Health Reform Expected to Clear Hurdle

Senate Finance Committee Likely to Send Sweeping Bill to Overhaul Health System to Whole Senate

(CBS/AP)  President Obama's plan to remake the nation's health care system is about to take its biggest step yet toward becoming reality.

The pivotal Senate Finance Committee was poised to approve sweeping legislation Tuesday requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance and ushering in a host of other changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion medical system.

Much work would lie ahead before a bill could arrive on Mr. Obama's desk, but action by the Finance Committee would mark a significant advance, capping numerous delays as Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., held marathon negotiating sessions - ultimately unsuccessful - aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.

Four other congressional committees acted before August to pass health legislation, so for months all eyes have been on the Finance Committee, the remaining one. It's also the panel whose moderate makeup most closely resembles the Senate as a whole. And the committee's centrist legislation is seen as the best building block for a compromise plan that could find favor on the Senate floor.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

With Democrats holding a 13-10 majority on the committee the outcome of Tuesday's vote is not in doubt. The big question mark is whether moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine will become the first Republican to support a health overhaul bill. The legislation that passed the other House and Senate committees did so without a single Republican vote. On Monday, Snowe still wasn't saying.

With Finance Committee passage, Mr. Obama's top domestic priority will have advanced farther than former President Bill Clinton's effort ever did. The Clinton health plan never made it through all the congressional committees with jurisdiction.

The final days before Tuesday's long-anticipated vote were rocky. After playing nice for months, the health insurance industry released a report contending that the legislation would cause hefty increases in health insurance premiums.

Democrats and their allies scrambled Monday to knock it down. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother, called it "fundamentally dishonest."

The White House insists the bill would bring health insurance costs down. However, Paul Ginsburg, a non-partisan analyst at the Center for Studying Health System Change, told CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Chip Reid the insurance companies do have a point.

Watch Chip Reid's Evening News report

"If people aren't mandated to buy insurance, then you will get a situation where people stay uninsured until they get sick," Ginsburg told Reid.

The drama threatened to overshadow the vote on the 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

The bill includes consumer protections such as limits on co-pays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.

Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement not enough people would get insured, and premiums would jump for everyone else.

America's Health Insurance Plans commissioned a study to prove just that, alleging the bill would add thousands of dollars to a typical policy. It was timed just ahead of the vote on Baucus' bill but the industry was already looking ahead to negotiations on a final package to bring to the Senate floor.

Once the Finance Committee has acted, the dealmaking can begin in earnest with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., working with White House staff, Baucus and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

A major question mark is whether Reid will include some version of a so-called public plan in the merged bill. Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders are working to finalize their bill, which does contain a public plan, and floor action is expected in both chambers in coming weeks. If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences.

[msaharley]

I would like everyone to have the ability to go into a free Navy medical clinic in the basement of the congress building, just like our congress representative can. I also would like to get a raise like congress just passed to give themselves. They are so out of touch. How can they be fairly deciding on our healthcare, we cannot vote on it and our represtatives and senators take so many contributions from the Insurance, wall street and drug companies that they cannot be fair to the public. I see that all the Health care insurance companies are now investing in mortgage companies again and I just found out that when a congressman retires, he can take home any left over contributions........ and they do not have to pay taxes on the money.

[MB476947]

It's weird..I used to be a pretty middle of the road voter, but the Republicans have become this weird combo of bible-thumping, angry, scared and remarkably manipulative politicians. I don't know that I could vote Republican again...they geninely scare me. Even if I liked the politician him/herself, I think I would have to think twice about the affect the party would have (fund raising, etc) on the person. There's no word for it except disturbing!

[mav3803]

hey , who do you think is paying for this ,its not free , wake up , plus look at canada , u pay by what u make , but get the same care as everyone else, i sad to say voted for obama , like i say sad , only 53%voted for him ,, most to end the war , thats what i voted for , and he lied putting more kids over there , russia could not do it , there went broke , so obama wants too try it , any how not every one wants heatlh care refrom , maybe 30% at most , plus he lied it will cover everyone even the ones that r not suppose to be here , any how wake up it well cost alot out of pocket . and more taxes ,,

[hungry1968-16]

13 Ayes, 10 Nays!!!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 2:25 PM EDT
Actually, I am not ignoring it! As I have said repeatedly, I WANT this to happen. It will hasten our fall...and hasten our ability to return this government to our people.







Translation: "I hate America, and want Obama to fail and our economy to collapse. Then the neo cons that started our free fall can re-assume power, and ignore all of our problems again."

[hungry1968-16]

by NewYork-Joe-5 October 13, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
That's how sick you have become....now MSNBC is "informative" to you....wow You really don't have a clue, do you ?







Unreal.

