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.
Poll: Americans Apprehensive About Health Reform Efforts
Jan. 4, 2010 – The U.S. Senate recently approved its version of reform for the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry, but as federal lawmakers work out differences between the Senate and U.S. House versions of health care reform, recent polling shows Americans don’t expect much good to come of it.
The most recent national health tracking poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates only slightly more than a third of those polled actually think current health care reform efforts will leave them better off versus some 27 percent indicating they will be worse off. Another 32 percent indicated they don’t anticipate experiencing any significant effects.
The percentage saying health care reform efforts would be beneficial for them has declined from 42 percent in November saying reform efforts would help them. Also declining since the November poll is the percentage of those polled who say the United States would be better off if health care reform efforts are signed into law. Some 45 percent of those polled suggested the national would be better off if the health care bills are signed into law, down from 54 percent a month earlier. Some 31 percent of those polled said the nation would be worse off, and another 41 percent said the nation can’t afford health care reform efforts proposed by both chambers of Congress.
While those polled in general are wary of federal health care reform efforts, senior citizens in particular have become much less supportive. Nearly half of senior citizens polled in December – 48 percent – indicated the nation would be worse off if the respective health care reform bills approved in the House and Senate eventually become law. The skepticism level among senior citizens previously had topped out at 36 percent in October.
And a small majority of U.S. senior citizens polled – 52 percent – say Americans over age 65 would be worse off if reform efforts become law. Only 21 percent indicated they would be better off.
While a significant percentage of senior citizens polled say health care reform efforts would cause more harm than good for U.S. seniors, those under age 65 were more optimistic. Some 45 percent of non-senior citizens polled suggested health care reform efforts would be beneficial for senior citizens while 26 percent said U.S. seniors would be better off.
The non-profit, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation is based in Menlo Park, California and dedicated creating and educating the American public on current health issues. The firm conducts a monthly health tracking poll to help assess Americans’ attitudes toward current events impacting health care delivery in the United States.
Senate Approves Unpopular Health Care Reform Bill, Tax Increases
Dec. 24, 2009 – With its first Christmas Eve vote in more than a century, U.S. Senate Democrats at 7 a.m. today voted strictly along party lines to approve their version of national health care reform along with some 17 tax increases on the middle class and others despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans oppose reform efforts.
The Senate voted 60-39 to approve the health care reform measure with 58 Democrats and two independent Senators voting in favor and 39 Republicans voting against. Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky was absent.
The measure requires all American citizens to purchase health insurance and creates regional health 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’s 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 levying a 40 percent tax on individuals with “generous” health care plans. 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), last week announced they do not support the Senate health care plan and instead favor the version approved 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.
Several recent public opinion polls also indicate a majority of those surveyed oppose the reform measures. A poll conducted from Dec. 15 – Dec. 20 by Quinnipiac indicates 53 percent oppose reform efforts versus only 36 percent supporting. The most recent polling by CNN shows 56 percent opposed and 42 percent in favor, and Rasmussen shows 55 percent opposed versus 41 percent supporting health care reform efforts.
Because the Senate’s version of health care reform differs greatly from the version approved by the House of Representatives, a conference committee comprised of members of both chambers will have to work out a compromise plan. President Barack Obama has said he wants to sign a final bill before delivering the President’s annual State of the Union Address in January.
National Flood Insurance Program Extended Through February
Dec. 22, 2009 – An estimated 5.5 million homes in the United States will continue to be covered through the National Flood Insurance Program after federal officials once again delayed enacting permanent changes while occupying their time debating controversial national health care reform measures that won’t take effect for several years.
President Barack Obama yesterday signed into law a measure extending the National Flood Insurance Program through February 2010. The U.S. Senate last week approved the temporary extension as part of a defense appropriations bill.
Although failing to make permanent changes to the federal insurance program facing financial difficulties, the Senate continues debating a highly controversial health care reform that won’t take effect until 2014. In the meantime, insurance industry proponents say federal officials will have more time to address National Flood Insurance Program shortcomings.
