Health Care Progress Report: October 12

(CBS)  President Obama has set a year-end deadline for passing comprehensive health care reform, and on a number of occasions he has said the nation is "closer than ever before" to making it happen.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

As Congress methodically -- and sometimes clumsily-- cobbles together a health care bill, CBSNews.com will track its progress for you. Below is a chart to track the six major steps Washington needs to take to accomplish health care reform. This week, the Senate may finally finish step one -- if the insurance industry doesn't stop it first.

(CBS)

More on the progress of health care legislation in each chamber of Congress.

SENATE: Two committees in the Senate have jurisdiction over health care reform. One -- the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee -- passed its relatively liberal bill in July. The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to have one final hearing on its more moderate bill on Tuesday and finally vote on the legislation. If it passes, the Senate will have finished the first of six steps needed to pass the health reform.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has expressed optimism that his bill will pass. The Congressional Budget Office last week estimated it would cost $829 billion over 10 years, which meets President Obama's goal of keeping the costs close to $900 billion. Furthermore, the CBO estimated the costs would be more than offset by revenues from taxes on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, as well as Medicare cuts to improve efficiency, actually saving the government $81 billion.

(CBS 3 Philadelphia)

The cost-cutting bill was designed to appeal to moderate Democrats and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the one Republican on the committee who may or may not vote for the bill. Those plans could be thwarted, however, by a new study maintaining that the bill would actually increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year. The industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans commissioned the study.

"It's a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple," Scott Mulhauser, a spokesman for Baucus, said Sunday. He called it "seriously flawed" because it doesn't take into account provisions that would cut costs for consumers like tax credits to help people buy private insurance.

Additionally, it is still unclear whether liberal Democrats will fall in line in the committee. Two Democrats last week said they were uncertain they could support the measure, for a variety of reasons, as reported in last week's progress report.

Meanwhile, Senate leadership is already looking ahead to step two and considering which elements from the Finance bill and which from the HELP bill to include in the legislation to bring before the full Senate. Even though the Finance Committee bill does not include a government-sponsored health care plan, or "public option," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is reportedly considering including a version of the plan in his bill -- though it would most likely be a less liberal version than found in the HELP bill.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a strong proponent of the public option, said Thursday the bill brought to the Senate floor may include a public option of which states could opt-out. The plan is being "very seriously considered," he said.

(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

HOUSE: The House of Representatives has completed step one: Three different committees with jurisdiction over health care have passed different variations of health care reform legislation. Now, it is up to House leaders to decide how to merge the three.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week the House is currently considering three different versions of a public option. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office should provide the House with a cost estimate for the plans either this week or next.

[Gary_J_Orr]

Part 3:
7. A Federal Health Insurance Regulatory Commission (FHIRC) shall be created.
Reason: For a Federal Level regulation you need a Federal Level Organization to run it (unfortunately).
7.1. The following duties shall fall to the FHRIC:
7.1.1. To license and regulate all Insurance Carriers/Providers within the US.
7.1.2. To define minimum coverage requirements for Health Insurance Plans. Licensing is dependent upon compliance.
7.1.3. To verify that all provisions herein are met.
7.1.4. The FHRIC shall approve a ?Required Services Plan? (RSP). All Carriers/Providers must offer an RSP to qualify for Licensure.
7.1.5. The following Agencies/ Services/ will convert to public plans and must choose an RSP from any licensed Carrier/Provider (funding for each coming from the current funding for each where applicable):
7.1.5.1. An RSP is the only plan that can be offered to any Government Employee (at any level including: Local, City, County, State, or Federal). All Government Agencies shall redirect all current expenditures for Health Insurance Coverage, Doctors, and Hospitals into the FHIRC to fund this caveat of this provision.
7.1.5.2. An RSP shall cover all Veterans. The Department of Veteran Affairs shall redirect all current expenditures for Doctors and Hospitals into the FHIRC to fund this caveat of this provision.
7.1.5.3. An RSP shall cover all Medicare recipients. All current and future funding for Medicare shall be redirected to fund this caveat of this provision.
7.1.5.4. An RSP shall cover all those Individuals that fall within the Low-Income Bracket (to be defined by the IRS, including any ?partial? or ?assisted? payment options). Funding for this caveat of this provision shall be provided in the form of taxes on the Health Insurance Carriers/Providers/Brokers and all Doctors of Medicine.
7.2. Operational Expenses for the FHIRC shall come via taxes upon the Insurance Carriers/Providers. These funds are to be used exclusively for the purposes of funding this Provision.
Reason: They caused the problem; they can pay the costs associated with fixing it.
7.3. An Oversight Committee of Joint members elected from the House and Senate shall be responsible for approval of any proposed changes in Taxes, designation of qualifying expenditures, RSP guidelines, and the minimum coverage requirements defined by the FHRIC.
Reason: Because the only way to keep a group of Federal employees in line is to have a group of Federal Politian?s watching everything they do (and vice-versa).

