October 14, 2009 8:35 AM

Democrats Give Health Care Reform a Push

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Fearing a backlash, Democrats worked to smooth the impact of sweeping health care legislation on working-class families Thursday as they pushed President Obama's top domestic priority toward a crucial Senate advance. The most far-reaching overhaul in decades aims to protect millions who have unreliable coverage or none at all and to curb insurance company abuses.

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee attacked the bill as riddled with tax increases that violated Mr. Obama's campaign promises, but failed to remove any of them.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

After marathon public debate, agreement by the Senate Finance Committee is all but certain for the legislation, although no final vote was expected until next week. That formality - Democrats hold a 13-10 committee majority - will clear the way for the full Senate to begin debating the measure at mid-month.

The measure, like a companion bill under construction in the House, would bar insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. It also includes federal subsidies to make insurance available to millions who lack it, and it takes steps to slow the skyrocketing growth in health care costs nationwide.

Supporters said the overhaul's cost was in the range that Mr. Obama has set, about $900 billion over a decade, and would not raise federal deficits. Gradually, health care has grown to dwarf all other issues in Congress, and is causing supporters and opponents to spend more than $1 million a day on television advertising to sway the outcome.

The president, meanwhile, was in Copenhagen, Denmark on Friday for a very brief five-hour visit to tout his adopted home town of Chicago as the best choice for the 2016 summer Olympics.

After days spent largely turning aside Republican calls for changes in the bill, Senate Democrats coalesced behind two of their own that could alter the legislation in significant ways.

One, backed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would allow states to negotiate with insurers to arrange coverage for people with incomes slightly higher than the cutoff for Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor. That change was approved.

Approval was deferred on a second, which would exempt millions from a requirement to purchase insurance that is currently in the bill. As it stands, individuals and families would be required to buy coverage as long as it costs no more than 10 percent of their income, and would have to pay a penalty if they refused.

The Cantwell proposal is based on a system in Washington state that she said results in lower-cost, high-quality coverage, generally delivered through managed care, as the state uses its purchasing power in negotiations with insurers.

Republicans questioned whether the impact would be to raise insurance premiums for others, and said they were fearful the result would be to reduce health care options.

Cantwell said the first concern was unfounded, and added Washington currently has as many as four choices for residents currently covered by the state program. As for the second Republican point, she responded, "If your governor and your legislators don't want to negotiate on behalf of their citizens, that's their political problem."

The provision passed, 12-11, on a near party-line vote.

It is designed to allow coverage for individuals and families between 133 percent of poverty and 200 percent of poverty. For individuals, that means incomes between $14,403 annually and $21,660. For families of four, the eligibility would be $29,326 to $44,100. Aides said 30 million or more of the nation's uninsured are in that income range.

As for the penalty for people who decline to buy insurance, Republicans and even some Democrats have warned of a potential backlash without changes.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., proposed lowering the threshold for requiring coverage to 8 percent of income, a level that he acknowledged would result in an estimated 2 million additional individuals and families staying uninsured in comparison with the original bill.

For those still covered by the requirement, Schumer also proposed reducing the penalty for failure to comply.

"These are people solidly in the middle class," he said.

Currently, those ignoring the purchase requirement would pay a maximum penalty of $750 for individuals and $1,900 for families.

Under Schumer's change, no penalty would apply until 2014, when the maximum would be $475 for individuals and $950 for families. The amounts would rise the following year.

Republicans expressed some interest in supporting the changes, but Sen. Olympia Snowe urged a delay in the vote.

"It's not about punishing people. It's about getting it right on affordability," said the Maine Republican.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the committee, agreed - an unspoken acknowledgment of Snowe's influential position as the only Republican in Congress viewed as a potential supporter of the legislation.

Approval by the Finance Committee would clear the way for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to merge the bill with one approved earlier by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. One bill permits the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a provision referred to as a public option. The measure in the Finance Committee does not.

"I favor a public option. We're going to do our very best to have a public option," Reid said.

The day opened with Republican attacks on tax increases in the legislation, including one that makes it more difficult for taxpayers to itemize deductions for health care. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, quoted Mr. Obama repeatedly as pledging last year that his health care plan would not raise taxes on any individual making more than $200,000 or family with incomes over $250,000.

Baucus said the GOP attempt to rescind the tax increases, if adopted, would cripple the drive to overhaul health care. He said that, overall, the legislation provides for a net cut in taxes rather than an increase, and Democrats blocked the GOP maneuver.

Across the Capitol, Democratic leaders in the House met privately with moderate members of the rank-and-file, with liberals, and then with first-termers as they struggled to achieve a consensus on legislation to bring to the floor. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced at midday it would probably be at least two more weeks before House legislation was ready.

Under the bills in both houses, most insurance policies would be required to cover preventive care as well as treatment for illnesses, surgery, vision, dental and mental health care.

In general, the legislation is designed to encourage employers to retain coverage they now provide, and workers to remain enrolled. Policies would be available - for those who have coverage and those who don't - through so-called insurance exchanges.

For the first time, individuals would be under the requirement to purchase insurance or face penalties. To help the lower-income buy insurance and prod small businesses to offer it, federal subsidies would be available on a sliding scale to defray the cost of premiums.

