Missouri Lawmakers Weigh ‘Health Care Freedom Act’
March 4, 2010 – With Virginia already having a bill ready for the signature of its governor, the Missouri soon may join the growing number of states formally challenging a potential federal health insurance mandate for U.S. citizens.
The Missouri House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly gave preliminary approval to the state’s proposed Health Care Freedom Act, which would amend the state’s constitution to prevent any government from requiring Missouri residents to purchase health insurance and outlaw levying fines for not buying health insurance. If approved by the Missouri Legislature, the Health Care Freedom Act would have to be ratified by voters in November in order to amend the Missouri Constitution.
The Missouri House voted 113-40 to approve the amendment yesterday, but another round of voting is necessary before it can go to the Missouri Senate for further consideration.
The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Tim Jones (R-Eureka), said federal lawmakers and President Barack Obama are reaching beyond their authority in wanting to force all Americans to purchase health insurance.
“Like no other time in our nation’s history, the federal government has tried to insert itself into an area in which it does not belong to force Missouri citizens and citizens across the country to purchase a product,” Jones was quoted saying by the Associated Press. “This is a privacy issue. It’s a civil rights issue. It’s a civil liberties issue.”
Lawmakers in about two-thirds of all states have initiated legislation challenging the proposed federal health insurance mandate included in separate measures approved by the U.S. Senate and Congress. The U.S. House and Senate versions both contain exemptions for religious groups, such as Christian Scientists and the Amish, who have conscientious objections to purchasing health insurance for religious reasons.
Thus far, Virginia state lawmakers have gone the furthest in challenging the proposed federal health insurance mandate by approving a bill that now awaits signing by Virginia’s governor.
The Democrat-controlled Virginia Legislature last month approved measures making it illegal to force individuals to purchase health insurance. Although President Barack Obama overwhelmingly carried Virginia during the 2008 election, the recent backlash over Democrats’ efforts at national health care reform helped propel Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican, to an unexpected win in Virginia’s recent gubernatorial race as well as Republican Scott Brown to victory in the recent U.S. Senate special election to occupy the seat held for decades by Democrat stalwart and health care reform crusader Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
With several recent public opinion polls showing a majority of American’s surveyed strongly oppose to current federal health care reform efforts, many state officials are feeling more emboldened at challenging federal health care reform efforts and mandates.
COBRA Health Insurance Subsidy Extended through March
March 3, 2010 – A much-maligned halt in a federal health insurance subsidy for unemployed Americans was averted for a month after Senate Democrats yesterday cut a deal allowing passage of a federal spending measure.
President Barack Obama last night signed into law legislation temporarily extending the federal COBRA health insurance subsidy through March 31. Members of Congress are working on a longer extension through the end of the year, but the temporary extension was necessary after program expired Feb. 28.
The federal COBRA subsidy program helps workers who lost their jobs due to the recent economic downturn maintain their prior group health insurance coverage by paying about 65 percent of the premiums. The federal COBRA subsidy initially lasted 9 months, but with the United States facing its worst job market in decades, an estimated 7 million unemployed Americans would have begun losing their subsidy on Feb. 28. The latest extension was approved after Senate Democrats cut a deal allowing a floor vote on a funding measure for the temporary extension.
U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) last week used Senate Republicans’ renewed filibuster power to block a $10 billion spending bill providing funding to extend the COBRA health insurance subsidy program as well as the National Flood Insurance Program, federal unemployment benefits and federal highway projects, among others. Bunning objected to Democrats’ plans to add to the already record-level federal deficit, instead favoring using unallocated federal stimulus funding to fund the programs.
But Senate Democrats yesterday agreed to allow a floor vote on an amendment sponsored by Bunning requiring the $10 billion come from the unallocated portion of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill approved last year. The amendment was defeated, after which the Senate voted to approve the funding measure and sent it to President Barack Obama, who signed it into law last night.
The $787 billion federal stimulus package approved last year allocated funds to help unemployed Americans continue their health insurance benefits through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 – popularly known as COBRA.
American families who recently lost their primary incomes due to unemployment have seen their average monthly health insurance benefits payments rise from about $389 per month while employed to $1,111 per month if choosing to continue them through COBRA, according to the non-profit Families USA organization. A monthly health insurance premium of $1,111 uses up about 83 percent of the average monthly unemployment take-home benefits of about $1,332, according to Families USA.
