Battle Lines Drawn in Health Care Debate

(AP)  Democrats called it a historic opportunity. Republicans called it a sham.

Long-awaited debate over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul kicked off in the Senate with lawmakers trading bitter partisan words over the measure to remake one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

The legislative struggle is expected to last for weeks in a test that pits Republican senators determined not to give ground against Senate Democrats determined to deliver on Mr. Obama's top domestic policy priority.

The 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance, greatly expands the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor, and would require insurers to cover any paying customer regardless of their medical history or condition.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

On Monday each side offered the first of what are likely to be dozens of amendments, with the measures seemingly designed as much to court a skeptical public as to reshape Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2,074-page bill.

"There's not an issue more important than finishing this legislation," Reid told his colleagues in putting them on notice for Saturday and Sunday sessions in December.

Reid said exorbitant health care costs have forced thousands of Americans into bankruptcy, creating an economic crisis that Congress must address.

Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance or are underinsured, either because their employers do not provide it or they are out of work. The United States is the only developed nation that does not have a comprehensive national health care plan.

However, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the $979 billion, 10-year Senate bill is too expensive for a nation struggling financially.

"The notion that we would even consider spending trillions of dollars we don't have in a way that the majority of Americans don't even want is proof that this health care bill is out of touch," McConnell said.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, attacked the legislation as a "monstrosity" that employs "Bernie Madoff accounting, Enron accounting" as he offered the first Republican amendment. McCain's amendment would strip out more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts to home health providers, hospitals, hospices and others - a pitch to seniors, who polls show have deep concerns about the legislation.

Democrats planned to go on the offence on the same issue Tuesday with an amendment underscoring benefits to seniors and guaranteeing that basic Medicare benefits would not be touched.

Votes on amendments are expected to begin Tuesday. "We have an historic need and we have an historic opportunity. We have an opportunity to enact groundbreaking reform that will finally rein in the cost of health care," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.

It has taken months to advance the legislation to the floor, as Democrats struggled with their own internal divisions as well as unanimous Republican opposition.

Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate, precisely the number needed to end a promised Republican filibuster, a legislative maneuver used to block a final vote on a bill. Reid's ability to steer the bill to passage will depend on finding ways to finesse controversial provisions within the measure, such as a proposal for the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms.

Despite the public jousting significant action was occurring behind the scenes Monday evening as Reid and Baucus huddled to plot strategy with top White House and Cabinet officials including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, along with former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's first pick for HHS secretary before his nomination was derailed by tax issues.

Liberals favor the government insurance plan; moderate and conservative Democrats oppose it. As drafted the bill establishes a so-called government option, although each state can opt out of it. Legislation passed earlier by the House also has a a government option, with no state opt-out provision; it would have to be reconciled with any Senate-passed measure before a final bill could go to Mr. Obama's desk.

Some Democratic senators say they won't vote for the final bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage.

Coinciding with the start of debate, congressional budget experts said the bill would lower the average price of insurance premiums if it passes, although millions would face higher costs.

[pubsrtoast]

However, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the $979 billion, 10-year Senate bill is too expensive for a nation struggling financially
---------------------------

But hey, if you need to start a war of choice then Mitch McConnell and his all-star band of Republican dimwits are your go to guys. Money and aid for everything and everyone as long as they don't live in this country!

[hungry1968-17]

by 80evo December 1, 2009 10:19 AM EST
YOU LIE, anyone who is not insured by their employer will see their premiums go UP. Name one thing barak has not lied about, JUST NAME ONE!!!






EVERYONE that was insured by their employer OR self insured saw their premiums TRIPLE since 1998.

And you're going to sit here and doubt the CBO so that you can keep things the way they were - skyrocketing out of control?

[hungry1968-17]

by Justaneocon December 1, 2009 9:50 AM EST
I thought Obama promised during the campaign my insurance rates would go down by $2500 not just stay the same or have to be tax payer subsidized to be lowered.

Yeah this bill is a great success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







When did he say that?!?!

[hungry1968-17]

by bc-1948 December 1, 2009 12:18 PM EST
Actually, I believe it is now down to only 31% of businesses offer insurance coverage. Now sure what world hungry 1968 lives in - but his assessment is way biased and self-serving. If he has good health insurance at a good price - great - but what about if he loses his job, develops cancer, heart attack, diabetes, or some other major disease?

