Senators Dive Into Health Overhaul Details

(AP)  Initial congressional work on the historic health care overhaul pushed by President Barack Obama is going so slowly that Sen. Christopher Dodd told colleagues: "I never suggested this was going to be warp speed."

Senators pushed ahead anyhow Thursday on what were supposed to be the easy parts of sweeping health care legislation. But they quickly found out that almost nothing about revamping the system is uncontroversial.

First up for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Dodd is heading in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's absence, were amendments to improve quality and efficiency. But the debate quickly shifted to more contentious issues including the overall cost of enacting President Barack Obama's top domestic priority of reshaping the nation's health care system to bring down costs and extend insurance to 50 million Americans who lack it.

"You could end up with a bill that's easily headed to a $2 trillion price tag," complained Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., as he offered an amendment that would require proof that various quality measures such as training and identifying best practices would actually save money.

The committee rejected his amendment, as Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., contended it would be "throwing sand in the gears."

An amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would have limited the use of research comparing the effectiveness of various medical procedures - a hot-button issue for Republicans because they say it could lead to health care rationing. It, too, was rejected on a 13-10 party-line vote.

The committee was on its second day of work on a 600-plus-page bill, but the first day of real work after Wednesday's session was entirely given over to speechmaking. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, is leading the committee while Kennedy receives treatment for cancer.

Elsewhere in the Capitol senators on the key Finance Committee delayed their own voting session as they struggled to slash costs to under $1 trillion over 10 years.

Members of the Finance Committee, considered Congress' best hope of producing a bipartisan bill, were meeting behind closed doors Thursday for further negotiations.

In the House joint draft legislation was expected as early as Friday from the three committees with health care jurisdiction - Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor - with hearings to begin next week. The committees are writing legislation that would require all Americans to have health care coverage, and establish a new public insurance plan to compete with the private market.

"I have every confidence we will have a public option coming out of the House of Representatives. It will be a level playing field. For us to have substantial health care reform, this has to be part of it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday.

The public plan option, supported by Obama, could have a much tougher ride in the Senate where minority Republicans hold more sway and believe it could drive private companies out of business.

The Finance Committee, struggling with the public plan among other issues, was supposed to release draft legislation Wednesday and begin voting on it next week. But the committee announced that votes would wait, possibly until after July 4, as senators sought to retool their proposals to cut the cost by more than one-third, from an initial $1.6 trillion to less than $1 trillion.

Senators on the health committee were considering a lengthy bill plus 388 amendments, but with the most contentious issues - the public plan question and whether to require employers to cover their workers - still unwritten.

The legislation would create a new insurance marketplace where people could shop for coverage plans with help from government subsidies.

As written, it would cost some $1 trillion but still leave 37 million people uninsured, and Republicans are deeply skeptical. The health committee is scheduled to meet daily and was supposed to finalize the bill by the end of next week, but after Wednesday's session Dodd backed away from that deadline, saying he wasn't tied to it.

[jab232]

In regard to a public option for health care, I think the GOP and blue dog Democrats might have a hard time explaining to the seventy percent + of the public who want the private option that, while congress people and their families have the private option, the public should go without. Fifty million (and the number will grow) should be uninsured, millions should be under insured, sixty percent of those who face personal bankruptcy should do so because of medical costs, and thousands should have to undergo rescission, being cut off when you get a serious illness after having having paid premiums for years. Let's face it, this whole thing is the rich insurance companies, medical establishment and politicians against the ordinary middle-class and poor people. When it comes to health care, congress and their families (active and retired) are among the very fortunate and rich.

[usa3world]

Single Payer now! Everybody in nobody out! Nothing else will work!

The insurance companies charge too much in premiums, copays and deductibles, not to mention the 20% or more they don't pay. You get a major illness they will look back at all your medical records and find something so they can drop your coverage! They are Rip off scam artists and America has had enough!!! We need HR676 passed yesterday!!!

[CitizenMikeM]

Private insurers recission=Public Option!

[starleo146]

Congress!!! I do not know who is worse the Republican s or the whole lot we have a President who wants to make change, and these old dodgers, what!! !!! Change!!!! not on my watch, call in the Insurance Lobby, Call in the AArp, call in the pharmaceuticals, hurry we can't have this,and some democrats and all republicans know how bad we need a change. What are they doing about it? Who will be blamed for it if it doesn't succeed? They ought to be impeached the whole lot of them

[whitemale08]

The Answer = single payer


Any other excuse is just for Wall Street/City of London to keep the bailout loot and the Insurance companies profiteering off our pain and suffering.

Dodd should do someting decent for a change and promote 'single payer' and dump the Obama Death-care plan where it's designed to DENY care to cut costs.

Druggie Limbaugh and junkyard dogs Sean Hannity should be proud of Obama's plan because it keeps the the parasitical insurance companies and HMO's in place to suck off the blood of dead patients in order to save costs.

[walt1944]

This health care thing is going to be nothing more than another government/corporate America ripoff.

Everyone knows that insurance companies and the AMA are going to be calling the shots on this and all the cowardly Whimpo-crats will do is rubber stamp everything and claim victory.

The ones who are really going to lose out will be the average person who can't get health insurance because the insurance companies consider them to big a "risk" (against their corporate bottom line!) and those who can't get insurance because it costs too much (Corporate GREEED!!).

Us average people will still have to resort to home remedies and witch doctors qwhen we get sick while GRREEDDYY corporate crooks like Be3rnie Madoff can afford the Mayo Clinic!!

HAIL OBAMA????????

[jab232]

One part of the solution is simple. Congress has excellent health care insurance for themselves and for their families. Let ordinary people buy into that plan.

Of course congress won't do that. They feel their privilege allows them to decide that the peons below them should do with less, probably much less. They will finally decide to make the medical establishment and insurance companies (and their million-dollar CEOs) richer while the rest of us are uninsured or under insured. Same ol', Same ol.

[regret-my-vote]

If Medicare and Medicaid are about to go broke I am entirely perplexed as to how Big Brother is going to do anything different with the rest of us.

[sjc_1]

Optional National Health Insurance (ONHI) will bring more people under 50 into the program. They pay premiums and do not file claims. The same way private insurance companies make billions of dollars is the same way Medicare will be saved.

[ubrew12]

If America went to single payer healthcare, the transition would PAY FOR ITSELF, in reduced administrative costs. Thats because you don't have to spend money figuring out WHO is insured and WHO isn't, when everyone is insured. Contrast that with the $1-2 trillion cost of adopting ObamaCare. Its obvious in the healthcare debate that Congress is completely in bed with the insurance corporations, who are excited about taking in tax dollars to deny coverage to a whole new segment of the population.

One out of every THREE healthcare dollars spent in America is spent on administrative costs, as insurance agents figure out how to deny you coverage. In Canada, with single payer healthcare, administrative costs are 1% of the total. Thats why they get superior care to the U.S. and it costs them HALF what we pay.

[ubrew12]

Montana Senator Max Baucus says single payer health care 'is off the table'. A January CBS/New York Times poll showed 59% of respondents favored a national health care plan. A February CNN poll showed 72% favored a government controlled plan. Any issue with that much across the board support should be 'on the table'. So, who made Senator Baucus king? What are we, chopped liver? Doesn't our opinion count?

It seems especially surprising that Baucus, from Montana, a rural state, one that would benefit most from a single payer plan, is opposed to any discussion. However if one looks at campaign contributions from the health insurance industry to Baucus, we see why he supports the status quo.