MSNBC is broadcasting LIVE coverage of the senate hearings, and you somehow believe that LIVE broadcast is tainted, because MSNBC is broadcasting it on the internet?

I have NO RESPONSE for your comment. It's so far beyond stupid, I don't even know how to respond.




I'm assuming that if you're watching a baseball game on NBC, and your favorite team loses, it's NBC's fault for broadcasting the game, correct?

[troutfishyman]

But back to the health care reform.

For those opposed to a govt plan: Explain how our health care is better served by private corporations that are solely concerned with making maximum profit?

[Mortarman29]

Trout, as I said...I will back the Founders and back the Constitution everyday of the week. They founded this country, they wrote the Constitution, and wrote volumes about what it meant. They stated why they put these restrictions in. Then, all of a sudden, about 90 years ago, we begin an earnest push to ignore and go exactly the opposite way that the Founders intended.

Those guys were very smart guys. They had stduied governments throughotu history. They were students of human nature. And they thus came up with a government that would keep us from tyranny, keep us from the worse abuses that happened in EVERy government in history.

You chose to ignore these guys at your own peril. They predicted that if we went the way we are, what would happen. And it is ALL coming true.

But, there are still two obstructions that this onslaught must still breech. The first is the sovereign states of this nation. They created the Federal government, they wrote what they said Washington could do and what it couldnt do. They kept the rest of their powers to themselves. And they are beginning to reassert themselves.

The last obstruction to the Federal government will be the people themselves. As this government continues its onslaught, a very vocal minority will begin pushing back. Remember, most of the people in the 1700s didnt want revolution or war with their government. Only about 1/3rd pursued it (and thank God they did!).

It will be those 1/3rd that will be the ultimate protectors of our liberty.

[troutfishyman]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
They amuse you? Interesting! Again, you ignore the Founders at your own peril.



Not interesting, merely amusing :)

[troutfishyman]

by slownewsday_5 October 13, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
Don't bother, trout - I spent three hours schooling Mort on this one day, until he finally admitted that there's a reason for precedent, even in Constitutional issues.

He's nothing but hot air.




LOL ....

The strict constitutionalists always amuse me :)

[Mortarman29]

They amuse you? Interesting! Again, you ignore the Founders at your own peril.

[Mortarman29]

And by the way, Slow has a problem with coherent sentences so it really is impossible for him to school anyone!!

[slownewsday_5]

You ignore the present at your own peril, Mortie.

Actually, it really doesn't matter - you're coming along whether you like it or not. You get another choice next election.

That's how politics works.

[hungry1968-16]

by slownewsday_5 October 13, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
Don't bother, trout - I spent three hours schooling Mort on this one day, until he finally admitted that there's a reason for precedent, even in Constitutional issues.

He's nothing but hot air.






Not long ago, he said that the constitution WAS NOT a living, changeable document.

That was the most absurd yet.

Coincidentally, that was also the day that he quit responding to me!

LOL!

[hungry1968-16]

by NewYork-Joe-5 October 13, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
That's your idea of entertainment ?? MSNBC hearings of the Baucus Bill ??

LIVE COVERAGE - CHECK IT OUT !!! (umm, no thanks)






Yeah - we know. It's not like you'd want to be informed or anything.

Why would you want to be informed, when you can just start making stuff up and guessing about what might happen?

Or you can go to Fox News where they do that for you, and know that ignorant people such as yourself will believe everything they tell you, because you ARE so uninformed.

[troutfishyman]

No, I did not. I said OUR interpretation is not the correct one. Interpretation has to do with looking at a current issue, and matching it up to the law or Constitutional question. And in that, we must look to the writers of that law for their view on what that law means. Then take that view and apply to the current issue.

THAT is interpretation of the Constitution. Not making it up as we go along!



LOL

You are arguing stuff that was settled many many years ago. Congress clearly has broad powers to legislate, and if someone (like yourself) thinks it is unconstitutional they can take their case to the Supreme Court. Or you can seek to elect those who agree with your position. Either way, you are tilting against windmills, as the old saying goes.

[Mortarman29]

Well, I am in agreement that or government has allowed our freedoms to be taken away and the American people to become ignorant of their constitutional rights, powers, etc. But, none of that is settled! That is why I am supporting the Dems in this government takeover of health coverage!! I want them to illegally seize control over this.

You see, this will force the states to reassert their powers and take back those illegally seaized by the Federal government. Thirty Eight states already have legislation in progress or have passed sovereignty laws, reasserting their powers. Remember, the Federal government is a creature of the states...not the other way around.

The states have been asleep at the wheel for many, many years. This issue is no waking them up! And really, they are the last bastion to be able to stop this Constitutional onslaught. Ifthey dont stop the Federal government, unfortunately, the next stop will be the dissolution of the Union.

And no one wants that!