Senate Balks on COBRA Health Insurance Subsidy Extension
March 1, 2010 – Yet another planned temporary extension of a federal program helping unemployed Americans maintain their group health insurance benefits has failed despite an announcement last week the program would be extended through March.
The temporary extension was halted and the program expired after U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) objected to a $10 billion measure that would have temporarily funded the federal COBRA health insurance subsidy through March. Bunning blocked the measure due to concerns of runaway spending by President Barack Obama’s administration and Congressional Democrats as the national deficit continues rising beyond unprecedented levels. Bunning cited an additional $5 trillion in national debt since Democrats took full control of Congress more than three years ago coupled with a projected budget deficit of more than $1.5 trillion for the current year as primary reasons for blocking the spending measure.
Several Republican Senators were willing to back the $10 billion spending measure so long as Democrats used existing, unspent stimulus funds to pay for it, according to a report by Fox News. But when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to utilize stimulus funding, Bunning acted to block the measure, which also halts funding for the National Flood Insurance Program and several federal transportation projects.
Although Bunning’s action has blocked the funding measure, an estimated 400,000 unemployed Americans who would be affected most likely will not suffer any lapses in health insurance coverage, Fox News reported. Federal officials have access to emergency funds capable of sustaining the COBRA health insurance subsidy until either a permanent solution is worked out or another temporary extension is approved. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also reportedly has said he will make the extension part of a larger funding measure Bunning would not be able to block.
The federal COBRA subsidy program helps workers who lost their jobs due to the recent economic downturn maintain their prior group health insurance coverage without paying the full premium. The federal COBRA subsidy initially lasted 9 months, but with the United States facing its worst job market in decades, an estimated 7 million unemployed Americans began losing their federal COBRA subsidies on Dec. 1. Federal lawmakers temporarily extended the program in mid December, but they once again became bogged-down in health care reform debate – particularly in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s recent victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race to fill the vacancy left by the recent death of Ted Kennedy.
Having lost their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, Democrats and President Barack Obama are exploring ways to implement changes to the $2.5 trillion a year health care industry in the United States. But while searching for ways to push through what Obama has cited as his “number one” domestic policy priority, federal lawmakers balked at making permanent changes to the COBRA subsidy program in favor of simply extending it through April 5.
The $787 billion federal stimulus package approved last year allocated funds to help unemployed Americans continue their health insurance benefits through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 – popularly known as COBRA. COBRA allows unemployed Americans to continue their group health insurance benefits for up to 18 months when they lose their jobs but requires them to pay the full premium – including any amounts their former employers paid to provide the health care benefits.
When federal officials approved the $787 billion federal stimulus package, they included a provision providing a federal subsidy to pay for 65 percent of health insurance benefits extended through COBRA, but the additional benefit would last only nine of the 18 months for which COBRA can last.
American families who recently lost their primary incomes due to unemployment have seen their average monthly health insurance benefits payments rise from about $389 per month while employed to $1,111 per month if choosing to continue them through COBRA, according to the non-profit Families USA organization. A monthly health insurance premium of $1,111 uses up about 83 percent of the average monthly unemployment take-home benefits of about $1,332, according to Families USA.
Federal COBRA Health Insurance Subsidy to be Extended Through March
Feb. 26, 2010 – Favoring a publicity stunt over real action, federal lawmakers yesterday chose the easy route of yet again temporarily extending the federal COBRA health insurance subsidy program for unemployed workers and their families while they spent the majority of their time debating hotly contested federal health care reform measures that would not take effect for several years.
The federal COBRA subsidy program helps workers who lost their jobs due to the recent economic downturn maintain their prior group health insurance coverage without paying the full premium. The federal COBRA subsidy initially lasted 9 months, but with the United States facing its worst job market in decades, an estimated 7 million unemployed Americans began losing their federal COBRA subsidies on Dec. 1. Federal lawmakers temporarily extended the program in mid December, but they once again have become bogged down in health care reform debate – particularly in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s recent victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race to fill the vacancy left by the recent death of Ted Kennedy.
Having lost their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, Democrats and President Barack Obama are exploring ways to implement changes to the $2.5 trillion a year health care industry in the United States. But while searching for ways to push through what Obama has cited as his “number one” domestic policy priority, federal lawmakers balked at making permanent changes to the COBRA subsidy program in favor of simply extending it through April 5.