I am not a deadbeat - in fact, I'll bet I work more hours that he does. - somewhere aroung 2400 per year. I am a CPA - small group - just the insurance for myself and my wife is $21,000 this year. Wonder if he pays for his own - or has his employer subsidize it for him?






My employer pays my heath care for me - at the rate of $18,890 (per my last union contract which expires in March).

We have 21,560 employees.

You do the math.

Then tell my employer how "cheap" it is for them to provide us with health care benefits.





And for the record, 60% of ALL bankruptcies were related to medical problems / issues, and of those - over HALF had employer sponsored health insurance, but STILL went bankrupt.

[lakota2012]

by 80evo:
anyone who is not insured by their employer will see their premiums go UP.
====================================






Hey, don't try to understand the for-profit health care debacle, but just continue your moronic screaming with absolutely no understanding!

First off, fewer and fewer companies can afford to give health care to their employees (certainly not small businesses that don't get the same corporate rates) and the ones that still do, are passing on more of the average $14,000 cost per family to their employees. The deductibles, co-pays and yearly and lifetime caps are hurting all those that get "free" health care from their employers.

For once, instead of spewing the usual fox/rush propaganda, take a good long look at where for-profit health care is headed in America, and see that ALL of us are pawns at the descretion of the wealthy and corporate elite, and their lobbyists are controlling the debate!

[hungry1968-17]

lakota - backing up what you said:

http://ehbs.kff.org/images/abstract/7791.pdf

"Each year we ask employers what changes they plan to make to their health plans in the next year. Among those that offer benefits, large percentages of firms report that in the next year they are very or somewhat likely to increase the amount workers contribute to premiums (40%), increase deductible amounts (41%), increase office visit cost sharing (45%), or increase the amount that employees have to pay for prescription drugs (41%).

"Although firms report planning to increase the amount employees have to pay when they have insurance, few firms report they are very likely or somewhat likely to drop coverage (6%).

"One percent of firms offering coverage say that they are very likely to restrict eligibility for coverage next year, and an additional 12% say that they are somewhat likely to do so."




In a nutshell, 6% are going to drop coverage for their employees altogether, and another 13% are going to STOP offering it to new employees.

[hungry1968-17]

by Justaneocon December 1, 2009 10:27 AM EST
Please explain to all of us how raising taxes on business during a recession can be good for a business. I have a hard time understanding the logic there.

But of course you might want to restate who this good for, it is good for the dead beat liberals looking for something for nothing.

But for the rest of who actually pay our bills and have excellent medical coverage well we just have to bend over and take hit where the sun don't shine because liberals want something for nothing.







Where do you get that "excellent medical coverage" from?

You don't consider $20,000 PER YEAR / PER EMPLOYEE to be a tax on your employer?

There's a reason that 40% of ALL WORKING PEOPLE are NOT going to have employer sponsored health care by 2011, and the reason is because it costs so much friggin' money!!

[bc-1948]

Actually, I believe it is now down to only 31% of businesses offer insurance coverage. Now sure what world hungry 1968 lives in - but his assessment is way biased and self-serving. If he has good health insurance at a good price - great - but what about if he loses his job, develops cancer, heart attack, diabetes, or some other major disease?

I am not a deadbeat - in fact, I'll bet I work more hours that he does. - somewhere aroung 2400 per year. I am a CPA - small group - just the insurance for myself and my wife is $21,000 this year. Wonder if he pays for his own - or has his employer subsidize it for him?

[melchg07]

Does anyone have a link to a non-partisan website that shows exactly what all healthcare premiums are spent on?

Although I like having high competition I'm starting to believe that the insurance companies are getting to much of the focus put on them and other sectors such as BIG PHARM is not. (hopefully reforms for that sector will come next year)

I just have a hard time seeing how this is going to lower premiums by much. I mean i've look at several sites that have showed that health insurance profit margins are only about 4-5 %.....which would mean in theory that only 4-5% can be saved at the MAX.

Although I do like how this is getting most people insured though and excludes having coverage dropped.

[doctor_know]

Among developed nations the US has one of the most expensive yet least effective health care systems. So I would say that the 5% is in no way an upper bound on savings.

