This is topic Liberals Ready to 'Fight' Over Concessions in Senate Health Bill in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/005623.html

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by jordanreed on :
 
so insightful!
 

---

Posted by Lockman on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jordanreed:
so insightful!

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
blah blah blah indeed.

---

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.

---

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."

---

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...
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
WWII was financed by parity in agriculture.

---

quote:

---

Plus agriculture forms one of the most solid financial foundations in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:

quote:

---

Plus agriculture forms one of the most solid financial foundations in the world.

---

Amen.

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people."

-Henry Kissinger

---

which is why, whether you are a climate change beleiver or non-beleiver we have to get ourselves off of oil...
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Or simply use our own resources instead of buying foreign. (shrug)

(cough)ANWR(cough)shale(cough)off shore(cough)
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
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....
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
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$
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Amazing what a little Bribery will get you in the Senate...

A compromise was also struck with Nelson to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in the exchange to be implemented in the new program. At the same time, he would also get millions in Medicaid funds for Nebraska, which boasts a heavy insurance and anti-abortion lobby.

"The bill also includes provisions Nelson won in negotiations shielding Nebraska from an unfunded mandate and new national protections barring public funding of abortion," said a statement issued by Nelson's office.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/senator-ben-nelson-approves-health-car e-bill-obama/story?id=9381054&page=1
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Between Nelson, Landrieu and others, what are we up to now? Half a Billion? 3\4 of a Billion in bribes to push this travesty through?

Bah...
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
ABC News
President Obama Praises Senate for Advancing Health Care Bill
Obama Takes Aim at Critics, Hails Legislation as a "Big Victory"
By HUMA KHAN and Z. BYRON WOLF

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21, 2009—

President Obama hailed Senate Democrats' advancing the $871 billion health care bill as a "big victory for American people," even as the legislation lost many of the components he had pushed.

The president took aim at critics who say the health care bill would add to the budget deficit and praised the Senate for standing up to special interest groups.

"I just want to be clear, for all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big-spending government bill, this cuts our deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and by over $1 trillion in the second," the president said today at the White House. "The argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water."

This is the second time Obama has spoken in support of the Senate health care bill, which is on the road to a final vote on Christmas Eve.

In recent days, the Obama administration has tried to push the point that while the bill may not have everything it and some other Democrats had wanted, it would still have positive ramifications for Americans.

Obama hailed the legislation Saturday as "the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade," and praised Senate Democratic leaders for making changes that he said would make the health care bill stronger.

Vice President Joe Biden wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday that "While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough -- it is very good.

"I share the frustration of other progressives that the Senate bill does not include a public option. But I've been around a long time, and I know that in Washington big changes never emerge in perfect form," Biden wrote.

Moderate and liberal Democrats unified behind a health care overhaul bill in the Senate in the wee hours of the morning today after negotiating behind closed doors in a process that Sen. John McCain assailed as "one of the great Bernie Madoff gimmicks."

In a narrow vote in the wee hours of the morning, Democrats broke a Republican filibuster and inched their sweeping health care package toward passage before Christmas.

Today, Democratic leaders hailed the support of medical associations. The American Medical Association endorsed the Senate health care bill, with Dr. Cecil B. Wilson, the association's president, appearing with Democratic senators at a press conference. While it expressed its support for the plan, the AMA would like to see measures to repeal the existing Medicare payment formula for doctors to prevent periodic reimbursement cuts.

All 60 members of the Democratic caucus -- liberals who wanted a public option voted for a bill without one, and moderates concerned about the cost -- voted to limit debate on compromise language introduced Saturday morning. The 40 Republicans opposed and assailed Democrats for crafting back-room deals that benefit a few senators.

"It's one of the great Bernie Madoff gimmicks that I've ever seen, that anybody's ever seen," McCain, R-Ariz., charged on "Good Morning America" today, adding that this was an "unsavory practice that the American people will reject resoundingly."

The strict timeline -- a series of early morning procedural votes though one of the worst snow storms in Washington, D.C., history -- was set by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a bill before the Christmas holiday.

An agreement on the compromise to bring Sen. Ben Nelson, the final Democratic holdout, onboard with the legislation, was announced Saturday morning. But today's vote signaled that all Democrats will support the bill.

Nelson secured a special break for his state's contributions on Medicaid funding, protected some Nebraska insurers from a new tax in the bill and got Democratic leaders to agree on slightly tougher restrictions on how abortions could be offered in insurance plans under the bill.

McCain criticized Democrats for providing concessions to a few Democrats, such as Nelson, who had been skeptical of the bill, saying it would cost people in other states.