The extension applies to unemployed Americans currently receiving the COBRA subsidy or who recently used up their 9-months’ of program eligibility. The $787 billion federal stimulus package approved last year allocated funds to help unemployed Americans continue their health insurance benefits through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 – popularly known as COBRA. COBRA allows unemployed Americans to continue their group health insurance benefits for up to 18 months when they lose their jobs but requires them to pay the full premium – including any amounts their former employers paid to provide the health care benefits.
When federal officials approved the $787 billion federal stimulus package, they included a provision providing a federal subsidy to pay for 65 percent of health insurance benefits extended through COBRA, but the additional benefit would last only nine of the 18 months for which COBRA can last.
American families who recently lost their primary incomes due to unemployment have seen their average monthly health insurance benefits payments rise from about $389 per month while employed to $1,111 per month if choosing to continue them through COBRA, according to the non-profit Families USA organization. A monthly health insurance premium of $1,111 uses up about 83 percent of the average monthly unemployment take-home benefits of about $1,332, according to Families USA.
President, GOP Spar Over Health Care Reform
Feb. 25, 2010 – Largely considered a publicity stunt, President Barack Obama and federal lawmakers today discussed stalled health care reform measures in what amounted more to televised political theater than actual debate.
Having recently lost a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, Obama and Democrats temporarily have reversed course on health care reform efforts, having scrapped a public option along with a deal providing more than $100 million in Medicaid funding to Nebraska in order to secure the vote of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson. Because Nelson’s vote no longer is necessary to prevent a filibuster, Obama and Congressional Democrats reneged on pork promises to that state. Obama and Democrats have affirmed a $300 million payment to Louisiana previously promised to gain the support of Senator Landrieu (D-Louisiana).
Having suffered the political embarrassment of not being able to lead members of his political party toward agreement on efforts to rework the nation’s $2.5 trillion a year health care industry during his first year in office, the President is renewing his health care reform efforts despite lagging public support for what Obama previously said is his “number one” domestic priority. Leading Democrats have suggested pushing through a reconciliation measure based on bills already approved in the Senate and House of Representatives, but a public opinion poll released today by CNN suggests only 25 percent of those surveyed would support such an effort.
And several states are working on legislation directly challenging a key provision in bills approved exclusively by Congressional Democrats: Requiring all Americans to purchase health care insurance if they lack coverage.
Because both versions of federal health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate would require U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance coverage, several state legislatures are considering joining the Virginia Legislature in passing bans on insurance mandates. And more than a dozen state attorneys general are questioning the Constitutionality of the federal government compelling U.S. citizens to engage in commerce by forcing them to purchase health insurance or be fined.
The Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate earlier voted 23-17 to approve measures making it illegal to force individual to purchase health insurance. The GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates on Feb. 12 concurred with the Senate and forwarded the measure to the state’s Governor, who is expected to sign it into law.
With several recent public opinion polls showing a majority of American’s polled strongly oppose to current federal health care reform efforts, many state officials are feeling more emboldened at challenging federal health care reform efforts and mandates.
Virginia Legislature Votes to Ban Health Insurance Mandate
Feb. 12, 2010 – In a direct challenge to a key provision in stalled federal health care reform efforts, a measure blocking potential federal health insurance mandates cleared the Virginia Legislature today and goes to Republican Governor Bob McDonnell for a likely signing.
Because both versions of federal health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate would require U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance coverage, several state legislatures are considering joining the Virginia Senate in passing bans on insurance mandates. And more than a dozen state attorneys general are questioning the Constitutionality of the federal government compelling U.S. citizens to engage in commerce by forcing them to purchase health insurance or be fined.
The Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate earlier voted 23-17 to approve measures making it illegal to force individual to purchase health insurance. The GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates today concurred with the Senate and forwarded the measure to McConnell, who is expected to sign the measure into law.
Although President Barack Obama overwhelmingly carried Virginia during the 2008 election, the recent backlash over Democrats’ efforts at national health care reform propelled McDonnell to an unexpected win in Virginia’s recent gubernatorial race as well as Republican Scott Brown’s recent U.S. Senate victory to occupy the seat held for decades by Democrat stalwart and health care reform crusader Sen. Edward Kennedy. With several recent public opinion polls showing a majority of American’s polled strongly oppose to current federal health care reform efforts, many state officials are feeling more emboldened at challenging federal health care reform efforts and mandates.
Five Virginia Senate Democrats joined 18 Republicans in voting to outlaw federal insurance mandates and directly challenge national health care reform efforts by Congressional Democrats and the President. Several other state legislatures are considering similar moves.