[bc-1948]

That is after the 20% overhead - which includes huge salaries and bonuses -

I agree that it will result in higher premiums for young people - but much lower premiums for people 50+. That is where the insurance companies really start increasing the rates. But, a large pool of both young and old workers will likely result in overall premium reductions -

At age 60-61, my group health premiums for just myself and my spouse are $21,000 this year. Obviously, I would like the opportunity to participate in a public plan that would create a large risk pool rather than having our small group rated by itself.

[lakota2012]

by rightbehind:
It does need to be tanked if it does not have a strong public option. I say take 4 more of the 18 republican senate seats on the ballot in 2010 and we go single payer. We get rid of the worthless republican created HMOs and save 1 of every 3 dollars spent on health care.
=========================================





The only way to reform our health care debacle that will not allow it to completely bankrupt America within the next few decades, is to go to some form of single-payer UHC system like the rest of the industrialized world. According to ex-Comptroller General David Walker, America is looking at over $40 Trillion in unfunded future liabilities, mainly from Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security due to the 80 million retiring baby boomers, and the current for-profit health care system is unaffordable and unsustainable.

Without TRUE health care reform -- certainly not the watered-down versions we're seeing in both the House and Senate -- America will need to see the entire system fail before it is reformed.

[Justaneocon]

Medicare and/Medicaid are a form of single payer and they bankrupt. Why would any intelligent person want to get access to a bankrupt system?

Seriously the liberals chant single payer and the only forms of single payer we have are bankrupt and in your worlds holding 40 trillion in unfunded debt. Yeah that gives me a lot of confidence in government run health care.

[slownewsday-5]

Hey, Just - have you checked out the Swiss system? Entirely privatized, just regulated. Everyone gets insured through a base-level plan, then the insurance companies make their profits through upsells (like plans which guarantee getting in quicker, or getting a private room, etc).

Seems to make the most sense to me - any opinion? Read up on it? Too bad we've not gone that direction, as I think it's something everyone would tend to compromise on.

[lakota2012]

by Justaneocon:
There is a simple solution to this have a nation wide vote and those who want government run garbage get it and have to pay for it.
=============================================






And on that same exact note, all you NEOCONS can be expected to pay for the past 8 years of bush/cheney endless WARmongering, and all the future costs of Iraq/Afghanistan since it was never paid for. You PNAC NEOCONS can finally make your payments to the WAR profiteers of the military/industrial complex like halli-cheney-burton, KBR and the blackwater christian crusaders!

[Justaneocon]

One problem there Obama is doubling down the war effort so now you voted the latest war monger in so you are now on the hook for tab along with rest of us.

Heck now if we prosecute Bush for war crimes we can charge Obama as co conspirator to war crimes. It is great the next great "Hope" is now a war criminal right along side of Bush and Chaney.

[Justaneocon]

Sorry but you lefties voted in the latest war monger so with Obama doubling down on the war effort you are now on the hook for the tab like the rest of us.

I wonder now that Obama hasn't ended either of the two so called illegal wars is he now a war criminal? Is he now going to be prosecuted right along side Bush and Cheney?

Remember all you left loons chanted we are a nation of laws and Obama continues to break teh same laws you say Bush did lets have those prosecution's. lol

[slownewsday-5]

by Justaneocon December 1, 2009 10:27 AM EST
Please explain to all of us how raising taxes on business during a recession can be good for a business. I have a hard time understanding the logic there.


Please explain to us how allowing insurance premiums to be raised unchecked and allowing insurers to drop the insured during a recession is good for those struggling or without jobs. I have a hard time understanding the logic there.

.

[Justaneocon]

This bill does nothing to stop insurance premiums from going up all it does is subsidize the high premiums.

I mean seriously where is the benefit for the average American when all we are doing is subsidizing high premiums.

[slownewsday-5]

Well, MC08, I truly believe that premiums have to be stopped. I am fiscally conservative and prefer small government, but when it comes to being held hostage and robbed using my own health as leverage (and outpacing inflation 3 to 1), I see the need for what I consider to be "consumer protections".

Honestly, if they'd simply aimed for "consumer protections" such as they have done with the credit-card changes being implemented in Feb or Mar 2010, then I don't think we'd all be having the current debate.

And "no" on the steak and beer - been trying to lose a few pounds. Maybe that's why I've been a bit ornery here recently!