to go back to neighborhood fire brigades either.

Many of the health insurers are non-profit, e.g. Blue Cross / Blue Shield is non-profit in many locations, as are the majority of hospitals. The problem is that non-profits don't have as much motivation to drive out costs, which is why for-profits can compete with them effectively.