“We applaud the Senate for keeping the National Flood Insurance Program in place,” Ben McKay of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the House and Senate in 2010 to advocate a long-term extension that ensures the program’s fiscal soundness and protects homeowners.”
The National Flood Insurance Program was scheduled to expire on Dec. 18, potentially leaving more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. 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 are highly controversial and won’t take effect for several years.
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.
Obama Angles for Health Reform Votes; Medicare Expansion Likely Out
Dec. 15, 2009 – A proposed expansion of the federal Medicare health program likely will be nixed as President Barack Obama and U.S. Senate Democrats struggle to find the 60 votes needed to pass national health care reform legislation being debated.
The President today held a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats to try to work out a compromise in order to get the President’s top domestic priority approved during a time when public opinion polls show his approval ratings continue to fall. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll indicated more people surveyed, 53 percent, disapprove the job done so far by President Obama versus 44 percent indicating their approval.
Already divided over the possible creation of a public health care plan, Senate Democrats were divided on a proposed expansion of the federal Medicare program. Some Senators last week proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 55 for people choosing to “buy in” early to participate in the federal health care program for the elderly.
Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and former running mate of Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004, is among Senators whose vote is needed to approve any health care reform measures. But Lieberman has threatened to filibuster any measures creating a public health plan or expanding Medicare.
Without Lieberman, Senate Democrats do not have the votes necessary to pass legislation or end a filibuster. Other Senators, such as Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, also have threatened to vote against health care reform. Nelson earlier introduced an amendment restricting federal funding of abortion procedures. The Senate defeated the amendment on a 55-45 vote and placed Nelson in a position of opposing a measure President Obama and most Democrat lawmakers badly want passed.
President Obama today said there is general agreement on health care reform, but Democrats apparently have not secured the 60 votes necessary to advance a health care reform measure. After joining other Democratic U.S. Senators in meeting with the President today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Illinois), said expanding Medicare likely would not emerge as part of Senate’s health care reform efforts.
Although Medicare expansion likely is out, several Senators have said a public health insurance plan administered by the government likely would be part of Senate reform efforts. The proposed plan would utilize private health insurance companies operating on a non-profit basis and regulated by the federal Office of Personnel Management, which administers the health insurance plans for Congress and federal employees.
Republicans remain united in their opposition to the proposals, citing some $500 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare funding, $400 billion in new taxes and increased health insurance premiums for American families among reasons for their opposition. Senate Democrats are trying to get their version of health care reform passed by the end of the year.
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.
Political Twist: AFL-CIO Opposes Dem Health Benefits Tax
A traditional supporter of left-leaning politicians opposes a Democratic proposal to tax employee health care benefits in order to help pay the tab for the estimated up to $1 trillion price tag affixed to various national health care reform proposals.
Officials for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. recently announced their organization’s opposition to Senate Democrats’ proposed tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans and are lobbying moderate Democrats to remove the proposed tax from any health care reform measures.
Some Democrats in the U.S. Senate have proposed levying an excise tax on group health insurance plans paying at least $23,000 in annual premiums for families and $8,500 for individuals. The tax would raise an estimated $149 billion over 10 years and help control spending by encouraging job providers to switch to less expensive group health care plans offering decreased levels of coverages, according to its supporters.
But the A.F.L.-C.I.O. opposes the measure, saying it endangers existing health care benefits and only would encourage employers to cease offering health care benefits. Instead, union officials prefer raising taxes on a popular target among liberals – wealthy, successful American families.
Many pro-business and pro-organized labor organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the A.F.L.-C.I.O., agree the proposed health benefits tax ultimately would do more harm than good.
Pro-business groups say it would place an additional burden on job providers while union officials contend it would increase costs for workers. Although their reasons differ, both sides agree taxing health care benefits is a bad idea.
Many Senate Republicans are preparing amendments to block the proposed health care benefits tax, and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is running local television ads in various U.S. Senate districts to drum up opposition to the tax plan. The ads have various blue collar workers making statements supporting health care reform but opposing any taxation of health care benefits. The ads primarily target moderate Democrats, whose support is critical to passing any health care reform measure.