Strong opposition to national health care reform arose just as federal lawmakers were poised to approve sweeping reform of the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi essentially announced current health care reform efforts were dead now that Brown won the critical U.S. Senate seat and Democrats no longer have the votes necessary to prevent a Republican filibuster of health care bills in the U.S. Senate.
Pelosi said she does not have the votes necessary to approve the version of health care already passed in the U.S. Senate without amending it and sending it back to the Senate – at which point Republicans likely would initiate a filibuster Democrats would be powerless to prevent. Moderate House Democrats, such as Michigan’s Bart Stupak, oppose the abortion-funding measure in the bill already passed by the Senate. The version approved by the House does not allow federal funding of abortions, but Senate Republicans can filibuster that bill, as well. The Senate version also includes a tax on health care benefits opposed by House Democrats as being too hard on America’s middle class families.
Despite recent setbacks, Obama cited a lack of communication with U.S. voters as the reason for floundering national health care reform during his 70-minute State of the Union Address Jan. 27. But Obama suggested federal health care reform efforts would be renewed.
Congress to Tackle Measure Targeting Health Insurance Monopolies
Feb. 8, 2010 – Saying they want to increase competition and make health insurance more affordable, two Democratic lawmakers last week introduced legislation removing federal anti-trust exemptions from health insurance companies that likely will be debated this week.
Claiming the government-supported monopoly for health insurers results in higher health insurance premiums for consumers, U.S. Representatives Tom Perriello (D-Virginia) and Betsy Markey (D-Colorado) recently announced their intent to introduce a measure removing the federal anti-trust exemption enjoyed by health insurers and medical malpractice companies. The anti-trust exemption only makes it easier for health insurers to collude and establish higher premiums while facing little real competition, the lawmakers contend.
“The current health care system is crushing our families and businesses. Support for removing this unfair exemption cuts across party lines, and is a major piece of common ground that I’ve been working toward in our country’s health care debate,” Rep. Markey said in a news release. “This is about bringing sorely-needed competition back into an industry that has for too long wielded monopoly control over hard-working American families.”
The so-called Markey-Perriello bill would remove anti-trust exemptions the two freshman lawmakers claim enable executives at health insurance companies to set unreasonably high health insurance premiums, stake out market territories within individual states and rigging bidding on group health insurance contracts. The pair also claim some 400 mergers among health insurance companies during the past 14 years has concentrated about 95 percent of the nation’s health insurance markets in too few hands.
The proposed measure would repeal the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which allows states to regulate insurance companies unless federal lawmakers enact legislation specifically designed to regulate the nation’s insurance industry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) last week said the measure likely would be debated this week on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Markey and Perriello contend the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies has resulted in health insurance premiums more than doubling over the prior decade, but critics say otherwise. A study conducted last year by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office suggests repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would have no discernable outcome and might result in higher insurance premiums rather than lowering them.
Some state insurance regulators say placing federal officials in control of insurance regulation would siphon away funds from already cash-strapped state general funds. Other critics suggest removing anti-trust exemptions simply would play into the hands of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, which aren’t as reliant upon other insurers for health-related information necessary to establish suitable health insurance premiums. The net effect would be to drive out smaller health insurance companies and create an even greater monopoly among the nation’s largest health insurance companies, some critics contend.
Regardless its outcome, leading Democrats on Capitol Hill are anxious to at least appear to be moving forward with national health care reform President Obama previously stated was his “number one” domestic priority but whose efforts were derailed by Republican Scott Brown’s recent upset victory over early favorite Martha Coakley in Massachusetts’ special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated upon the recent demise of the late Edward Kennedy.
All for Naught: No Return Likely on Nelson, Landrieu Sell-Outs
Feb. 5, 20109 – President Barack Obama took office less than a year ago and has managed to turn a filibuster-proof U.S. Senate Democratic majority into a political liability after attempting to force unpopular health care reform bills down the collective throats of reluctant voters.
But the biggest loses might be U.S. Senators who compromised their principles in order to secure large payouts for their respective states that likely won’t occur. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana),
In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s recent stunning upset win over early favorite Martha Coakley to fill Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, President Barack Obama during his Jan. 27 State of the Union Address and again yesterday informed fellow Democrats he was switching his emphasis from national health care reform to jobs creation. Obama previously wanted a health care reform package for him to sign into law before delivering his State of the Union Address.