[troutfishyman]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 1:43 PM EDT
Actually, they dont. The President and the Congress get to also interpret the meaning. So do the States!





But you previously said not interpretation was needed, just go strictly by what is says :)

zing!

[Mortarman29]

No, I did not. I said OUR interpretation is not the correct one. Interpretation has to do with looking at a current issue, and matching it up to the law or Constitutional question. And in that, we must look to the writers of that law for their view on what that law means. Then take that view and apply to the current issue.

THAT is interpretation of the Constitution. Not making it up as we go along!

[slownewsday_5]

Don't bother, trout - I spent three hours schooling Mort on this one day, until he finally admitted that there's a reason for precedent, even in Constitutional issues.

He's nothing but hot air.

[troutfishyman]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
The interpretation you speak of is wrong. Remember, the SCOTUS is not always right. Even the Founders stated that the SCOTUS doesnt get the final interpretation. The Founders stated that the interpretation of the law is what the person(s) who wrote it say it is. Otherwise, the Constitution is what Bush said...just a piece of paper. And it can mean whatever we dream up today.


Of course SCOTUS gets the final word. They may not always be right, but they still get the final word. You can scream and yell and throw tea parties all you want, but that is how it works.

[Mortarman29]

Actually, they dont. The President and the Congress get to also interpret the meaning. So do the States!

Please remember that the powers given to the Federal government actually belong to the States. They gave certain powers to Washington to conduct on their behalf. They kept all the remaining powers to themselves.

I dont need to scream and yell. Right is right. These are the facts. Now, we can ignore the law (the Constitution) ...sure! But, that will lead to tyranny...count on it. And the tyranny may not be from the left...it could also be from the right! And when it happens, will you support their interpretation of your rights?

This country has for far too long allowed this sloppy view of our freedoms and our Constitution. It is why we have most of the problems we do. We have ceded powers to Washington that they have no legal right to. And we wonder how the juggernaught continues.

[hungry1968-16]

http://www.countdowntohealthcare.com/

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
It violates the Constitution because Congress can only pass laws dealing with the enumerated powers listed therein. ANYHTING else it does outside of those powers is unconsitutional!!

Try Article 1 Section 8 to see those powers.






Congress isn't limited to ONLY those enumerated powers, as has been explained to you DOZENS of times.

And if you STILL don't undertand THAT, then please note that in the "enumerated powers" is their responsibility to "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States".

Health Care Reform absolutely is a matter of the United States "general welfare", as it currently is KILLING this country and our economy.

[troutfishyman]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 1:28 PM EDT
Your argument is with the Founders. I am only stating what they said it means...and they wrote it. If someone writes something and says it means X, you cannot intelligently come along later on and proclaim it means Y. That would make you a fool. The person(s) who wrote the words get to define what they mean.



I think thee is the fool. The people who wrote the word are DEAD. Do you understand that? So the Supreme Court (not you) decides whether or not legislation is constitutional.

[Mortarman29]

No....it doesnt matter whether a guy is dead or alive. If he wrote it, he gets to define it! If Ted Kennedy wrote a law right before his death, the meaning of that law still remains 100 years from now.

What you propose is anarchy...and not what this nation was founded on. And certainly not what we want!! Your view is the reason things keep getting worse. There is no rule of law under your view...just the whim of what we want the law to say today. Tomorrow? Hey, we might change our minds!

[troutfishyman]

Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the Taxing and Spending, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress. Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause; for instance, the Social Security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Since Social Security has not been ruled unconstitutional after all these years, I think it is safe to say that health care legislation will also survive quite well.

[Mortarman29]

The interpretation you speak of is wrong. Remember, the SCOTUS is not always right. Even the Founders stated that the SCOTUS doesnt get the final interpretation. The Founders stated that the interpretation of the law is what the person(s) who wrote it say it is. Otherwise, the Constitution is what Bush said...just a piece of paper. And it can mean whatever we dream up today.

[troutfishyman]

by Mortarman29 October 13, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
Sorry. I dont care who has followed it or not. It is the view of those that wrote the thing! Which means, since they wrote it, they know what it meant!! Which means any interpretation of what they wrote that does not jive with their view is the wrong view.



Well, obviously no one cares about YOUR interpretation, based on history. LOL!

[Mortarman29]

Your argument is with the Founders. I am only stating what they said it means...and they wrote it. If someone writes something and says it means X, you cannot intelligently come along later on and proclaim it means Y. That would make you a fool. The person(s) who wrote the words get to define what they mean.

Added to that, you dont want an all powerful central government (which is WHY they worded the Constitution the way they did). Power concentrated in one place leads to tyranny! It ALWAYS does. They even warned us over many of the things we are allowing now.

"[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." James Wilson 1790

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security." James Madison Father of the Constitution