Comments (20) | Add a comment
Senate starts health care reform fight
-
Photo by The Associated Press
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., picks up a copy of the House health care bill after a Nov. 7 Capitol Hill rally against the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's version of the health care bill -- all 209 pages of it -- has been published in the Congressional Record.
Tools
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:07 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Riven by partisanship, the Senate plunged into a widely anticipated debate Monday over sweeping health care legislation that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to approve and Republicans have sworn to block.
Debate is expected to last for weeks over the legislation, which includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance and for insurers to cover any paying customer regardless of medical history or condition.
"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the first moments of the first speech, a jab at Republicans that was reciprocated minutes later.
"Well, I don't know what's more preposterous: saying that this plan 'saves Medicare' or thinking that people will actually believe you," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said of Reid's oft-made statement.
Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. In all, CBO said 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. As much as 94 percent of the eligible population would wind up covered. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.
It has taken months to advance. The Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate, precisely the number needed to trump a promised Republican filibuster. While Reid spent most of the day jousting with Republicans, his ability to steer the bill to passage will depend on finding ways to finesse controversial provisions within the measure. None is more important than calls for the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms. Liberals favor the plan; moderate and conservative Democrats oppose it.
Even before Reid rose to speak, the two parties were squabbling over a new Congressional Budget Office study assessing the legislation's impact on the cost of insurance.
The report said that by 2016, premium prices for Americans working at large companies, about 134 million people, would be between zero and 3 percent lower on average than would otherwise be the case.
At small companies, estimated to provide coverage for 25 million by 2016, the average premium would be between 1 percent higher to 2 percent lower on average. That did not factor in the federal subsidies that would be available to the firms to spur them to provide coverage. Those receiving the assistance would have premiums as much as 11 percent lower on average.
CBO said for non-group coverage, premiums would rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent on average. But more than half that group is expected to receive federal subsidies that would result in premiums as much as 59 percent less costly on average. Individuals purchasing coverage without any federal assistance would presumably face higher costs, although CBO's letter did not indicate how much more.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
LOL...all of you people. The government - no matter who is in charge at the time - can't even run a post office and make a profit, let alone try to cram 'reform' down our throats that most of us DON'T want.
The only thing this 'reform from our current goober mints' will accomplish is digging deeper into our pocket.
I would rather have a completely free market with competitive health insurance companies run by Darth Vador clones than a government monopoly run by Mother Teresa. Government monopolies are the worst kind of evil in the market.
The customers are the best people to decide what they need, how much they need, and how much they want to pay for what they need.
Right now we have a highly regulated system where an employer buys a product for their employee, the employee goes t a doctor and gets the services the doctor wants to charge an insurance company that is forced by congress to sell an insurance package to an employer that may or may not cover the services that the employee wants.
This is a stupid system, but a government take over would be even worse. There is no evidence to suggest that the government is more capable at making decisions for 300 million people. It can only conduct wage and price controls and ration supplies in order to control costs.
Bridget -- no, Republicans don't need to offer any plan. The Democrats run everything and have done everything possible to exclude the GOP from the legislation.
No, this is your buddy Harry Reid's doing. He and Barry could have pushed this through before August but weak-kneed Democrats were afraid too. Maybe if they took the blue pill you speak so fondly off, they would have the 'drive' to get this done.
Bridget,
Are you REALLY so ignorant that you think it's the Republicans who are trying to force this monstrosity down our throats? It's the DemocRATS who are attempting to screw up what medical benefits we currently have and push through their socialistic boondogle. Wake up and learn the facts.
Mr. Golyadkins,
It so happens that Great Britain and France have 2 of the absolute worst medical systems in the world. Why would we want something like that?