But a divided Democratic House caucus and initial opposition from Senate Democrats slowed the political process, which ground to a halt when Brown defeated Coakley on Jan. 19 and gave Senate Republicans the critical 41st vote needed to filibuster legislation being debated in the Senate. Brown ran on a campaign promise of blocking unpopular health care reform efforts.
While addressing a Democratic National Committee fundraiser last night, Obama suggested health care reform likely won’t occur given the sudden change in the nation’s political landscape. Instead of trying to ram through unpopular bills, Obama announced a slowing of the process, which he admitted might not be completed.
“I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let’s go ahead and make a decision,” the Associated Press quoted Obama telling financial supporters of the Democratic Party. “And it may be that if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not.”
Nelson and Landrieu initially withheld their support for the measures eventually approved in the Senate until securing secretive deals at the expense of other states. Nelson gave in on his demand that the Senate bills provide no federal funding abortion procedures after securing an agreement for other states to provide $100 million in federal Medicaid program funding for Nebraska. Landrieu secured a similar deal for up to $400 million in Medicaid program funding for Louisiana after initially opposing the “public option” and other proposals in the Senate health care bills.
But with Brown’s recent victory and Obama clearly pulling back on what formerly was his top domestic priority, Nelson reportedly has offered to nix the deal while Landrieu remains firm in securing the $400 million for Louisiana if Obama and Senate Democrats want to count on her vote.
Although Landrieu remains unapologetic for selling out, Obama yesterday may have sounded the death knell on Democrats’ national health care reform efforts – particularly during a mid-term election year in which several House Democrats have switched allegiance to the minority Republican Party and a Senate seat occupied by Democrats for decades suddenly has swung to Republicans in light of the unsavory deals made by Democrats in apparently futile efforts to enact legislation public opinion polls show most Americans don’t want.
With Democrats facing a likely loss of Congressional seats and possibly control of the U.S. Senate after the November election cycle, political reality and expediency might have made a triumphant return on Capitol Hill.
Federal Regulators Implement Mental Health ‘Parity’ Rules
Feb. 3, 2010 – U.S. citizens in need of mental health or substance abuse treatment and who are enrolled in group health insurance programs will have greater levels of service assured through new mental health “parity” rules announced by federal officials this week.
Officials for the U.S. Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services this week jointly announced new rules regarding mental health and substance abuse treatment as provided through group health insurance plans.
The new federal administrative rules amend the federal government’s 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act to prevent group health insurance programs from charging additional amounts or otherwise restricting patient access to care for mental health disorders and substance abuse.
The federal mandate is designed to help individuals get the full extent of care necessary, according to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
“The rules we are issuing will, for the first time, help assure that those diagnosed with these debilitating and sometimes life-threatening disorders will not suffer needless or arbitrary limits on their care,” Sebelius said.
Another federal official said the new rules also would help the families of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders or struggling with substance abuse.
“[These] rules will bring needed relief to families faced with meeting the cost of obtaining mental health and substance abuse services,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. “The benefits will give these Americans access to greatly needed medical treatment, which will better allow them to participate fully in society.”
The revised federal law requires any group health insurance plan providing benefits to treat mental health disorders and substance abuse as well as traditional medical and surgical benefits to administer the benefits equally in regards to coverage limits and administrative review. The new regulations require mental health and substance abuse benefits limitations be based on scientific evidence on par with that used to determine the amounts of medical and surgical benefits provided by the same plans. The new rules also prevent insurance plan administrators from applying different deductible rates for mental health and substance abuse treatment than are levied for medical and surgical claims.
The revised federal regulations apply to job providers with 50 or more employees and whose group health plans provide benefits for treating mental illness or substance abuse. The new rules become effective for benefit years starting on or after July 1.
Virginia Senate Votes to Ban Insurance Mandates
Feb. 2, 2010 – The Democrat-controlled Virginia State Senate yesterday voted to block federal legislative efforts forcing all U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance coverage.
Because both versions of federal health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate would require U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance coverage, several state legislatures are considering joining the Virginia Senate in passing bans on insurance mandates. And more than a dozen state attorneys general are questioning the Constitutionality of the federal government compelling U.S. citizens to engage in commerce by forcing them to purchase health insurance or be fined.
The Virginia Senate voted 23-17 to approve measures making it illegal to force individual to purchase health insurance. Leaders in the GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates support the Senate measure, which likely will be approved in the lower chamber and sent to Governor Bob McConnell for signing.