END Document

[velma179]

Again...

The ? marks signify a Copy and Paste post.

Please cite your source so readers can have a verifiable way to judge the validity of the content.

[velma179]

Again...

The ? marks signify a Copy and Paste post.

Please cite your source so readers can have a verifiable way to judge the validity of the content.

[Gary_J_Orr]

Part 2:
5. Any Health Insurance Plan carried by an Individual can be paid with Pre-Tax dollars via payroll reduction and direct payment of premiums by their employer.
Reason: This allows the use of Pre-tax dollars to be used for Employees of Small Businesses, Sole-Proprietors, and Partnerships that cannot offer ?Group Plans?. It also Increases competition by allowing Individuals to shop for Plans other than those offered by their Employer while still benefitting from the same tax incentives for Health Insurance.
5.1. All Employers must accommodate this Provision.
Reason: Allows equal access to Health Insurance to all Employed Individuals regardless of the size of their Employer.
5.2. Any Employer paying any portion of the premiums for a Group Plan for their employees must provide 75% of that amount to Employees that wish to carry an Individual Plan per this Provision.
Reason: Allows Employees to maintain a Plan that they believe to be ?better? than that offered by the Employer (or to continue a plan from another Employer) while allowing some offset for the additional overhead incurred by the employer due to the volume of individual payroll deductions and payments that would need to be maintained.
6. Health Insurance Plans can be offered to anyone regardless of the State in which the Health Insurance Carrier resides or of the State in which the Covered Individual resides. The Carrier/Provider must be registered for business and reside within the United States, and the Covered Individual must be a US Citizen (or authorized to work within the US) and must be living within a US State or Province.
Reason: Allows an Individual to continue a Plan upon relocation. Also allows an Employer with locations in multiple States to offer a common Group Plan to all of its Employees. Additionally, this provides more Competition for the Individual (and Company) while allowing streamlined management for the provider.
6.1. Any Plan that traverses State lines must be amended with any requirements of the State (with written approval wherefrom) in which the Covered Individual resides.
Reason: Ensures that any additional State Provisions are met. This provision will also specifically allow Insurance Providers to create a given Plan and submit amended versions to each State in which they would like to offer that Plan prior to offering it publically, thereby adding consumer value to the plan in the form of having any State derivatives predefined.

[Gary_J_Orr]

Part 1:
Ok. We have a problem. Not everyone can afford Health Insurance. It isn?t even possible for some people to get Health Insurance at all due to being excluded because of ?pre-existing conditions?. Others receive astronomical rates after underwriters decide that they are too big of a risk (I myself was diagnosed by the underwriters, not by my doctors that have been treating me for years, but by the underwriters, as having Peripheral Artery Disease). And with the state of today?s Health Care costs anyone without Health Insurance cannot get Health Care.

So our great and glorious Government has stepped in to remedy the problem. As usual they?re screwing it up.

Some are trying to force all individuals to carry Insurance (to make sure that those that have Insurance don?t have to pay taxes to cover the medical bills incurred by those that don?t have it) and fine them if they don?t provide ?proof? of insurance. For my Family (and those like us) we would have to pay the fine since the only policy that we have been able to find will cost us $6335.00 per month. Yeh, THAT?s a solution. How many complain about the $500 a month that they have to put out for their portion of their Company sponsored plan?

Another solution that is being proposed: A Government Health Insurance System. More taxes for a system that will be poorly managed and eventually begin to fail as a result (can anyone say Medicare?)

Of course there are a few thousand pages of proposal(s) to read through (and within which are buried all kinds of things that aren?t related to Health Care or Health Insurance) and try to understand. All of which are so convoluted that no one person can truly understand it all.

Well, I think that it?s time to take the problem into our own hands. Why can?t we define a solution and then call upon our Government to sign it into Law? Along the way we can introduce a new concept: that of ?Why??. Every line item included in the Plan should state the reason that it is included (to forestall it being forgotten or eventually misinterpreted, not to mention making it easier to spot the PORK).

I propose that we start with the issue of Health Insurance. Once that is resolved (to make sure that it is affordable to as many as possible) we can move on to regulating the actual costs that are driving the ever increasing rate of the Premiums. Please consider ?endorsing? it by forwarding it to your Senators in Congress and Representatives in the House (as well as everyone else that you can think of).



The Peoples Health Reform Plan:
Foreword: Any State may add additional Provisions that they deem necessary to provide further rights to their citizens as long as those Provisions do not contradict the Provisions as laid out in this plan.

