Senate Inaction Forces Expiration of National Flood Insurance Program
March 1, 2010 – Millions of U.S. households will begin losing their flood insurance coverage today unless federal lawmakers agree on at least another extension of the financially troubled National Flood Insurance Program, which expired today after the Senate failed to extend the program before today’s expiration.
The National Flood Insurance Program was to be extended once again as part of a $10 billion federal spending measure that included extending a federal health insurance benefits subsidy for unemployed Americans as well as funding for federal transportation programs. Citing funding concerns, U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) successfully blocked the spending measure, saying he prefers funding come from unallocated federal stimulus funds. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) nixed the idea of using a portion of funds remaining from the $787 billion federal “stimulus” package approved last year.
Extending the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31 originally was part of the latest “stimulus” effort but was nixed as part of Senate Democrats’ cost-cutting efforts. Federal officials have extended the debt-riddled program’s deadline several times in lieu of enacting permanent changes. Lawmakers are divided on how to sufficiently fund the program and don’t agree on proposals to add coverage for wind damages to the National Flood Insurance Program.
The National Flood Insurance Program’s expiration potentially leaves more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. The National Flood Insurance Program covers homes located in high-risk flood areas across the United States and is the insurer-of-last-resort in areas where private insurance companies deem it too risky to provide typical flood insurance protection.
The flood insurance program’s expiration date already was extended three times last year to give members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate time to work out differences in the program’s direction. House members are demanding the program be expanded to provide insurance protection against wind damage, according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. The National Flood Insurance Program originally would have expired at 11:59 p.m. on March 6 of last year.
Federal lawmakers previously delayed enacting permanent changes to the National flood Insurance Program while debating highly controversial national health care reform measures that would not have taken effect for several years. Republican Scott Brown’s recent upset win over heavily favored Martha Coakley to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy’s death put the brakes on Democrats’ efforts to initiate national health care reform.
National Flood Insurance Program Imperiled Yet Again
Feb. 16, 2010 – Once again, federal lawmakers have failed to come up with long-term changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, which is slated to expire on Feb. 28.
Senate Democrats nixed a provision temporarily extending the National Flood Insurance Program once again from the Senate’s latest legislative effort to “stimulate” the U.S. economy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) trimmed the measure to help reduce the cost of a proposed $85 billion economic stimulus legislation being called the “Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act.” Reid wants to trim the measure down to $15 billion to make it more politically acceptable during a time when the national deficit stands at $12.37 trillion, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will grow by another $1.35 trillion in 2010.
Extending the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31 originally was part of the latest “stimulus” effort but was nixed as part of Senate Democrats’ cost-cutting efforts. Federal officials have extended the debt-riddled program’s deadline several times in lieu of enacting permanent changes. Lawmakers are divided on how to sufficiently fund the program and don’t agree on proposals to add coverage for wind damages to the National Flood Insurance Program.
The National Flood Insurance Program’s expiration potentially would leave more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. The National Flood Insurance Program covers homes located in high-risk flood areas across the United States and is the insurer-of-last-resort in areas where private insurance companies deem it too risky to provide typical flood insurance protection.
The flood insurance program’s expiration date already was extended three times last year to give members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate time to work out differences in the program’s direction. House members are demanding the program be expanded to provide insurance protection against wind damage, according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. The National Flood Insurance Program originally would have expired at 11:59 p.m. on March 6 of last year.
Federal lawmakers previously delayed enacting permanent changes to the National flood Insurance Program while debating highly controversial national health care reform measures that would not have taken effect for several years. Republican Scott Brown’s recent upset win over heavily favored Martha Coakley to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy’s death put the brakes on Democrats’ efforts to initiate national health care reform.
But instead of reconciling various differences and moving forward with long-lasting changes to the National Flood Insurance Program that would impact millions of families in the United States, Capitol Hill lawmakers are prepared to yet again delay real action and now have chosen to delay their latest delaying action.
Senate Democrats Plan Xmas Eve Health Care Vote
Dec. 18, 2009 – Already having infuriated many would-be supporters as well as opponents for holding secretive meetings and making back-room deals, U.S. Senate Democrats have planned a Christmas Eve vote on their version of national health care reform.
The move comes as labor unions refuse to endorse the Senate’s plan to reform the $2.5 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system. Unable to secure the 60 votes necessary to advance proposed health care reforms, the Senate has dropped a proposed public health care option as well as a compromise lowering of Medicare eligibility to age 55 from its current age 65 minimum enrollment age.
Liberal Democrats say a government-run public health care option is critical while more conservative Democrats are concerned about potential federal funding of abortions and middle class tax increases.