Although President Barack Obama overwhelmingly carried Virginia during the 2008 election, the recent backlash over Democrats’ efforts at national health care reform propelled McDonnell to an unexpected win in Virginia’s recent gubernatorial race as well as Republican Scott Brown’s recent U.S. Senate victory to occupy the seat held for decades by Democrat stalwart and health care reform crusader Sen. Edward Kennedy. With several recent public opinion polls showing a majority of American’s polled strongly oppose to current federal health care reform efforts, many state officials are feeling more emboldened at challenging federal health care reform efforts and mandates.
Five Virginia Senate Democrats joined 18 Republicans in voting to outlaw federal insurance mandates and directly challenge national health care reform efforts by Congressional Democrats and the President. Several other state legislatures are considering similar moves.
Strong opposition to national health care reform arose just as federal lawmakers were poised to approve sweeping reform of the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi essentially announced current health care reform efforts were dead now that Brown won the critical U.S. Senate seat and Democrats no longer have the votes necessary to prevent a Republican filibuster of health care bills in the U.S. Senate.
Pelosi said she does not have the votes necessary to approve the version of health care already passed in the U.S. Senate without amending it and sending it back to the Senate – at which point Republicans likely would initiate a filibuster Democrats would be powerless to prevent. Moderate House Democrats, such as Michigan’s Bart Stupak, oppose the abortion-funding measure in the bill already passed by the Senate. The version approved by the House does not allow federal funding of abortions, but Senate Republicans can filibuster that bill, as well. The Senate version also includes a tax on health care benefits opposed by House Democrats as being too hard on America’s middle class families.
Despite recent setbacks, Obama cited a lack of communication with U.S. voters as the reason for floundering national health care reform during his 70-minute State of the Union Address Jan. 27. But Obama suggested federal health care reform efforts would be renewed.
Obama Shifts Priorities, Not Gears During State of the Union Address
Jan. 28, 2010 – Rather than announce a renewed effort to conclude contentious national health care reform, President Barack Obama during last night’s annual State of the Union address announced a change in priority to getting Americans back to work more so than revamping the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care system.
But Obama didn’t give up on his pet domestic policy that recently has rankled many Americans out of their prior apathy and cost Democrats a key U.S. Senate seat.
“Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people,” Obama said during his national address delivered in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber.
In the wake of last week’s stunning Massachusetts U.S. Senate election loss to Republican Scott Brown, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi essentially announced current health care reform efforts were dead now that Democrats no longer have the votes necessary to prevent a Republican filibuster of health care bills in the U.S. Senate. Pelosi said she does not have the votes necessary to approve the version of health care already passed in the U.S. Senate without amending it and sending it back to the Senate – at which point Republicans likely would initiate a filibuster Democrats would be powerless to prevent.
Moderate House Democrats, such as Michigan’s Bart Stupak, oppose the abortion-funding measure in the bill already passed by the Senate. The version approved by the House does not allow federal funding of abortions, but Senate Republicans can filibuster that bill, as well. The Senate version also includes a tax on health care benefits opposed by House Democrats as being too hard on America’s middle class families.
During his 70-minute State of the Union Address, Obama cited a lack of communication with U.S. voters as the reason for floundering national health care reform, but he suggested those efforts will be renewed.
“I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people,” Obama said. He signaled a coming cooling down period to allow lawmakers and voters time to reassess health care reform efforts the President wants renewed.
“As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed,” Obama told lawmakers. “Do not walk away from [health care] reform. Not now. Not when we are so close.”
Obama said he won’t give up on trying to reform the U.S. health care system but added improving the nation’s economy and creating jobs would be his “number one focus” this year. To what extent national health care reform will be a part of Obama’s economic reform efforts remains to be seen as members of Congress enter a mid-term election year that already has seen Democrats lose one U.S. Senate seat and several House Democrats make the nearly unheard of move of changing membership from the majority Democratic Party controlling both houses of Congress as well as the White House to the minority Republican Party.
Pelosi Says Federal Health Care Bills Are Dead
Jan. 21, 2010 – Two days after Republican Scott Brown upset early favorite and Democratic Party candidate Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward Kennedy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially told reporters the health care bills approved by the House and Senate are dead.
