Reply With Quote
To be fair, the article should read, "Key Republicans would reject ANY plan."
Sen. Max Baucus unveils his healthcare overhaul plan
Baucus' proposal would require all Americans to get insurance, but it does not include a public option. Key Republicans reject the plan.
Sen. Max Baucus is touting his healthcare plan as a road map for agreement. (Haraz N. Ghanbari / Associated Press
By Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook September 16, 2009 | 8:32 a.m.
Reporting from Washington - Amid fresh signs of tensions among Democrats over healthcare, a leading senator today released the last major proposal that Congress will consider as it attempts to refashion the American healthcare system, a $856-billion bill that includes a mix of sweeping new insurance regulations but no new government insurance plan.
The legislation from Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) fell short of his goal of charting a legislative course that could bring Republicans and Democrats together for the most ambitious overhaul of the health system since the 1960s.
Under the bill, nearly everyone would be required to get insurance or pay a penalty. But insurers, in turn, would not be able to deny coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions or to cancel policies after people got sick, as happens in the current system.
And the federal government would offer subsidies to help lower-income people buy coverage.
Three key GOP lawmakers who had been working with Baucus for months have rejected his bill, all but ensuring that any healthcare legislation that passes this year will win no more than one or two Republican votes.
There are also signs that Baucus' proposal faces trouble among liberal Democrats, who have demanded that Congress allow the government to offer health insurance plans to the public in compe ion with private insurers.
The completion of Baucus' bill marks the end of one phase of the healthcare debate in which senior congressional Democrats developed a series of three healthcare proposals -- one in the House and two in the Senate. Now, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill will work to unify their party behind a final bill that could pass the House and Senate and make it to President Obama's desk.
Baucus today touted his plan as a road map for agreement.
"We worked to build a balanced, common-sense package that ensures quality, affordable coverage and doesn't add a dime to the deficit," the senator said. "Now we can finally pass legislation that will rein in healthcare costs and deliver quality, affordable care to the American people."
Few expect that will happen with much GOP support.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blasted the Baucus bill. "Americans don't think a bigger role for government in healthcare would improve the system," he said. "Yet despite this, every proposal we've seen would lead to a vast expansion of the government's role in the healthcare system."
Many Democrats already believe that Baucus' bill does not have enough of a role for government, arguing that a government-sponsored health plan would be the best way to ensure that consumers who are not covered through work will be able to find an insurance plan they can afford.
Healthcare bills developed by senior House Democrats and by the Senate health committee both include provisions to create a so-called public option.
The Baucus bill instead would create of a series of private health insurance cooperatives, which Baucus and other centrist Democrats say could offer the same protections as a new government plan.
Other debates are flaring over how to penalize employers who do not provide coverage, how much aid the government should give to consumers to help them buy insurance and how to pay for the final package.
To help pay for his bill, Baucus is proposing a series of new excise tax on insurance plans worth more than $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for families, and new fees on insurers, drug makers, device makers and clinical labs.
In contrast, House Democrats rely heavily in their healthcare legislation on a new surtax on high-income taxpayers.
Despite some substantial differences with the other Democratic health bills, however, Baucus' proposal also underscores the broader consensus about how to revamp the nation's ailing health system to expand coverage and tackle rising costs.
The Baucus legislation -- like the other two Democratic health bills -- is designed to largely preserve the current system of employment-based health coverage.
Layered on top of that system, the legislation would create a series of highly regulated, state-based insurance marketplaces, or exchange, where millions of people who do not get coverage from their employer or from the government would be able to shop for insurance.
These people would be able to select from a range of plans offered by private insurers, as well as one potentially offered by a member-owned cooperative.
Like other legislation, the bill would also substantially expand eligibility for Medicaid, the 44-year-old state-federal health insurance program for the poor, which in some states currently covers only poor children and their families.
Under all the Democratic bills, Medicaid would be opened to all of America's poorest residents, regardless of their family status.
Provisions in Baucus' bill would also set up a series of new initiatives in Medicare to make that gargantuan federal program more efficient, including incentives for hospitals to reduce re-admissions and for doctors to do more to coordinate their patients' care.
These initiatives, though the least controversial parts of the healthcare legislation, are seen by many experts as crucial to reducing the growth in Medicare spending, which threatens to essentially bankrupt the program by 2017.
To be fair, the article should read, "Key Republicans would reject ANY plan."
Even illegals?!? *preparing pitchfork and torch*
Why does this have to be included ONLY in a MAJOR piece of legislation? Why can't they just pass the bill that's gonna save $500 Billion (Obama's numbers) in Medicare because it should just be done?Provisions in Baucus' bill would also set up a series of new initiatives in Medicare to make that gargantuan federal program more efficient, including incentives for hospitals to reduce re-admissions and for doctors to do more to coordinate their patients' care.
