posted
Liberals Ready to 'Fight' Over Concessions in Senate Health Bill
Liberal outrage over the Senate's health care reform bill is reaching a boiling point, with a number of organizations, unions and House Democrats warning that the watered-down version they see creeping toward a vote will not survive in its current form.
Liberal outrage over the Senate's health care reform bill is reaching a boiling point, with a number of organizations, unions and House Democrats warning that the watered-down version they see creeping toward a vote will not survive in its current form.
The warnings suggest the controversial government-run insurance plan, as well as a proposed expansion of Medicare, could be brought back to the table down the road even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped those ideas from his package -- mainly to appease moderates like Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.
Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been the most vocal opponent of the Senate bill, calling for the Senate to kill the package and writing in a column Thursday that it would "do more harm than good" for the country.
"I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill," he wrote in an opinion article published in the Washington Post.
But the former Vermont governor, who has no vote in Congress, isn't the only one with a gripe.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer complained Tuesday about the "psychology of one" in the Senate -- a not-so-veiled shot at Lieberman. He said the House would not rubber stamp the Senate bill once it returns to his chamber without changes.
"That's not going to happen," he said. "There are significant differences."
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who has become somewhat of a health care reform spokesman for the liberals in his party, has said his colleagues are reaching a "tipping point" and a "breaking point" in terms of the concessions being made on the Senate side.
"The insurance lobby is taking over," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., was quoted as saying in Roll Call.
While Senate liberals are mostly expected to approve their bill despite misgivings, House liberals don't seem to be quite so agreeable. Influential groups like the Service Employees International Union are now urging their Capitol Hill allies to stand up against the Senate version. SEIU President Andy Stern wrote in a letter to members Thursday that it's time to "fight like hell" for "meaningful reform."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to show her hand on the matter Wednesday, telling reporters that she won't make a call on the Senate bill until she sees it. She suggested she's open to compromise.
"We do know that, between the two bills, we have the makings of a ... big difference for the American people," she said. "And our members are very enthusiastic about our House bill, and we want to defend our position. At some point, though, the legislative process will say that they have to yield on things and we have to yield on things."
Still, the protests from Dean and others seem to have gotten under the Obama administration's skin, with a health care bill seemingly so close to passage. The administration has spent most of the health care debate battling Republicans' accusations that the bill will drive up costs for individuals and the government, and trying to win over skeptical moderates.
After Dean called the bill an "insurance company's dream," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said: "I don't think the insurance companies have gotten the memo." He said Dean's claims about how limited the health care benefits would be for average Americans "quite simply weren't true."
Gibbs even reached back to Dean's failed presidential bid in 2004, when Dean made health care legislation reform a central part of his campaign, and pointed out that the current plan by Obama conquers obstacles Dean's plan could not.
"There's two differences in what Dr. Dean was doing in 2004 and what President Obama is doing in 2009," Gibbs said. "One, more people are uninsured and more people are losing their coverage because people can't afford it. Secondly, we actually deal with costs."
Gibbs compared Dean with members of the Senate and his own party who support the current Senate bill, even with compromises.
"Understand, Senator (Tom) Harkin, who shares many of the political views that Howard Dean has, supports the bill -- Sherrod Brown, many other progressives in the caucus ... because they understand that passing a bill covering 30 million Americans that don't have health insurance is a giant step forward," Gibbs said.
Republicans, who are nearly unified against the bill, seem to be taking a dose of pleasure from the intra-party feuding.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor Thursday that he's in "complete agreement" with Dean.
"You know if you live long enough all things can happen," he said. "I now find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Howard Dean who says we should stop this bill in its tracks, we should go back to the beginning and have an overall bipartisan agreement. Dr. Dean, I am with you."
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their own party is split, why? Because the people that voted them in are getting ready to vote them out.
Even Howard Dean says this health care bill is loaded with crap and it isnt good for America. All Obama wants is SOMETHING...something to claim a big victory.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Their own party is split, why? Because the people that voted them in are getting ready to vote them out.
Even Howard Dean says this health care bill is loaded with crap and it isnt good for America. All Obama wants is SOMETHING...something to claim a big victory.
They'll probably get a large banner "Mission Complete". For Obama this bill will be his waterloo, too bad.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone tell me....or give me, one good reason why the government should have anything to do with health care?