The Senate’s proposal requires all American citizens purchase health insurance and creates regional insurance exchanges where individuals can shop for health insurance coverage tailored to more specific needs. People earning too little to afford health insurance would receive federal subsidies to purchase coverage.
Some 17 new taxes have been proposed to pay for the estimated $849 billion cost of initiating the Senate plan over a 10-year period.
Among taxes proposed to pay for the Senate version of national health care reform is a “marriage penalty” levied on “families” earning at least $250,000 per year. Because the tax on individuals isn’t levied until their annual income levels reach at least $200,000 while married couples would be taxed on dual incomes of $250,000 or more, opponents have dubbed the proposed tax a “marriage penalty.” The “marriage penalty” would not be assessed unless both spouses earn at least $150,000 per year, but an unmarried couple living together and earning the same amount would not be taxed until their individual incomes reach at least $200,000 annually.
Other proposed taxes include a 5 percent tax on elective plastic surgeries – popularly called the “Botox tax” – and levying a 40 percent tax on individuals with “generous” health care plans. Whether such a tax would be levied only on benefits received as an employee or on any “generous” health care plan – whether purchased individually or through a group plan – is yet to be determined in the Senate’s more than 2,000-page version of national health care reform. The Senate plan also would increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-income employees.
Officials representing two labor unions, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), yesterday announced they do not support the Senate health care plan in its current form and instead favor the version proposed in the House of Representatives, which includes a public health care option. Union officials said they will continue demanding a public health insurance option in the Senate version before endorsing the plan.
Although the two labor unions failed to support the current measure, officials for the left-leaning Families USA consumer advocacy group yesterday announced their support for the Senate health care plan to be voted on Christmas Eve.
Labor unions are not the only ones dropping their support of the Senate’s national health care reform efforts. Several recent public opinion polls indicate more Americans oppose current health care reform efforts than support them.
A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports indicates public support for federal health care reform has hit an all-time low. Some 56 percent of those polled oppose federal health care reform efforts while only 38 percent indicated support. The support of federal efforts hadn’t dipped below 41 percent in prior Rasmussen Reports polling.
The Rasmussen survey also indicates most people don’t think reform efforts will help. Some 54 percent of those polled said the Senate and House bills would harm and not help health care, and 60 percent said the federal legislation likely would increase costs for everyone. Only 16 percent of those polled believe Congressional reform efforts will lower costs.
National Flood Insurance Program to Expire; Millions of Homes Affected
Dec. 16, 2009 – As federal lawmakers continue grappling over proposed health care reform measures that have been watered down and wouldn’t take effect for years, a matter with immediate impact on more than 5 million U.S. families continues being pushed aside.
The National Flood Insurance Program is scheduled to expire on Dec. 18, potentially leaving more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. Federal lawmakers have balked several times this year at enacting long-term changes to the program, instead twice opting to extend it for months at a time.
And federal lawmakers are expected to extend the program without changes once again.
The National Flood Insurance Program is the insurer of last resort in areas where private insurance companies deem it too risky to provide typical flood insurance protection. The federal program covers homes located across America in high-risk flood areas.
The flood insurance program’s expiration date already had been extended twice this year to give members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate time to work out differences in the program’s direction. House members are demanding the program be expanded to provide insurance protection against wind damage, according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
The National Flood Insurance Program initially would have expired at 11:59 p.m. on March 6, but Congress passed continuing resolutions temporarily extending funding for federal programs under an omnibus bill while legislators hammer out a final compromise. The recent passage of the omnibus funding measure ensured a temporary extension of the National Flood Insurance Program while additional program reform is debated, but federal lawmakers have been sidetracked while debating proposed national health care reform measures that won’t take effect for several years.
President Barack Obama made health care reform a top domestic priority, but disagreement among Democratic lawmakers and unified opposition among Republicans have slowed reform efforts. In the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) cannot secure the 60 votes necessary to advance a legislative package and now has a watered-down package that Democrats in the House of Representatives say doesn’t do enough to reform the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry.
But while federal lawmakers continue battling over health care measures not scheduled to take effect for years, millions of U.S. families could lose important flood insurance protections for their homes and other properties. If the flood insurance program expires, insurance agents and brokers cannot write, renew or endorse National Flood Insurance Program policies.
Reports: Medicare Expansion In, Abortion Restrictions Out
Dec. 9, 2009 – The U.S. Senate likely will make expanding Medicare eligibility part of its health care reform package but not a controversial measure restricting abortions, and several news outlets are reporting a public health care option is dead, although some say otherwise.
The U.S. Senate yesterday voted 55-45 to defeat an amendment restricting how public funds could be used when subsidizing health insurance plans providing coverage for abortion services. Soon after, a group of ten Senate Democrats met in a closed session in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office and hammered out a tentative deal essentially scrapping the public health care option in favor of expanding Medicare eligibility and create a national, non-profit insurance exchange overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, ABC News reported today.