"This was behind closed doors," McCain said. "The Republicans were never brought in to the negotiations and this is what you get -- a split country -- where the American people are opposed to what we're doing and opposed to us."

As for whether the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had fought for health care overhaul much of his Senate career, would approve, McCain said his friend would not like the the partisan nature of the legislation.

"I think that Senator Kennedy would appreciate the outcome," he said. "I don't think he would appreciate it on a party-line vote. There has never been a major reform accomplished in the history of this country that wasn't bipartisan. ... He never engaged in this kind of unsavory process of offering people different deals, which in the end cost people from other states lots of money and puts burdens on them."

Some liberal Democrats are also unhappy, even though they voted with their caucus. Anti-war Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who earlier helped break a Republican filibuster of a troop funding bill he opposed in order to make room on the Senate schedule for health care reform, cast blame at the White House for not pushing hard enough to include a public health insurance option.

"Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle," Feingold said in a written statement.

Feingold supported the bill, however, as did every other Democrat, even though he disliked elements of it. "While the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high," Feingold said.

Democrats Unite on Senate Health Care Bill

The proposal would cost $871 billion over the next 10 years to give access for 31 million Americans who don't currently have health insurance. It counts on lower Medicare costs, taxes on the insurance industry and medical device makes as well as a special tax on high-cost insurance plans, to pay for the legislation.

Every person would be required by the government to have insurance or pay a fine. People making up to $88,000 for a family of four would get help from the government to pay for insurance. Medicaid would be greatly expanded for the poor.

But one of the biggest weaknesses of the bill, McCain said, is that tax increases and cuts in Medicare and other funding would kick in as soon as the bill is passed but the benefits won't begin to accrue until four years later.

"That's nutty stuff ... it's unacceptable," he said.

Republican senators, seeking to delay the vote and turn public opinion even further against it, launched a rhetorical attack on Nelson, the conservative Democrat who withheld his support for a health reform compromise until the last moment.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called provisions inserted to woo Nelson's vote a "kind of smelly proposition."

"This is supposed to be all of our health care ... not just for them," he said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

It was not just Nelson's home state of Nebraska that won concessions in closed-door negotiations, but because Nebraska's carve-out is permanent, the conservative Democrat is catching the most fire from Republicans.

Vermont and Massachusetts will also benefit from special treatment in how the federal government subsidizes state Medicaid programs, although supporters argue that those two states were being penalized because they already help provide insurance for nearly all of their citizens.

Republicans vowed to delay a final vote until Christmas Eve, even though the vote this morning effectively broke their filibuster of health reform legislation.

Why is the GOP fighting it when the passage looks clear for Democrats?

"Because they [Senate Democrats] haven't got the American public," McCain said. "They had 60 percent of the United States Senate, 60 percent of the American people are against this. They want it stopped and they certainly -- as they find out more about this unsavory process we've been through, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Florida FlimFlam and all of the other kinds of dealing that went on -- they'll find it very distasteful."

Republicans Assail Concessions to Some Democrats

Other goodies were tougher to trace. The bill authorizes $100 million for hospital construction for a medical school opaquely described as "an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a State's sole public academic medical and dental school."

Eleven hospitals would potentially qualify for some of the money, according to Democratic staffers. But the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be in charge of doling the funding out.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said the Democrats had to "cook up a deal in a back room that is sleazy in my view."

Republicans would never do that sort of back-room negotiating of a bill of this scope, Graham said.

"We're not going to put the whole nation at risk and take a broken system and make it worse just to get a vote," Graham said. "No way in hell."

"This process is not legislation. This process is corruption," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "It is a shame that the only way we can pass this legislation is to buy votes."

McConnell said Republicans will insist on using all their parliamentary time even after that vote, when it is clear that the bill will pass. If Republicans insist on all their time for debate, a vote on final passage of the bill is likely to occur at 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.

"People have to show up and vote at least three more times," McConnell said, arguing that time is good for the process as lawmakers and the public read through the bill.

The Congressional Budget Office updated its cost estimate Sunday, guessing that deficit reduction under the bill could actually be half of the more than $1 trillion forecast between 2020 and 2029.

"This is not over, by any stretch," McConnell said.

If Senate Democrats pass their bill later this week as they seem sure to do, the next step will be a post-holiday conference to reconcile the House and Senate versions. Given the real differences between the two, that may not be easy.

The House version includes a public health insurance option, while the Senate version would follow the model of insurance for federal workers, allowing insurers to create national health plans overseen by a federal agency.

There are also differences in how the legislation is paid for: The House taxes wealthy Americans, while the Senate would, among other revenue measures, tax high-cost insurance plans. Unions oppose that measure.