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: Can anyone tell me....or give me, one good reason why the government should have anything to do with health care?
sure it's simple:
“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
very strang that "promote" should be interpreted as take complete control of....
Gonna have to be much more convincing than that.
Especially when everything that the Fed. Government has touched to date is pretty much operating in a tax payer subsidized form of bankruptcy.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
something about securing the blah blah blah OUR LIBERTY and that of our POSTERTY....blah blah blah.....
Don't cherry pick.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: blah blah blah indeed.
In that case, I am waiting.
I am sure that something with substance is forthcoming.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: very strang that "promote" should be interpreted as take complete control of....
Gonna have to be much more convincing than that.
Especially when everything that the Fed. Government has touched to date is pretty much operating in a tax payer subsidized form of bankruptcy.
these days? it's been going on since WW2:
Basics of Depression Economics By Steven Stoft, March 12, 2009 The housing-bubble burst, banks and the stock market have collapsed, but a new economic danger has now taken control. Consumers have cut spending like a no time since the Great Depression. Worse yet, they've got excellent reasons to spend less, and that's not about to change. People aren't buying, so business isn't selling, so employees are getting laid off—by the millions. At this rate we could be at 10 percent unemployment by early June. That's getting close to depression territory. The Great Depression was horrible and went on for 12 years. We can't let this happen again. But do we know what to do? Amazingly, we do. Banking is complicated, but lack of demand (buying) is pretty simple. The solution was figured out in the depression and applied from 1940 to 1944. And it worked like you would not believe. The GDP grew 75% in those four years. Five times faster than under Reagan-Bush, three times faster than under Clinton. Never before nor since has the U.S. economy grown this fast, and I don't think any other economy has either. Starting from the Great Depression, the U.S. build the mighty industrial machine that won World War II. So what was the trick? Enormous, wasteful government spending. In those four years, the government borrowed and spend the equivalent of $15 trillion in today's economy. And the spending was for economically useless battleships and bombs. These do not make our economy one tiny bit more productive. Economically, no spending is more wasteful.
Individuals must and should spend less, but this is terrible for businesses and their employees. We cannot ask individuals to spend what they can't afford or do not have. To get us out of this trap, we must ask our government to do what we cannot do ourselves. This is why we have a government.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will call everyone that I know in Japan and thank them......
War is good economics.....always has been. It promotes jobs (assuming they are not farmed out).
However, I think that there is probably a good deal more to this story. Everything comes at a price.
For instance, this war did more than any other event to introduce women into the work force. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it signaled the end of a household being able to thrive (not survive) on a single income.
This happened because when the heros returned home and sought employment, they were now competing against a excess of available labor in many jobs. This abundance of labor served to supress wages. The result was that both adults in the house now had to work. It has been that way ever since.
I realize that certain social accomplishments were achieved as a result. These points I will not argue. However, the government did what it should have done....provide protection and defense for its citizenry. They deserve no credit ending the depression (at least not as portrayed in your argument). You can thank the emporer of Japan if you like.....or industrialist of the ilk of Henry Ford (nazi sympathizer, I know....but you get the idea).
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
but it signaled the end of a household being able to thrive (not survive) on a single income.
true...
i'm not sure how you can say it didn't end the depression tho...
no rational economist will argue that the depression was not ended by WW2... some try to blame how long it lasted on "welfare programs" but it really lasted so long because there was no lending. no lending because people didn't spend etc.etc...
my receipts are down this year, my avg sale price is down too, but i anticipated this and made sure to make less expensive work available and my number of peices sold is way up...
if war is so good for the economy no matter what? then how come we just collapsed? we're fighting two..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We will get some sort of health care reform before Obamsa is done with this term,you can take that to the bank,if not this year then with in the next three.
Don't forget this is the closest as any President has got.
Obama is a real fighter and he has not played all his cards yet don't get to over joyful yet my fine republican friends.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
WWII definately ended the depression, but it had nothing to do with our government, the nature of our government, or whatever political party was in power (dems, I know).
Rather, it was the fact that Japan forced us to war. Our industrialization at the time allowed us to win it (coupled with tech)and audacity not to fail (that is an arrogance uniquely and blessedly American).
Prior to Japan's attack, the prevailing sentiment in the U.S. was: "It's not our war."