The plan would lower the minimum age for Medicare program eligibility from 65 to 55 years of age in 2011, according to ABC News. And citizens would be allowed to purchase private health insurance plans offered through the national health insurance exchange. Senators also agreed to require insurers to spend 90 percent of insurance premium dollars on health care and reduce administrative costs, the Associated Press reported.
Although several news outlets are reporting a public health insurance option is dead, Reid said that isn’t true. The yet-to-be-revealed compromise plan “includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices,” Reid said in a statement.
The Senate debate is scheduled to last until Dec. 18, but several Capitol Hill pundits anticipate eroding public support could push the debate into next year. Gallup recently released results of its national telephone survey of 1,017 adults conducted Nov. 20-22, and a plurality indicated they would “advise” their respective representatives in Congress to vote against a health care reform measure while 44 percent indicated they would advise voting for reform.
Even fewer want federal lawmakers to take action this year. Only 35 percent of those surveyed said they favor voting on health care reform this year while 42 percent said they prefer Capitol Hill lawmakers take more time before enacting major legislation that won’t take effect for several years.
Gallup’s polling results corroborate similar recent findings by Rasmussen Reports, which last week reported some 56 percent of those polled oppose federal health care reform efforts while only 38 percent indicated support. The support of federal efforts hadn’t dipped below 41 percent in prior weekly polling, according to Rasmussen Reports.
A recent Rasmussen survey also indicates most people don’t think reform efforts will help. Some 54 percent of those polled said the Senate and House bills would harm and not help health care, and 60 percent said the federal legislation likely would increase costs for everyone. Only 16 percent of those polled believe Congressional reform efforts will lower costs.
U.S. Senate Plans Saturday Night Vote on Health Care Debate
Nov. 20, 2009 – The U.S. Senate is scheduled to hold a rare Saturday night vote on whether or not to schedule debate on the Senate’s proposed national health overhaul plan seeking to expand health care coverage to 31 million people and levy at least 17 new taxes to cover the plan’s estimated $849 billion price tag over 10 years.
Although the plan would not take effect until 2014, Senate leaders want to schedule debate to begin Nov. 30. The 2,074-page overhaul of the $2.5 trillion per-year U.S. health care system would start a year later and cost an estimated $151 billion less than a version proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The House version would begin in 2013 with an estimated cost of more than $1 trillion over 10 years to expand coverage to an estimated 36 million people, according to the non-partisan federal Office of Management and Budget.
Among taxes proposed to pay for the Senate version of national health care reform is a “marriage penalty” levied on “families” earning at least $250,000 per year. Because the tax on individuals isn’t levied until their annual income levels reach at least $200,000 while married couples would be taxed on dual incomes of $250,000 or more, opponents have dubbed the proposed tax a “marriage penalty.” The “marriage penalty” would not be assessed unless both spouses earn at least $150,000 per year, but an unmarried couple living together and earning the same amount would not be taxed until their individual incomes reach at least $200,000 annually.
Other proposed taxes include a 5 percent tax on elective plastic surgeries – popularly called the “Botox tax” – and levying a 40 percent tax on individuals with “generous” health care plans. Whether such a tax would be levied only on benefits received as an employee or on any “generous” health care plan – whether purchased individually or through a group plan – is yet to be determined in the Senate’s more than 2,000-page version of national health care reform. The Senate plan also would increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-income employees.
The Senate’s proposal requires all American citizens purchase health insurance and creates regional insurance exchanges where individuals can shop for health insurance coverage tailored to more specific needs. People earning too little to afford health insurance would receive federal subsidies to purchase coverage.
The Senate bill also creates a federal health insurance option in which state legislatures would choose to participate and prevent health insurance companies from refusing coverage to individuals with pre-existing health problems.
Senate Democrats need 60 votes to advance the measure to a floor debate. But independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut – who sits with the Democratic Caucus – has said he would oppose the Senate version even though he likely would vote to allow the floor debate.
Lieberman, who was Democrat John Kerry’s running mate during the 2004 presidential election, opposes a public option as provided in the Senate bill and earlier announced he would filibuster the measure unless amended to remove the public plan proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Lieberman says a public option would drive up costs for people with health insurance. Reid contends states would have the option of whether or not to participate in the proposed federal health care option.
Because Democrats would need 60 votes to quell a potential filibuster, at least one Republican would have to vote to end any filibuster initiated by Lieberman. But no Republicans have voiced support for the plan proposed by Reid and are unified in their opposition thus far.
Any differences between the House and Senate bills would have to be worked out and approved by both chambers before President Barack Obama could sign a health care reform package into law.