For the purposes of this document the Terms:
Individual: shall refer to any Single person, any Married Couple, the Children of such (as defined by State and Federal Statute), or the Family of such (as defined by State and Federal Statute);
Plan: shall refer to any Health Insurance Plan or Policy as offered by an Insurance Carrier and/or Provider.

The Provisions are as follows:
1. Health Insurance cannot be denied to any Individual for any reason.
Reason: Individuals are being denied Health Insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
2. Health Insurance Premiums (that being the amount paid for Health Insurance) cannot vary for a given Plan regardless of circumstance.
Reason: Individuals are being charged different amounts due to pre-existing conditions and/or their line of work.
2.1. An Insurance Carrier/Provider may provide Refunds for Health Incentives to encourage ?Good Health? practices. Such Incentives may include Memberships in Gyms, Health Spas, attending Health Guidance/Counseling programs, etc. Incentives cannot include access to additional Doctors or Hospitals, quality of Care, type or quantity of procedures or tests, or prescription coverage.
Reason: To Offer value to those Individuals that choose to lower Health Care costs by taking better care of themselves.
3. Any Health Insurance Plan offered by an Insurance Carrier as a ?Group Plan? must also be available to any Individual.
Reason: This will prevent Insurance Carriers from using Group Plans to circumvent Provision (2). It will also allow an Individual to continue a Group Plan as an Individual Plan upon termination of Employment.
4. Employers may ?Self-Insure? their Employees by applying for licensure (provisions to follow) but such cannot negate any other provision herein.
Reason: to provide continuation of existing Employer provide coverage.

[glgphd]

Nearly every day we are learning something else that is wrong ? morally, constitutionally, fiscally, practically ? with the health care reform proposals in Congress.

Yet the liberals keep pushing their agenda of ?social justice? -- including universal health care -- on us with reckless and willful disregard for the damage it will do on our health care system, the national economy, state budgets, and our liberty.

People may have intellectually honest differences of opinion on the estimated costs and benefits of various health care reform proposals -- as is evident in today's debate on the study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Yet like Nero, many in Congress and the media are fiddling around with the economics of reform while ignoring the fact that some provisions -- especilly the individual and company mandates would violate the rights of patients, doctors, and business owners on a massive scale unprecedented in American history.

The government has no moral or constitutional authority to (a) force people to buy insurance -- whether they need or want to or not, (b) force people to buy plans with specific coverage -- whether they need or want this coverage, (c) force people to buy plans with a specific deductible -- whether they need or want this deductible or not, or (d) force companies to provide and/or subsidize health insurance to their employees -- whether employers want to or not.

These mandates give the government a fascist foot in the door to influence and control the doctor-patient relationship.

If these mandates were signed into law, they would set a powerful precedent that would threaten liberty in ALL areas of our lives.

If the government has the right to do these things to us, what can?t it do?

Why even pretend that we have individual rights or a constitution to protect them?

Even the CBO in 1994 wrote: ?A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.?

Urge your legislators to vote against any bill that includes any provisions that are poisonous to our freedom.

Dr. Gregory Garamoni
Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike.com

[velma179]

The ? marks show that the above post is copy and paste.

Offering this kind of post without citing sources is fundamentally dishonest. And in that regard, the points made should NOT be considered as factual or relevant to the need we Americans have TODAY for health care and health insurance reform.

[stuart-johns2]

by glgphd October 12, 2009 6:18 PM EDT

Love to spread that propaganda, huh? Addicted are'nt you, you republican un-american extremist? The majority of Americans want reform with a public option. The hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies all are in favor of it.

I hope that "phd" at the end of your name is not designed to make us think you are smart. I think it signify's you are "primarily handicapped w/ dementia".

[velma179]

Thank you CBS...

For making a clear, easy to read chart explaining where legislation is in it's road to becoming law.

Maybe some of the folks that complain about "the bill", or not seeing "the bill" online or... you get the drift -- maybe they can understand how the government works.


There have been so many lies and so much misinformation, it boggles the mind. Thanks for something concrete and simple in the middles of all the "spin".

Education NEXT! A good civics class would have made this part easy.

[velma179]

Really?

Obama was president when you were in sixth grade. That would be NOW.

Yep, that does seem possible.

[ianlou]

Are any of you getting tired of the TV commercials with Rick Scott from Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR) Lieing about Health Care reform?

Check out the Rick Sanchez's interview where he exposes this guy as a former multi-hospital CEO who got fired, and almost prosecuted, for healthcare $$ kickbacks.

Rick Scott is against health care reform for the same reasons Al Capone was against the repeal of Prohibition...

It will get in the way of his greed.