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: No...perhaps I mis-spoke.
WWII definately ended the depression, but it had nothing to do with our government, the nature of our government, or whatever political party was in power (dems, I know).
Rather, it was the fact that Japan forced us to war. Our industrialization at the time allowed us to win it (coupled with tech)and audacity not to fail (that is an arrogance uniquely and blessedly American).
Prior to Japan's attack, the prevailing sentiment in the U.S. was: "It's not our war."
OK, i agree. it wasn't a plan. it just happened. but the economics of it are undeniable.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WWII was the new deal on steroids as far as the depression goes the New Deal was working unemployment had gone from a high of 25% to 16% right before the war.
It would have taken some more time but we would have worked our way out by ourselves if we had not gone to war.
WWII is a good example of when a nation has a common goal and almost everything is directed from a single source above like a government. WWII is more of a case for socialism than free enterprise. A part of history conservatives don't like to talk over to much.
WWII is also a case of the loyalty of Americans,a people that had been kicked hard by a system. And yet when we were attacked remained loyal and gave there lives if necessary for that same system that pooped on them.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: We will get some sort of health care reform before Obamsa is done with this term,you can take that to the bank,if not this year then with in the next three.
Don't forget this is the closest as any President has got.
Obama is a real fighter and he has not played all his cards yet don't get to over joyful yet my fine republican friends.
(sad shake of head)
Their won't be anything to take to the bank after this gets going, Ray...
And you're right about Obama not playing all his cards...
There's still the thumbscrews and rack left...just as Nelson...
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes you are right Tex some people laugh at agriculture but as far as this country goes it was the real backbone for America's success. We have always had the means to feed ourself well and it has paid off for us. Plus agriculture forms one of the most solid financial foundations in the world.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
there is not enough cheap oil in all three to do it. ANWR at it peak production capacity would only add 1% to world daily production.
as for shale? there is not an economical way to get it converted to usable oil even today. it is more like wax than oil, it would be a good replacemnt for coal tho
more offshore oil? that's even worse than ANWR in proven reserves there's not enough there to make a dent in our total consumption.....
we need a dozen more nuclear power plants and we need to switchc to electric for cars...
wheni was kid? everybody wanted nuclear power they just overpromised on safety and cost so peopl got upset.
nobody will take the waste right now and that's the main sticking point in building new plants...
why don't you guys in Utah want it? you have desert....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying we don't need to change our lifestyles\economy glass. That's not really a debate. We do. But it's how and how fast that is causing problems. You can't FORCE an economic paradigm shift like that in the time frame that most 'climate change' proponents want.
Even if you could stop the entire U.S. fossil fuel consumption tomorrow; China, India and other developing nations will pick up the slack within a couple of decades easily. Also, our reliance on plastics for everything from medical equiptment to car parts will always need to be filled from some source due to their unique needs.
Oil will be needed for decades if not centuries even if we ween both our vehicles and homes off of petroleum power. Using the resources we have makes both economic and security sense.
As for the Nuclear power problems, I don't see a good answer to the waste issues. Spent fuel rods are dangerous for centuries, noone wants that in their back yard. As for 'out in the desert'? Do a quick google search for downwinder. even the safest facilities cannot promise full protection.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't FORCE an economic paradigm shift like that in the time frame that most 'climate change' proponents want.
sure we can. we've done it before too.
my first computer a little less than 30 years ago now, cost me just about 3 grand with tax, i can now buy a laptop that's literally thousands of times more powerful for about 750$
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if you could stop the entire U.S. fossil fuel consumption tomorrow; China, India and other developing nations will pick up the slack within a couple of decades easily.
now you see why it is so important to put all of our best minds and efforts to fixing this problem ASAP?
we account for 25% of the world GDP and 25% of the oil consumption... those numbers are not identical (give or take) by accident...
it is the most important problem facing the world today.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nelson To Provide 60th Vote For Senate Health Bill This morning, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) held a press conference to announce that he would provide the 60th vote for cloture on the Senate bill with the manager’s amendment.” Nelson praised the Obama administration and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for addressing his concerns but warned his colleagues, “I reserve the right to vote against cloture vote if there are material changes to this agreement in the conference report. ”
Abortion and Medicaid expansion may have been the largest sticking points to winning over Nelson’s votes, but Nelson dodged a question about the extra Medicaid matching funds for his state and instead highlighted the amendment’s changes to flexible savings accounts (FSA), rural hospitals, and a new report that would study successful malpractice reforms “to find out more information out about it,” Nelson said.