With Brown’s victory, Senate Republicans now have the critical 41st vote necessary to prevent Democrats from blocking filibuster attempts on highly controversial health care reform measures. Some Congressional Democrats suggested the House simply could vote to approve the Senate version with no amendments and send it to President Barack Obama for signing.
But Pelosi today told a group of reporters that she does not have the votes necessary to approve the Senate’s version of national health care reform, which does not restrict federal funding of abortions to the same extent as the measure approved in the House. The President previously wanted to have health care reform legislation signed into law before his Jan. 27 State of the Union Address. Brown’s victory means Obama won’t have a bill to sign.
Part of Brown’s successful platform is a campaign promise to vote against current health care reform measures, which propelled the Republican upstart to victory in a state traditionally leaning toward Democrats. But while Brown’s win means Senate Democrats no longer have free reign to impose their will on the upper chamber of Congress, internal opposition from other Democrats is stopping Pelosi from imposing her will in the House of Representatives.
“I know leadership has flowed with the idea over the weekend that let’s just take the Senate bill and just vote on it in the House floor. I bet it wouldn’t get a hundred votes,” Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) told the Fox Business Network yesterday. Stupak heads a coalition of moderate House Democrats opposed to federal funding of abortions, which the Senate version would allow.
“Members are very upset about the Senate bill … especially when it looked like states were paid off for that 60th vote,” Stupak explained. “Have we relegated the legislative body to who can get the best deal? People should have been able to put their vote up based on policy, not on what did I get for my state. And that really soured the American people and House members. We’re not willing to take that Senate bill – that Nebraska’s guy’s special deal or Louisiana or Florida or whatever.”
Another option Democrats have considered is to create a compromise measure requiring only a simple majority of 51 votes for approval in the Senate. But without 60 votes to stop a likely Republican filibuster, Senate Democrats most likely would not be able to call for a vote to approve or disapprove a potential compromise measure.
Health Care Legislation Stalls as Brown Wins U.S. Senate Seat
Jan. 20, 2010 – Republican Scott Brown upset Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant upon Ted Kennedy’s recent demise casts doubt on the ability of Congressional Democrats to pass hotly contested health care reform measures.
Brown’s clear victory over early favorite Coakley means Senate Democrats no longer have the 60 votes necessary to prevent a Republican filibuster. Democrats now have 57 seats in the U.S. Senate to 41 seats for Republicans. Two Senate seats are held by independents who have chosen to caucus with Democrats.
Both chambers of Congress have approved widely varying versions of national health care reform, but without a clear 60-seat majority in the Senate, getting a bill finalized for President Barack Obama to sign before delivering his Jan. 27 State of the Union Address has become doubtful. Some Congressional Democrats have suggested they simply would approve the Senate’s health care package without amending it, but several prominent Democrats have said that won’t happen.
“I know leadership has flowed with the idea over the weekend that let’s just take the Senate bill and just vote on it in the House floor. I bet it wouldn’t get a hundred votes,” Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) told the Fox Business Network today. Stupak heads a coalition of moderate House Democrats opposed to federal funding of abortions, which the Senate version would allow.
“Members are very upset about the Senate bill … especially when it looked like states were paid off for that 60th vote,” Stupak explained. “Have we relegated the legislative body to who can get the best deal? People should have been able to put their vote up based on policy, not on what did I get for my state. And that really soured the American people and House members. We’re not willing to take that Senate bill – that Nebraska’s guy’s special deal or Louisiana or Florida or whatever.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer earlier told reporters he hoped Coakley would win but suggested the best move if Brown won would be for House Democrats to simply approve the Senate version of health care reform. And CNN has reported the White House and Democrat strategists are trying to lay the groundwork for having the Senate measure passed without amendment.
Another option is for Democrats to employ a Parliamentary sleight-of-hand and craft a compromise measure requiring only a simple majority of 51 votes for approval in the Senate. But without 60 votes to stop a likely Republican filibuster, Senate Democrats would not be able to call for a vote to approve or disapprove a potential compromise measure.
But with strong internal opposition in addition to opposition from newly empowered Senate Republicans, several leading Democrats have said current efforts likely will be scrapped. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has said a victory by Brown would “kill” the health care bills. And Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) yesterday issued a statement saying: “I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
Coakley already has conceded the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts. Now it remains to be seen how President Obama and Congressional leaders react to the largest setback to their domestic agenda.
Democrats Exempt Unions from Benefits Tax; Senate Race Might Kill Bill
Jan. 15, 2010 – Democrats have cut yet another political deal to move forward with health care reform efforts by exempting union members from paying a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance benefits, but a pending U.S. Senate special election might kill all efforts.