The television ads are part of a $1.5 million campaign aimed at U.S. Senators in Indiana, Delaware and Virginia. The ads first aired during various Sunday morning political talk shows in Washington D.C. and again Sunday evening on the popular CBS program, “60 Minutes.”
While the taxation issue has proved polarizing, other divisive proposals posing problems for potential health care reform measures include whether or not illegal aliens will have access to health care programs and tax dollars intended for U.S. citizens and whether or not abortion will be at least partly covered under various circumstances. Federal law currently prohibits tax dollars being used to pay for abortion procedures, and some Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate adamantly oppose inclusion of public funding for abortion procedures in any federal health care reform efforts.
Federal COBRA Health Insurance Subsidy Expiring
Dec. 1, 2009 – The first of an estimated 7 million Americans utilizing a recent federal subsidy program to pay for health insurance while unemployed begin losing their taxpayer-provided funding as the temporary program expires starting today.
The $787 billion federal stimulus package approved earlier this 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 recently losing their primary incomes due to unemployment see 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.
The federal subsidy program began in March with Americans being eligible if they qualify for federal COBRA benefits continuation and were laid off or lost their jobs between Sept.1, 2008, and Dec. 31 of this year. Individuals cannot have annual incomes exceeding $145,000 while families are allowed to up to $290,000 in income to receive the additional benefit. People eligible for federal Medicare benefits or another group health insurance plan do not qualify for the COBRA subsidy.
U.S. citizens with adjusted gross incomes of between $125,000 and $145,000 for individuals and $250,000 to $290,000 for spouses filing joint income tax returns must repay a portion of the additional benefit when filing their annual income taxes. Individuals earning less than $125,000 in adjusted gross income and families less than $250,000 are not required to repay any of the benefit.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated a total of 7 million Americans would participate in the program when enrollment began in March. And starting today, those enrolled in March will begin losing their subsidy as the 9-month period expires. Federal lawmakers are considering extending the program.
Senate Health Care Debate Begins; Polls Show Support Slipping
Nov. 30, 2009 – Members of the U.S. Senate today began the opening jabs of a contentious debate on national health care reform as yet another major public opinion poll shows declining support for federal lawmakers’ efforts to reform the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry.
While the Senate debate is scheduled to last until Dec. 18, several Capitol Hill pundits anticipate eroding public support could push the debate into next year. Gallup today 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.
The 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.
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. 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.
While Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the measure to a floor debate, independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut – who sits with the Democratic Caucus – has said he would oppose the Senate version even though he voted 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.
Health Care Reform Support Plummets; U.S. Senate Votes to Debate
Nov. 23, 2009 – Even as public support for proposed health care reform efforts hits a new low, debate is slated to begin Nov. 30 on the U.S. Senate’s proposed revamping of the $2.5 trillion-a-year national health care system after the chamber on Saturday night voted 60-39 to take up the measure after Thanksgiving.
The vote went strictly along party lines with 39 Senate Republicans voting against debating the Senate’s proposed health care reform measure. Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana consented to the floor debate only after securing a provision that, if approved, would provide at least $100 million for special Medicaid funding not available to states other than Louisiana.
Although the Senate is scheduled to take up the issue, results of 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 polling, according results from the Rasmussen Reports’ latest weekly national telephone survey.
Respondents with strong views against health care reform efforts were more than double those strongly in favor, with 43 percent indicating strong opposition to federal health care reform and only 21 percent indicating strong support for it.
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.
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. A majority of those polled
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. 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.
While Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the measure to a floor debate, independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut – who sits with the Democratic Caucus – has said he would oppose the Senate version even though he voted 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 have been unified in their opposition thus far.
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.
Report: Medicaid, Medicare Wasted at Least $55 Billion in 2009
Nov. 18, 2009 – U.S. taxpayers paid at least $55 billion more than necessary for federal Medicare and Medicaid programs during the 2009 federal fiscal year, according to a federal report released yesterday.