The abortion language — which allows states to prohibit abortion in their exchanges and requires strict segregation of private and public funds — may be the most significant alteration. In the video below, Nelson lays out the compromise:
First of all there are 12 states that have banned abortion in public plans and there are 5 states that have banned abortion in both private and public plans. We wanted to make sure in this legislation that it was clear that there was no preemption of the right of states to continue to make those bans. “My chief of staff and I basically developed this idea…We already agreed how to account for the money, the premium dollars so finding then the mechanism for coverage was the next. And this we just stumbled on to,” Nelson admitted before confirming that abortion was the last unresolved issue.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
New Senate Bill Achieves Greater Deficit Reduction, On Track To Pass By Christmas The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the merged Senate health care bill, incorporating the manager’s amendment, concludes that the legislation would cost $871 billion over 10 years, reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and by $1.3 trillion over 20 years. The bill would extend insurance to 31 million individuals, covering approximately 94% by 2019.
Here is how the new merged bill compares to the earlier version:
Senate Bill New Managers Amendment Difference Costs Reduce deficits: $130B/10yrs Cost: $848B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $447B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $374B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $27B/10yrs Reduce deficits: $132B/10yrs Cost: $871B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $436B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $395B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $40B/10yrs Reduce deficits: +$2B/10yrs Cost: +$23B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: -$11B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: +$21B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: +$13B/10yrs Insured Uninsured reduced by: 31M Uninsured in 2019: 24M In Exchanges: 25M | Public Plan: 3-4M In Medicaid: 15M Uninsured reduced by: 31M Uninsured in 2019: 23M In Exchanges: 26M In Medicaid: 15M Uninsured reduced by: No Change Uninsured in 2019: -1M In Exchanges: +1M In Medicaid: No Change Revenue Mandate penalty: $8B/10yrs Free rider penalty: $28B/10yrs New taxes: $238B/10yrs Excise tax: $149B/10yrs Payroll tax: $54B/10yrs Mandate penalty: $15B/10yrs Free rider penalty: $28B/10yrs New taxes: $264B/10yrs Excise tax: $149B/10yrs Payroll tax: $87B/10yrs Mandate penalty: +$7B/10yrs Free rider penalty: No Change New taxes: +$26B/10yrs Excise tax: No Change Payroll tax: +$33B/10yrs Medicare and Medicaid Total savings: $491B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $118B/10yrs Medicare Commission (IMAB): $23B/2015–2019 Total savings: $483B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $118B/10yrs Medicare Commission (IMAB): $28B/2015–2019 Total savings: -$8B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: No Change Medicare Commission (IMAB): +$5B/2015–2019
Some of the changes include:
- Holding Insurers Accountable: Insurers in large group market have to maintain a medical loss ration of 85%. Insurers in the small group market have to maintain a medical loss ration of 80%. Insurance companies who jack up their rates will be barred from competing in the exchange.
- Regulations For Children: Starting immediately children cannot be denied health coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
- Nonprofit Insurers Excluded From Tax: Nonprofit insurers are excluded from the tax on the insurance industry.
- Employers Can Offer Vouchers: Individuals and families under 400% of the federal poverty line who receive employer-sponsored coverage and spend 8-9.8% of their income on premiums, could “convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges.
- Changes To Medicare Commission: The Medicare Commission will now examine the effect programs have on National Health Expenditures and will be prohibited from increasing premiums. The committee will make non binding recommendations if the Medicare spending rate is below or on target.
- New Choice Of Coverage From Nonprofits: Individuals could enroll in a national health insurance plan managed by the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress.
- Investment In Community Health Centers/Rural Areas: A substantial investment in Community Health Centers and more funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers.
- Expands Small Business Tax Credit: The credits begin a year earlier – in 2010 and small businesses are eligible for up to six years. The wage thresholds for small business tax credits is also increased.
- Satisfying Gun Owners: Does not require individuals to disclose whether they own a gun. Gun ownership cannot be factored into premiums or coverage decisions.