But those fights, assuming Democrats can maintain perfect attendance this week, will wait for after the holiday.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.

"Three senators came up to me just now on the (Senate) floor, and said, 'Now we understand what you did. We'll be seeking this funding too'," Nelson said.

But the Democratic senator, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he's considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/nelson-says-senators-seeking-special- treatment-light-nebraska-deal/

Negotiator's remorse?
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
I hope they get the same.

Do you think most progressives like this bill with the private insurance companies still involved. No we want them out they have no business in the health care business.

The government does a much better job for U.S. citizens.

They take a section of the population that private insurance in most cases won't touch the 65 year old plus,with no exclusions on health conditions of the past and they take care of them. Just think if all the young and healthy were covered under this plan there most likely would be surpluses.As long as private insurance the thieves of the country was not involved.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
ROFL!!!

You still don't get what this 'sweet heart' deal was, do you Ray?

For his vote to force this medicare mandate on ALL 50 states, he got federal money to pay for it instead of having to use his own state's money.

In plain english...

His state gets out of having to pay their way in enchange for forcing the other 49 states to do so...

Sounds fair to me.

Right?
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
"To get all 58 Democrats and two independents on board, Reid, among other things, had to drop a government-run insurance option and a Medicare buy-in and had to increase taxes by $25 billion more than planned, bringing the total tax increases to $518 billion. "


Theres your change!
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Republican whiners you don't get it a lot more is going to be shoved down your throats.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
It's no longer about party politics, Ray. Look at this bill and you tell me that it's what you wanted...seriously.

They are literally passing the cost of much of this medicare\medicaid coverage onto the states to avoid looking like they are increasing the deficit. The CBO scoring looked only at the cost to the FEDERAL government. Through unfunded mandates (wow, does that sound familiar?) they are literally FORCING the states to pay for what they themselves are unwilling to take 'credit' for.

Now, where are the states going to come up with this MANDATORY funding? That's right, more and higher taxes. You will be paying more for not only others within your own state to have healthcare...you will be paying for people in other states to receive healthcare.

And as far as much more being shoved down the Republican throats...

Pucker up, Ray...it's coming your way too...

Oh, and one more 'present' from the Reid...look in the bill under unrepealable.
 

---

Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by raybond:
Republican whiners you don't get it a lot more is going to be shoved down your throats.

---

the best way to pass legislation right? Seems to be the only change I can see going on. We go from promised transparency and openess...putting bills online for the people to read (so Obama said in pre election speeches) to now.....now its closed door secret meetings to draft bills, discuss them, and get votes to pass.


This was not passed because the PEOPLE want it, it is passsed because OBAMA wants it. What OBAMA wants you better get!

This is sick, and has its own form of corruption written all over it and you all know it.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
In recent weeks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has faced ire from advocates for the public option, which he successfully forced the Senate to drop from its legislation by threatening to filibuster it. Now, a new CNN poll has found that Lieberman’s “favorable ratings have taken almost a 10-point drop in the past two weeks“:

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) favorable ratings have taken almost a 10-point drop in the past two weeks, a new poll found.

31 percent of people told a CNN poll conducted Dec. 16-20 that they had a favorable opinion of Lieberman, a key Senate centrist who’d opposed healthcare reform only until recently. Opinion toward Lieberman, though, was down from a 40 percent favorable rating in the same CNN poll conducted December 2-3 of this year.

Poll respondents’ unfavorable opinion of Lieberman ticked upward over the same period. 34 percent of those polled said they now have an unfavorable opinion of Lieberman, compared to 28 percent who have an unfavorable opinion.
 

---

Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
 
Maybe...just maybe...

His favorability dropped about the same time as he signed onto the Health Care bill...

Coincidence?

I doubt it.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Senate Passes Sweeping Health-Care Bill
60-39 Vote Is Landmark in Effort to Expand Insurance Coverage

By GREG HITT and JANET ADAMY
[Reid HealthCare] Associated Press

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, answered questions outside of the Senate chambers on Capitol Hill.


WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved sweeping health-overhaul legislation on Thursday, a landmark moment for White House-led efforts to expand insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

The bill, approved by a 60-39 vote, would deliver on a long-promised Democratic goal of extending coverage to nearly every American, and would represent the biggest expansion of the federal safety net since the 1965 creation of Medicare, the health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

Thursday's vote was a victory for President Barack Obama, who made the issue his top domestic priority despite lingering divisions among Democrats and the fierce opposition of Republicans. And it was a validation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to build consensus on his side of the aisle, rather than reach across party lines, a move that would have forced a lowering of ambitions.