The report issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget indicates the federal government wasted a total of $98 billion on improper payments to third parties contracted to provide various federal services. Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for at least $55 billion and more than 56 percent of total funds wasted by the federal government in 2009. The federal government wasted about $72 billion on all programs in 2008, according to the report.
While some might find alarming the reported amount of waste, a federal lawmaker says the actual amount wasted each year could be much greater.
“Unfortunately, these numbers may still be just the tip of the iceberg since they don’t even include estimates for several major programs, including the Medicare prescription drug plan,” U.S. Senator Tom Carper said in a statement. “It goes without saying that these results would be completely unacceptable in the private sector, as they should be in government, especially at a time of record deficits.”
The Office of Management and Budget report comes as federal lawmakers debate various health care reform measures in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Medicare generally provides health care services for elderly U.S. citizens while Medicaid provides health care services for the poor.
The report indicated the error rate for payments made through the federal Medicare Advantage program increased by about 50 percent, rising from a 10 percent error rate in 2008 to a 15 percent rate costing about $12 billion in waste during fiscal year 2009. The Medicare Advantage program allows private insurers to provide Medicare coverage to qualifying individuals.
Some of the increase in wasteful spending is attributed to more stringent reporting requirements and increased government spending on federal programs due to the recent recession partly explain the increased waste in 2009, according to the federal report. Fraud also was cited among reasons for the increased waste, but federal officials said they have no idea to what extent fraud occurs.
Federal lawmakers are weighing various reform measures and penalties to reduce the amount of waste and fraud tied to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs. Penalizing individuals and organizations knowingly accepting improper payments for federally contracted services are among reform measures being considered, according to Reuters. Currently, no penalties exist for accepting improper payments, and federal law only requires funds be returned when excess payments are received.
Study: Medicare Patients, Uninsured More Likely to Die from Trauma
Nov. 17, 2009 – A recent study conducted by Harvard University researchers indicates Medicare patients stand a 56 percent greater chance of dying from traumatic injuries and the uninsured an 80 percent greater chance than their counterparts with traditional health insurance coverage.
Focusing on people suffering “unintentional injuries,” Harvard University researchers found auto accidents the number-one cause of unintentional injuries. Information on 2.7 million trauma patients was obtained from the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2002 through 2006. Researchers then compared patients based on their age, race, sex, how they were injured and to what extent. Results then were compared based on the reported insurance status of patients.
“Unintentional injuries” rank among top 10 causes of death for every age group in the United States and is the top cause of death for Americans under age 44, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most common unintentional injuries are caused by vehicular accidents.
Results showed Medicare patients were 56 percent more likely to die from traumatic injuries than their counterparts, and people without health insurance coverage of any kind were 80 percent more likely to die after suffering traumatic injuries than those with health insurance coverage.
While significant differences seem to arise based on whether or not a patient had health insurance coverage, researchers acknowledge no direct correlation can be made between insurance status and survivability. In most cases, injury severity was the deciding factor.
Researchers speculated the severity of trauma rather than access to care was the primary reason people were more likely to die than others. Among young adults, gunshot wounds as well as auto accidents ranked among the top causes of traumatic injury. Because young adults are more likely to have no health insurance than older adults and they on average suffer much more life-threatening injuries, the severity of injuries suffered rather than access to health insurance is the main reason youth die more often from traumatic injuries, according to the Harvard University research team.
Among older Americans receiving treatment through Medicare, the higher mortality rate due to traumatic injuries likely stems from a greater likelihood of suffering from long-term, more debilitating illnesses and injuries, according to researchers.
While death rates from traumatic events among younger and older Americans without health insurance coverage are more readily explained, researchers suggest middle-age Americans without health insurance coverage tend to suffer more than their insured counterparts and die more often due to delays in obtaining medical care, lapses in treatments and other causes.
The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 ensures people seeking treatment at hospital emergency rooms are treated regardless of whether or not they have health insurance coverage. But when uninsured individuals suffer a traumatic injury, they often have complicating conditions that increases odds of dying from a traumatic injury, several medical professionals contend.