I can only assume becuase it's bull .
I'm pretty much okay with this part. While in an ideal world I'd like to support the freedom of Americans to choose whether or not to have healthcare the reality is that they're going to end up in emergency rooms and we'll end up taking care of them anyways. Since there's no way for the taxpayer to be free from financial obligations to those people, those people lose out on the freedom to not participate.
Insurers cancelling policies when people get sick is utterly baggish, so stopping them from doing that is fine by me. Pretty much the only valid reason to cancel someone's policy should be non-payment of premiums, or fraud.
I'm okay with not allowing insurance companies to reject pre-existing conditions provided that those people are asked to pay higher premiums than the rest of us. The overweight smoker should be paying more for his insurance than the marathon runner.
An expense that's destined to run amok and threaten the entire system.And the federal government would offer subsidies to help lower-income people buy coverage.
If that's true then somewhere in here is $856 billion of tax hikes."We worked to build a balanced, common-sense package that ensures quality, affordable coverage and doesn't add a dime to the deficit,"
Much better than the public option, but I'd have to see how they're set up and how much taxpayer support they'd receive before having a final opinion.The Baucus bill instead would create of a series of private health insurance cooperatives, which Baucus and other centrist Democrats say could offer the same protections as a new government plan.
Higher costs or lowered quality of care for the already insured.To help pay for his bill, Baucus is proposing a series of new excise tax on insurance plans worth more than $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for families, and new fees on insurers, drug makers, device makers and clinical labs.
Naturally.In contrast, House Democrats rely heavily in their healthcare legislation on a new surtax on high-income taxpayers.
Don't have a problem with this in theory, but again it would depend on how these were set up.Layered on top of that system, the legislation would create a series of highly regulated, state-based insurance marketplaces, or exchange, where millions of people who do not get coverage from their employer or from the government would be able to shop for insurance.
These people would be able to select from a range of plans offered by private insurers, as well as one potentially offered by a member-owned cooperative.
Expanding a program that we already can't fund.Like other legislation, the bill would also substantially expand eligibility for Medicaid, the 44-year-old state-federal health insurance program for the poor, which in some states currently covers only poor children and their families.
Under all the Democratic bills, Medicaid would be opened to all of America's poorest residents, regardless of their family status.
Sounds like a bunch of smoke and mirrors to play the over-used, under-delivered politician promise of paying for new programs through "eliminating fraud and waste".Provisions in Baucus' bill would also set up a series of new initiatives in Medicare to make that gargantuan federal program more efficient, including incentives for hospitals to reduce re-admissions and for doctors to do more to coordinate their patients' care.
These initiatives, though the least controversial parts of the healthcare legislation, are seen by many experts as crucial to reducing the growth in Medicare spending, which threatens to essentially bankrupt the program by 2017.
Nice breakdown, CS. I enjoy the topicality.
A couple of problems I see (what I see being limited to what's in the OP) is that this plan still doesn't do anything to address what we're going to do with those who don't have insurance. With the govt making it law to have insurance the uninsured should primarily consist of illegals. But there's still going to be those who don't have insurance for one reason or another. What do we do with them?
Also, how do we enforce the law requiring people to be insured?
mandate = "40M new (subsidized) clients for Baucus' $$ contributors"
no public option = 40M new clients can only buy from Baucus' $$ contributors.
How ing transparent can he get?
BS. I object to being forced to purchase anything, especially something that involves something I haven't done in over 2 decades (visit a doctors office under an insurance plan, I was 10 the last time).
In reality, the majority of people who are even remotely responsible do not go to emergency rooms. It is not an inevitability that someone who doesn't have insurance will end up in an emergency room so don't treat it as such.
There's also the fact that requiring insurance basically amounts to a subsidy for the industry, which is just plain asinine.
Are you talking just cancellation, or non-renewal as well? Also, add in insured request to valid reasons to cancel.
As long as insurance companies are allowed to adjust cost per risk factor, there's no real problem with not allowing rejection due to pre-existing condition. Of course, what it will amount to is the people with pre-existing conditions won't be able to afford a plan anyway (and so will end up uncovered, and potentially having to pay a fine if insurance is compulsory).
btw, I'm for a
1. strong public option
2. a mandate (every resident must be insured, or like uninsured drivers, get penalized)
4. full amnesty for illegal aliens, after they pay a fine for , and get in line for residency permits behind legit applicants for residency permits.
5. sealing the borders
6. a national ID card and national residency cards (for non-citizens) that must always be carried, just like a DL+insurance papers for drivers.
7. really nasty fines for employers who employ illegals.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-16-2009 at 02:26 PM.
