Sen. Bunning Cuts Deal Allowing National Flood Insurance Program Extension
March 3, 2010 – Millions of American families at risk of losing their mandatory flood insurance protection no longer need worry – for another month.
President Barack Obama yesterday signed into law yet another temporary extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, this time extending the federal program through March 28. The National Flood Insurance Program initially expired a year ago, but instead of enacting permanent changes, Congressional leaders several times have chosen to simply temporarily extend the program in its current form while debating national health care reform that would not take effect for several years. The National Flood Insurance Program provides flood insurance protection for homes located in designated flood plains across the country.
The National Flood Insurance Program actually expired Feb. 28 after U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) last week used Senate Republicans’ renewed filibuster power to block a $10 billion spending measure providing funding for extensions of the National Flood Insurance Program, a federal health insurance subsidy for unemployed Americans, federal unemployment benefits and federal highway projects funding, 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.
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 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 several 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 have delayed enacting permanent changes to the National flood Insurance Program while debating highly controversial national health care reform measures that would not take effect for several years. Republican Scott Brown’s recent upset win over heavily favored Martha Coakley to fill Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy’s death gave Senate Republicans enough votes to proceed with filibusters on legislation they oppose.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fed Goes into Business with AIG for $25 Billion
Dec. 2, 2009 – Having already taken an involuntary plunge into the auto industry as owners of General Motors, U.S. taxpayers now are the involuntary proprietors of two overseas life insurance units.
Officials for struggling insurer American International Group (AIG) this week announced they have closed two deals with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in which the Federal Reserve Bank gets control of AIG’s Asia-based American International Assurance Company (AIA) and the American Life Insurance Company (ALICO), which is headquartered in Delaware but primarily does business in Asia.
In exchange for preferred shares of the life insurance units, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York forgave $25 billion owed by AIG to U.S. taxpayers. AIG now owes some $17 billion to taxpayers through its lending agreements with Federal Reserve officials but still has access to up to $35 billion in potential taxpayer loans. AIG’s chief executive officer said the move underscores the firm’s commitment to repaying its debt while making the subsidiary units more attractive to potential buyers.
“Today’s announcement that we have reduced our debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by $25 billion sends a clear message to taxpayers: AIG continues to make good on its commitment to pay the American people back,” said AIG’s top executive, Bob Benmosche, when announcing the deal yesterday. “Moreover, these transactions position AIA and ALICO, two terrific, unique international life insurance businesses, for the future.”
AIG officials are weighing several possibilities for unloading the two international life insurance firms, including making an initial public offering or selling them to third parties.
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) criticized the move by the Federal Reserve, saying it endangers U.S. taxpayers.
“Exchanging debt for equity still leaves taxpayer dollars at substantial risk,” Grassley said in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The move means taxpayers could lose billions of dollars, Grassley contends.
AIG officials initially disclosed the then-pending business transfer while reworking terms of its nearly $183 billion taxpayer bailout. The transfer enables AIG to reduce its debts while awaiting a recovery among credit markets, which has made it hard for AIG officials to find buyers and get a fair value for its assets while attempting to repay its federal debt.
Formerly the world’s largest insurance company, AIG became the world’s most indebted insurer after federal officials last year agreed to extend the company an $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80 percent share of company stocks. Federal officials said allowing AIG to go bankrupt would have a devastating impact on U.S. and international financial markets and later revised lending terms, making it a $153 billion loan with a lower interest rate and longer repayment period.
Under the new plan, the Federal Reserve provided AIG $60 billion in loans and the U.S. Treasury another $40 billion so company officials could buy up preferred stock. Federal officials also approved $53 billion to purchase the company’s risky mortgage-backed assets and other debt contracts.
AIG is attempting to sell off its overseas life insurance units and other subsidiaries to repay up to $60 billion in loans this year. Company officials intend to focus future business on property and casualty insurance markets and maintain a minority financial interest in some profitable overseas ventures.
AIG has raised more than $2 billion through the sale of several subsidiary units. Industry analysts say the insurer could raise up to $50 billion through the sales of AIG’s U.S.-based and overseas life insurance units and retirement savings units.
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.
Abortion Measure Might Derail House Health Care Reform Effort
Nov. 9, 2009 – Members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system that some members of the U.S. Senate say won’t make it through the upper chamber.
The House of Representatives late Saturday night voted 220-215 to approve the about $1 trillion measure, which would mandate U.S. citizens purchase health insurance, force most job providers to provide health insurance benefits, require private insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions and initially provided federal funding for abortion services, among other changes. The controversial provision would have allowed women receiving federal subsidies to purchase health insurance that included abortion procedure funding.
But facing a great deal of criticism from constituents, 64 House Democrats voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) preventing women from using federal financial support to purchase health insurance offering coverage for abortion services. The amendment also prevents any potential federal health care plan from offering abortion services and was approved by a 240-194 vote.
Stupak’s amendment has caused a rift among Capitol Hill Democrats, some of who support federal funding of abortions while others remain opposed. Several abortion rights groups are lobbying for abortion services coverage, and the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling on abortion services to be included among health care reforms.
“The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled,” the letter reads. “We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”
A copy of the letter to Pelosi was made available on Rep. Diana DeGetter’s (D-Colorado) Congressional Web page. The coalition claims to have at least 40 signatures from other members of Congress supporting the pro-abortion measure and opposing the efforts of their fellow Democrats.
While the measure currently includes the Stupak Amendment, it also would create an insurance exchange for citizens and job providers to purchase more affordable health care, including a government-run plan. The measure also would create nonprofit “cooperatives” offering health care coverage sold through insurance exchanges. People in “high-risk” categories who otherwise cannot get health insurance protection would be cared for through high-risk pools offering coverage until the health insurance exchanges can be created.
The plan also would expand Medicaid coverage, allow young adults to continue coverage through their parents’ health insurance plans through age 26 and would levy a 2.5 percent tax on people who do not purchase health insurance coverage.
Because the plan as approved by the House of Representatives already has become highly controversial, several members of the U.S. Senate have said it won’t be approved. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut – a former Democrat who continues to sit with the Democratic Caucus and was appointed Democrat John Kerry’s running mate during the 2004 presidential election – said he might filibuster the measure. Because Democrats hold 59 seats in the U.S. Senate, it would be impossible to stop a filibuster initiated by Lieberman unless at least one Republican voted to end it along with every other Senate Democrat.