The exemption was agreed to as Congressional leaders met with union officials and others behind closed doors during a 15-hour negotiations session in the White House on Wednesday. Union officials had threatened to withhold support of Democratic efforts to reform the United States’ $2.5 trillion-a-year health care system if they levied a 40 percent excise tax on generous group health care benefits.
Labor unions opposed the measure, saying their members accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits packages. The proposed 40 percent excise tax essentially is a tax on middle class families, and union members would have paid an estimated $60 billion over the duration of the tax.
But Congressional Democrats meeting with union representatives behind closed doors agreed to exempt union members from paying the so-called “Cadillac tax” on costly health care benefits until 2018. The deal means union members would be spared paying the estimated $60 billion in taxes while other working families would have to pay up to $90 billion in additional taxes simply for not being members of a union subject to collective bargaining agreements.
Lawmakers also agreed to exempt the dental and vision plans for collective bargaining units from the 40 percent excise tax, which would be levied on health insurance benefits totaling at least $8,900 annually for individuals and $24,000 annually for families. The annual benefits threshold will be even higher for health insurance plans with higher percentages of older workers and women, according to new reports.
Among union leaders participating in the secret discussions were Service Employees Union chief, Andy Stern, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Union officials representing teachers, food and commercial workers, electricians and government workers also participated in the marathon, private negotiations.
President Obama claims the excise tax would decrease health care costs by forcing health insurance companies to offer more affordable group health insurance plans to prevent paying the 40 percent excise tax. Congressional Democrats are trying to iron out differences between health reform measures approved separately in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. A compromise measure might be ready before the President delivers his annual State of the Union Address in late January or early February.
But even if Senate and House Democrats manage to craft a compromise measure, Tuesday’s special election to replace the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly occupied by the late Edward Kennedy might nix all agreements. Recent polling shows Republican Scott Brown has taken a slight lead over Democrat Martha Coakley.
If Brown wins, Democrats no longer would have the necessary support to defeat a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said a win for Brown would “kill the health bill,” and President Obama has gone to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley during the final days before the special election.
Legality of Health Care Reform Questioned
Jan. 6, 2009 – The highly contentious and generally unpopular health care reform debates now being held among only Democrats and behind closed doors have spurred claims of potential violations of the U.S. Constitution among more than a dozen state attorneys general and many federal lawmakers.
At least 14 state attorneys general have threatened to file legal challenges over a provision requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or be fined. And many federal lawmakers are challenging the ethics and legality of highly partisan, closed-door health care reform meetings among Democrats only and a procedural change that would require at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate to repeal any health care reform measures that become law.
Many also are concerned over an apparent “bribe” by Democratic leaders to secure the vote of hold out Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who gave his support only after Democrats agreed to provide $100 million over 10 years to offset the costs of expanding Medicaid rolls in Nebraska. All other states must contribute funds to Nebraska while not receiving the same consideration. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) gave her support to the Senate health care bill only after securing $300 million in additional taxpayer dollars for her home state.
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster last week wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the deal to secure Nelson’s vote in the Senate.
“The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” McMaster wrote. “Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.”
The provision requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or be fined has fueled allegations of Constitutional violations.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said Tuesday that the push in Washington to force most Americans to buy health insurance may violate the U.S. Constitution and eventually trigger a multi-state lawsuit. Abbott also is among attorneys general questioning the legality of the $100 million in Medicaid payments to Nebraska while none of the other 49 states receive similar considerations. Instead, officials in the other 49 states will be required to cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in their respective states as well as chip in to cover the costs in Nebraska.
In a legal opinion sent to U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Kay Baily Hutchison, both of Texas, Abbott suggested the health insurance mandate violates individual liberty and forces U.S. citizens to engage in commerce when Congress only has Constitutional authority to regulate commerce and not force U.S. citizens to participate in commerce by purchasing health insurance.
While Abbott other state attorneys general question the Constitutionality of the health care reform efforts, several federal lawmakers have pointed out Senate Democrat leaders are trying to ensure future Congresses cannot repeal the measures without a two-thirds vote. The procedural change raises ethical as well as legal questions as Democrats controlling the U.S. House and Senate hold closed meetings in an attempt to pass health care reform measures that virtually every current public poll shows is highly unpopular among U.S. citizens.