The News Hub panel discusses the Senate's 60-39 passage of a historic health-care bill that would extend insurance to 30 million Americans who don't have it or who can't afford it.

Negotiations now must begin to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, with the compromise bill facing another vote in each chamber. President Obama hopes to sign the bill before his State of the Union address in late January.

Republicans said the bill would impose massive regulatory and financial burdens on taxpayers and businesses, and would dig the government even deeper in debt. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) told the chamber just before the vote that Democrats should expect an "earful" from angry constituents when they go home

"This fight is long from over," Mr. McConnell said. "My colleagues and I will fight to ensure this bill doesn't become law. That's the clear will of the American people."

All 58 Democrats and two independents voted for the bill, while 39 Republicans voted against it. Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Ky.) did not vote.

Mr. Reid said he also expected to get an earful, but from Americans who will benefit from the expanded health-care coverage and new rules on insurance companies. "Our charge is to move forward," he said, adding that the bill meets a national need that presidents have pushed for since Harry Truman. "Though some may slow the progress, they cannot stop it," he said.

At the White House, President Obama welcomed the Senate vote and said, "We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise" of expanding care and overhauling the nation's health system. Mr. Obama pressed lawmakers to "finish the job" and deliver a compromise package to his desk in the "coming weeks."

With Christmas looming, Mr. Reid closed a series of last-minute deals to secure the support of balky Democrats and then plunged the Senate into a forced march, beginning with a 1 a.m. vote Monday and culminating with Thursday's roll call at 7 a.m. on passage of the bill.

The 10-year $871 billion measure would expand Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and create new tax subsidies to help lower- and middle-income families comply with a mandate to purchase insurance. That mandate would be enforced by a financial penalty of up to $750 for any individual who fails to get coverage.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over the next decade, through a combination of tax increases on the health-care sector and spending cuts, which largely fall on Medicare payments to health-care providers.
Related Content

* Health Blog: Six Key Numbers
* Both Sides Fight to Shape View of Bill
* When the Changes Could Take Effect
* Rove: The Real Price of the Senate Health Bill
* Interactive: The Faces of Health Care
* Vote: Do you support the Senate bill?

The last time the Senate voted on Christmas Eve was 1895, the issue then being whether to provide federal benefits for U.S. servicemen. In a ceremony with 19th-century echoes, senators rose one by one Thursday from their simple wooden desks to cast their votes. Vice President Joe Biden presided over the chamber.

"Mr. President, this is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye," said 92-year-old Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, referring to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, who was a champion of universal health care. Sen. Kennedy's widow watched the vote from the gallery.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) called the vote the "most important" in his more than 20 years as a U.S. senator. "Progress is not easy," he said. "Today we were able to prove it is not impossible."

Mr. Reid, clearly worn from the week's grueling schedule, initially voted "no," to the surprise of many in the chamber. He put his head down on his desk, laughing, then stood again and changed his vote to "aye."

Republicans accused Democrats of rushing the vote and noted that Mr. Reid put out a nearly 400-page amendment to the bill on Saturday "over the weekend of a snowstorm," as Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) put it. "This has been very troubling to a lot of us," he said.

The bill's passage puts Mr. Obama on the verge of creating a near-universal health-insurance system, an accomplishment that has eluded presidents since Theodore Roosevelt. By the end of the next decade, 94% of legal residents would have insurance coverage, up from 83% now, according to estimates by the CBO.

As soon as next year, consumers who enroll in new plans would no longer face lifetime limits on their insurance coverage, and insurers couldn't drop people's coverage because they get sick. By 2014, insurers could no longer deny any customers coverage because of a pre-existing health condition.

Insurance companies warn that the changes could raise premiums by bringing more people with health problems into the system while healthy people choose to go without coverage.

New state-based health-insurance exchanges would become the main marketplace for people buying coverage without the help of an employer, as well as some small employers. By 2019, about 30 million people are expected to get coverage through them.

Under the Senate bill, the exchange won't include a public health-insurance plan – one of the most contentious aspects of the health debate. The Senate jettisoned the provision after Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, and some centrist Democrats objected to the idea. Instead, consumers would be able to shop on the exchange for plans managed by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees insurance policies for federal workers.

The late-December vote means Congress won't conclude action on the bill by year's end, as the White House had once wanted. Leaders of the House and Senate are readying for negotiations that will begin shortly after the first of the year, and hope to forge a compromise package swiftly, possibly by the president's State of the Union address in late January.

"Everyone is pushing for that," said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama's communications director. Mr. Pfeiffer suggested Senate passage is a demonstration that Congress and the White House can tackle seemingly intractable issues. "It's not always pretty, but Washington still has the capacity to deal with big problems," he said.

