MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News
Dec. 01, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Senate starts health care reform fight

By DAVID ESPO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
More Info


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.
Photo by The Associated Press

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.

Most Popular Stories
  • Obama dings Las Vegas — again
  • Obama dings Las Vegas — again
  • 'YOU DON'T BLOW A BUNCH OF CASH IN VEGAS ...': Obama remark reopens wound
  • LAUGHLIN EDGEWATER: Two dead in casino car crash
  • NORM: Ad's Strip scenes raised eyebrows
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Former commander of USS Cole considers run against Reid
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • NORM: $1 million wager on Super Bowl approved
  • IMAGES FROM 1860S: Photos show historic Nevada
  • Fighter battles rare disease that shatters mixed martial arts dream




    • "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.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 20 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com 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 notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    To Mr Golyadkins wrote on December 01, 2009 07:33 PM: Are you the new RJ message board master poster?

    no one cares what you have to say.

    go to bed old man.


    Goober Mint wrote on December 01, 2009 05:04 PM: 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.


    Mr. Golyadkins wrote on December 01, 2009 02:20 PM: No more free rides:

    Comments from people like you make this like shooting fish in a barrel. Thank you.

    Patrick: I am just as afraid of a total free market than I am of a total government system. I think either extreme is unhealthy. Again, I think the best system meets somewhere in the middle.


    No more free rides wrote on December 01, 2009 01:39 PM: Vote this stupid health care bill down. There should be no more free rides for them blacks and mexicans. Make them go to work and pay for their own health care and groceries to while I am at it.

    Atleast the white bums stand on the corner and ask for money instead of breaking into peoples homes and robbing and killing people like the blacks and mexicans.

    Vote old crotchety Harry out of office.


    Patrick wrote on December 01, 2009 01:35 PM: 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.


    Patrick wrote on December 01, 2009 01:34 PM: 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.


    Mr. Golyadkins wrote on December 01, 2009 01:33 PM: Ken:

    Actually, the GOP provided the democrats with a list of 67 proposals they wanted included in the bill-over 60 of them were included. I'm not sure how this qualifies as "excluding the GOP from the legislation."


    Ken wrote on December 01, 2009 01:23 PM: 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.


    Mr. Golyadkins wrote on December 01, 2009 01:22 PM: Patrick:

    So are you saying that we should have no government intervention at all? Who decides how much is too much? I think a healthy balance of free market and government involvement is the best route. However, reasonable minds can disagree on what constitutes a "healthy balance." For example, I think there are a lot of people in France, GB and Canada who would disagree with your assertion that their system is not a good idea. (admittedly, there are people there who do not like the system, but I believe they are the minority).

    That being said, I agree with you that the government should not be all powerful. But I think they should play a role. A completely free market scares me to death.


    SteveF wrote on December 01, 2009 01:14 PM: 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?


    Read All Comments