- New Taxes: Increases the payroll tax on high income earners from 0.5% to 0.9%; the tax begins in 2013. A 10% tax is imposed on indoor tanning services and the ‘botox tax’ is removed.
Majority Leader Reid will file three cloture motions tonight and the Senate could pass the final legislation on Thursday, December 24th at 7pm. The Senate is expected to vote for cloture on the manager’s amendment Monday at 1am. The second cloture vote on the substitute is scheduled for Tuesday morning and the final cloture vote on the underlining bill could occur Wednesday afternoon.
Note: my colleague Emma Sandoe of DC Progressive contributed greatly to this post. Comments9SharePermalink
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
UPDATE 1-US Senate health bill alters company taxes, profits 4:47pm EST * Reid plan phases in insurer taxes, caps profits
* Medical device taxes delayed to 2011
* No "Botax," tanning taxes to raise $2.7 billion (Adds details from amendments, industry reaction, background)
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Proposed changes to the U.S. Senate's pending healthcare reform bill include measures targeting industry profits and taxes, and a move to ensure health insurers spend a certain amount on medical care, according to a document released on Saturday.
The changes, proposed as a group of amendments, must be approved by the Senate before they can be added to the massive legislation that lawmakers are struggling to finish before Christmas despite delaying tactics by Republicans and a severe snowstorm in the nation's capital. Democrats appear to have pulled together the 60 votes needed to pass a final bill.
The taxes are aimed at helping pay for the healthcare overhaul aimed at expanding access to health insurance and controlling costs, President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. [See ID:nN19253925]
Under the proposal by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, health insurance plans for large groups would have to spend at least 85 cents out of every dollar on medical costs. That means just 15 cents could go toward overhead and executive salaries, among other things. Small groups or individual plans would have to spend at least 80 cents on the dollar for care.
That proportion of spending, known as a "medical loss ratio," has varied widely and is eyed closely by Wall Street due to its major impact on profits.
Consumer groups and other critics have long argued that insurers aim to trim medical spending and raise customer costs in order to boost profits and please shareholders, a charge the industry has denied, saying premium increases mirror rising healthcare costs overall.
Taxes on for-profit health insurance companies such as Aetna Inc , Humana Inc and UnitedHealth Group Inc also saw significant changes that may end up being positive for the industry.
The original Senate bill taxed the health insurance industry a fixed $6.7 billion a year. But under Saturday's proposal, the industry would face just a $2 billion tax in 2011, with increases over time to $10 billion in 2017.
Reid also allowed health insurers to keep their current anti-trust exemptions, something House of Representatives Democrats did away with in their Nov. 7 version of the bill. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy vowed to seek removal of the protection as work on the bill continues.
A spokesman for the Association for Health Insurance Plans said the lobby group was reviewing the changes.
Obama, in his weekly address on Saturday, said other tough insurance measures in the bill would help protect patients and hold insurance companies accountable.
TANNING TAX
Additionally, the bill's revisions delayed a tax on medical device manufacturers until 2011. The total tax on the industry would be unchanged at nearly $20 billion over 10 years, according to a review by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
Makers of medical devices want to delay the tax until 2013. Advanced Medical Technology Association spokeswoman Wanda Moebius said the lobby group would keep pressing for changes that would be "more appropriate to allow companies time to adjust their operations."
Reid's changes also removed a 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery, wrinkle-filling injections and other similar procedures, replacing it with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salons estimated to raise $2.7 billion through 2019.
The "Botax" could have lowered demand for breast implants, wrinkle-fillers and other similar products made by companies such as Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp , Johnson & Johnson , and Botox-maker Allergan Inc .
Industry analysts had expressed concern that changes could also target companies that administer drug-benefit plans, such as Medco Health Solutions Inc and Express Scripts Inc . But the amendment did not address the companies, also known as pharmacy benefit managers.
Additionally, a closely watched proposal that took aim at the use of doctors' prescribing habits for marketing purposes was excluded. Such a measure had investors on edge since it would have been a major blow to IMS Health Inc , which is in the process of bought in a deal worth $4 billion.
There could be more changes before a final bill becomes law.
The first of two votes on the group of amendments is expected early on Monday before the Senate votes on the full legislation possibly as late as Christmas Eve. Additional revisions to the bill could still come as lawmakers work to combine the Senate's measure with one passed by the House. (Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Peter Cooney
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