The House passed its version of health legislation Nov. 7, and tough negotiations loom with the Senate on a compromise package. Potential flashpoints include taxes and abortion policy, as well as the House's proposed government-run health plan.

Mr. Reid, at least for now, is declining to entertain questions about how the two bills will be melded. He said he is looking forward to spending a few days at home in Nevada over the holidays. "I'm going to sit back and watch my rabbits eat my cactus," he said.

The Senate bill would leave the existing employer-based health system largely intact, in an effort to ensure that already-insured Americans see no change in coverage. However, large companies would have to pay a penalty to the government if they do not provide affordable insurance and their workers end up seeking government assistance.

The last time Congress seriously pushed health overhaul legislation, in 1994, the effort died in the Senate. Fifteen years later, an opening to revive the issue was created with the election of a Democratic president and strong majorities in both chambers of Congress.

A series of breaks helped the Democrats secure the 60 votes needed to override the Republican filibuster. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties. Al Franken, a Democrat, prevailed in the Minnesota Senate race by a tiny margin after a months-long recount. After Sen. Kennedy's death, the Massachusetts legislature changed state law to allow his replacement to be seated immediately, rather than waiting for a special election.

"It would be hard in our lifetimes to recreate that moment," said Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.).

Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com


 

---

Posted by a surfer on :
 
Mind if I ask what you do for a living Raybond??

Your kids?

UGH.....Scary thought there........
 

---

Posted by a surfer on :
 
Please don't tell me you are an English teacher.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
i believe he is a prison warden
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
A little higher than that Glass but not much.Sometimes I get a wish for the good old days. Thats ok suffer you don't have to be an english teacher to do my job just understand the criminal mind .If need be I have a lap dog to type things up for me and take notes And just for the record republicans in prison are always not Guilty because it was somebody elses fault even though they did the crime.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
thanks for doing a nasty job for us. i know i don't want to deal with cons all day every day. somebody has to tho.
 

---

Posted by raybond on :
 
Catholic Hospitals Endorse Senate Abortion Compromise
The Catholic Health Association — which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country — said said in a statement that it was ‘encouraged’ and ‘increasingly confident‘ that the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.’” The announcement represents a break from the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ strong opposition to the Senate’s less stringent restrictions and provides critical political cover for pro-life Democrats who are hesitant to vote for a bill opposed by Catholic organizations. Under the Senate measure, women are required to purchase abortion services with private premiums and pay for the care with a separate transaction. States could also prohibit insurers in the exchange from offering abortion services.

The NYT explains the theological underpinnings of the endorsement:

“The Catholic Health Association seems to be using traditional principles of cooperation with evil,” said Prof. M. Cathleen Kaveny of the Notre Dame University Law School. Such principles, she said, could permit support for “imperfect legislation,” as long as one’s intent was not to “further abortion,” one made every effort to “minimize the harm,” and one achieved “an extremely important good that can’t be achieved any other way.”

In contrast, she said, “some bishops have adopted a prophetic stand against abortion that wants to eliminate any form of cooperation with evil no matter how remote.”

Catholic hospitals (like any hospitals) hope to minimize the number of uninsured patients who receive uncompensated care and achieve the “extremely important good” of expanding health care coverage to everyone. Earlier this month, Ellen-Marie Whelan and Jessica Arons analyzed the Catholic Bishop’s criteria “that they set as priorities to be included in health reform legislation” and concluded that health care reform meets these self-imposed goals:

As our analysis shows, there are a number of ways both bills would achieve the Bishops’ “pro-life” goals: they would save the lives of thousands each year, reduce the suffering of millions, and increase the dignity with which people are treated when ill. Moreover, providing quality health care to women and families in need is a much more effective and humane way to reduce the number of abortions than restrictions on funding ever have been. In the United States, as throughout the world, restrictions on abortion make the procedure more expensive and less safe; they do not make it less common.

The question before any pro-life Catholic organization is this: “Is it worth jeopardizing legislation that would provide nearly universal access to health care, improve quality, be much more affordable, assist the poor and low income, reduce fraud and waste, protect the conscience of providers, and so much more simply because it would preserve the status quo on public funding for abortion but not impose new restrictions on private coverage?” Fortunately, the Catholic hospitals have decided that it is not.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), meanwhile, has responded to the hospitals’ endorsement by reiterating his opposition to the Senate language, arguing that he has commitments from at least 10 Democrats who voted for House health care bill to oppose the final bill if it doesn not reflect the House bill’s compromise.
 

---