Unless there's legislation that prevents hospitals from treating people without coverage (or cash I suppose) then there's no way to limit the consequences of not having insurance to just the people who don't have insurance. I agree it doesn't seem fair for me to tell you that you have to buy insurance, but then I don't think it's fair for me to have to foot the bill if you end up in an emergency room. Unfortunately there's no win-win situation here, so someone has to give up something.
Just cancellation by the insurance company. Individuals should certainly have the right to cancel or not renew their own policies should they so choose. Although in the event that coverage does become legally mandated, one could only cancel if they were going to be covered on a different plan.Are you talking just cancellation, or non-renewal as well? Also, add in insured request to valid reasons to cancel.
Probably, but that situation doesn't seem any worse than things are now.As long as insurance companies are allowed to adjust cost per risk factor, there's no real problem with not allowing rejection due to pre-existing condition. Of course, what it will amount to is the people with pre-existing conditions won't be able to afford a plan anyway (and so will end up uncovered, and potentially having to pay a fine if insurance is compulsory).
Why do you assume that if a person without insurance ends up in the emergency room, the taxpayers have to foot the bill? The hospital will bill the person directly and people without insurance can set up payment plans. It's only the irresponsible people who don't pay - so we're going to force them to buy insurance? If they won't pay for their medical bill, what makes you think they're going to pay an insurance premium?
If that's the case then what's the point of trying to get more people insured?
Assuming your home hasn't been burgled or burnt down in the past 2 decades, do you also object to taxes for firefighters or policemen?
Because you should go to the doctor deos not mean you should be forced to pay for the possibility.
There is the matter of personal choice that everyone seems to just completely overlook when it comes to Healthcare.
Cant argue that, but ultimately, the taxpayer does end up paying the hospital in a round-about sort of way (hospitals have many different ways fo absorbing lost revenue to uninsured patients, none of them really legal).
I agree, but now we're both racist.
"I can only assume becuase it's bull ."
Of course it's bull . $500B saved in Medicare/Medicaid outlays is $500B revenues lost by health care system/providers.
Magik Negro got the AMA/docs to support health care reform by agreeing NOT to cut his planned $225B/10 years in docs' payments. total bull .
"Controlling costs" means lowering SOMEBODY's revenues. Those somebody's have $Bs to fight their revenue reduction.
Actually, it means raising taxes, whether by excises on insurance companies (Baucus bill), or soaking the rich (House bill). Expecting corresponding cuts elsewhere is a bit pollyanna-ish.
No, I don't.
I also wouldn't have a problem with the government completely taking over emergency healthcare services and running it off of taxes.
Here's the difference: In your example, I pay the government the provide people and equipment for protective services.
In this one: I'm being punished because I refuse to pay a private company for a service I don't use.
On a side note, in the past 2 decades my house has been burgaled twice, my truck has been broken into about 10 times, and a fire broke out just outside my house. Police and fire department were completely useless on all occassions, and stupidity in the fire department almost made it a close call preventing my house from actually catching on fire.
I actually had to fight the fire myself for about 20-30 minutes to keep everything from burning, then they used high pressure water on a magnesium fire and lit a tree on fire. It was pretty ridiculous considering there is a fire station about 1.5 miles from my house that doesn't serve my street. Then of course we got charged a wad for placing a 911 call.
It's true. The GOP is catering to irrationality, because it makes them look good.To be fair, the article should read, "Key Republicans would reject ANY plan."
To recap, this has no public option and many GOP members are against it.
Should drivers have the freedom to choose not to buy liability insurance? Seems to me like you could draw some kind of parallel betwen auto insurance and healthcare insurance. If I choose not to buy car insurance and I crash into you, my freedom of choice caused you direct financial harm. Is it really any different if I choose not to buy health insurance and as a result you get harmed financially either through higher taxes or higher insurance premiums when the hospital overcharges your insurance provider? I'm all for freedom of choice, but not when that choice ends up in making someone else responsible for your actions.
The problem with your analogy though is that you say you don't use the service, but you'll change your mind the instant you need it. If you get into a car wreck you're not going to tell the EMS to just leave you on the side of the road because you don't have insurance. You're going to use the service and then it becomes a crap shoot whether or not the hospital is going to be able to recoup the cost of that service from you. If they can't, someone is getting stuck paying your bill.
This is more of an issue of the quality of service you received opposed to whether or not you used the service. You got crap service, but you still used the service.On a side note, in the past 2 decades my house has been burgaled twice, my truck has been broken into about 10 times, and a fire broke out just outside my house. Police and fire department were completely useless on all occassions, and stupidity in the fire department almost made it a close call preventing my house from actually catching on fire.
I actually had to fight the fire myself for about 20-30 minutes to keep everything from burning, then they used high pressure water on a magnesium fire and lit a tree on fire. It was pretty ridiculous considering there is a fire station about 1.5 miles from my house that doesn't serve my street. Then of course we got charged a wad for placing a 911 call.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