The costs would be borne through a variety of taxes on health care providers, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

AP
Add a Comment See all 178 Comments
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 12:42 PM EDT
How funny! Obama doesnt get the Olympics
____________________

Let's hope he and Michelle enjoyed another free vacation to Denmark on our dime .....according to Michelle it was "so hard traveling to Copenhagen, but she did it for the kids" ??
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
Yeah, hard. I mean...all those white people there...got to be full of rascists! Now she has confirmed it, since they denied the Chosen One.
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 12:42 PM EDT
How funny! Obama doesnt get the Olympics.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
Hey Doc...here are but two examples on why you are wrong!

___________________

When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."

On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 October 3, 2009 10:23 AM EDT
by Mortarman29:
"whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States,"
---------------------------------------



Sorry, but the act of secession is clearly stated in Our Constitution, so your little bit of history means absolutely nothing. Try reading Our Constitution, since it appears you know very little about it, and would rather an uneducated bozo like glenn beck teach you through his conspiracy theories!
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 12:25 PM EDT
by doc_holliday76 October 2, 2009 12:01 PM EDT
by Mortarman29:
"I am backing it because it will destroy the Democrat party AND will lead to the States reasserting control back over Washington..."
------------------------------------
More of that delusional 'thinking' like charlie duke, found under his kitchen table with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, spewing gibberish about government conspiracy theories like beck!
________________________________________

Now the Constitution and state's rights are considered "delusional thinking" by the left....that's how twisted they have become

Have some tea instead of koolaid
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 October 3, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
by Mortarman29:
"I am backing it because it will destroy the Democrat party AND will lead to the States reasserting control back over Washington..."
------------------------------------


by doc_holliday76:
"More of that delusional 'thinking' like charlie duke, found under his kitchen table with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, spewing gibberish about government conspiracy theories like beck!"
-------------------------------------------



by NewYork-Joey:
"Now the Constitution and state's rights are considered "delusional thinking" by the left....that's how twisted they have become"
---------------------------------------




Nah....it's just the delusional 'thinking' by rabid rightwad bible thumpers waving guns, upset about losing POWER in Washington, and have that need of more FEARmongering by talking REVOLT, REVOLUTION and even MILITARY COUP like the bonehead on newsmaxx!

We're still a constitutional republic, the states still have rights, and just because the rabid rightwads parrot their glenn beck conspiracy theories, doesn't make America a "socialistic," communistic," or "fascist" state like nazi Germany!

We need REAL health care reform, and since 65% of the American people agree, the miNOrity republican't party just looks more rabid and delusional each and every day, just like charlie duke hiding under his kitchen table with his bible and gun back in 1994 in Colorado!

Sorry, it seems as if you have guzzled way too much of that foxnewsus propagandus Kool-aid, and completely forgotten that the MAJORITY RULES, even when corporate America has bought many of the congresscritters!
by doc_holliday76 October 2, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
by Mortarman29:
Sorry, the constitutionality of it is that they can!
----------------------------------




Actually, the south did not constitutionally secede back in the 1860's, since it takes an act of Congress to make it legal according to Our Constitution. Better try reading a bit more!
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 12:27 PM EDT
Actually it doesnt. if you look back at the enabling documents the states signed as they signed the Constitution, the specifically stated that they retained the right to pull back some or all of the powers they gave to the Federal government in the Constitution. I even posted on that earlier!
by doc_holliday76 October 2, 2009 12:01 PM EDT
by Mortarman29:
"I am backing it because it will destroy the Democrat party AND will lead to the States reasserting control back over Washington..."
------------------------------------





More of that delusional 'thinking' like charlie duke, found under his kitchen table with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, spewing gibberish about government conspiracy theories like beck!
Reply to this comment
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 2, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
@NewYork

The problem with offering illegals care and deporting them is they just come back...
________________________

I would hope Slownews's plan would include sealing the border air-tight, while deporting illegals....to avoid what you know will happen
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 2, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
@NewYork

That would be a great plan. But until the US could seal the border air-tight its useless.
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 11:46 AM EDT
Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 9:11 AM EDT
Obviously, Stu...you dont understand the law! The SCOTUS ruled years ago that if you provide a benefit for all citizens, you MUST provide the same benefit for all non-Citizens in the country
___________________________

That's correct.....the democrats actually think they fooled the American people into thinking that they are going to throw dying/sick illegals into the street to die without care.....the patient's bill of rights will still apply, unless they repeal it to block illegals from getting services.

Slownews had a great idea (a little radical)....to offer illegals care at facility and after they are done receiving services, they are immediately deported to their country of origin.....reminded me of box-cars and promised showers....LOL
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 2, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
@NewYork

The problem with offering illegals care and deporting them is they just come back...
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
by dragon8me October 2, 2009 11:35 AM EDT
cowboybill117 you are why the GOP are viewed as rascist.
__________________

The GOP is only viewed as racist by liberal Leftists, who try their darndist (if that's a word) to paint them as racist, when that's not the case
Reply to this comment
by NewYork-Joey October 2, 2009 11:36 AM EDT
by Mortarman29 October 2, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
Nope, my idea of freddom is the government out of my business.
____________________

Just a little example of Government out of control...in the UK, they are now searching people's garbage to check if they are wasting anything or fine them for not recycling....that's where we are headed.....government needs to get out of business period
Reply to this comment
See all 178 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook