Senate Health Care Reform Bill imminent- no reconcilliation expected

BeachSiO2 · 11-18-2009, 12:05 PM

It is expected that the Senate will be releasing their health care reform bill today, probably late this afternoon. Of interest to many is how many votes will it take to pass the health bill. Based on news reports...

Quote:

Senate Democrats have abandoned plans to use a fast-track parliamentary strategy to avert a threatened Republican filibuster and pass a health care overhaul — a signal that they are considering major policy concessions to moderates.

The most significant of these could be restructuring or dropping altogether a proposed government-run insurance plan — the so-called public option — that many liberals consider a necessary part of the overhaul.

So it looks like it will be 60 instead of 50. It will be interesting to see what the concessions were, and if it will be filibustered.

BeachSiO2 · 11-18-2009, 05:14 PM

Edit: Link to Bill listed below in post #4

And in contrast to the Catholic Bishops, we have Rev. Jackson's thoughts on Health Care reform....

Quote:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats' signature healthcare bill.

"We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill," Jackson said at reception Wednesday night. "You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man."

scooterbug44 · 11-18-2009, 05:25 PM

I believe Jesse is referencing the major health and insurance coverage disparities in the African-American population..........................but as usual his word choices make him sound like a raving loon.

BeachSiO2 · 11-18-2009, 07:27 PM

The Senate version is out. It's a whopping two-thousand and seventy-four pages. Out pacing the House by 174 pages. However, CBO estimates has it at a couple of hundred billion dollars cheaper than the House version over 10 years.

Santiago · 11-18-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

I believe Jesse is referencing the major health and insurance coverage disparities in the African-American population..........................but as usual his word choices make him sound like a raving loon.

Or one might say his being a raving loon makes for some interesting word choices.

30ashopper · 11-18-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeachSiO2

The Senate version is out. It's a whopping two-thousand and seventy-four pages. Out pacing the House by 174 pages. However, CBO estimates has it at a couple of hundred billion dollars cheaper than the House version over 10 years.

Cheaper because they raised more taxes, or cheaper because they spend less?

30ashopper · 11-18-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Democrats said that it would increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-income people and would impose a new excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health plans offered by employers to their employees.

The Medicare payroll tax would rise to 1.95 percent from 1.45 percent for couples earning more than $250,000 a year, and individuals earning more than $200,000, Democrats said. The increase would raise $54 billion over 10 years.

The tax on so-called Cadillac plans, first proposed by the Senate Finance Committee, would apply to individual insurance policies costing more than $8,500 and family plans costing more than $23,000, raising $149 billion toward the cost of the bill. Mr. Reid’s proposal scales back the tax on Cadillac plans proposed by the Finance Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/he.../19health.html

Democrats have a funny way of defining 'cheap'. The 30ashopper house votes thumbs down.

30ashopper · 11-18-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Mr. Reid’s bill would not go as far as the House-passed bill in limiting insurance coverage for abortions. Democratic senators said that the bill seeks to extend current law by barring the use of federal money for abortions. But it would also require that at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered in every state.

What the deuce?

30ashopper · 11-19-2009, 11:32 AM

Here's a short list of all the tax increases :

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% – begins in 2013 – $149 B tax increase
Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) – begins in 2013 – $54 B tax increase
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs – begins in 2010 – $22 B tax increase
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $19 B tax increase
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $60 B tax increase
Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive’s compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes – begins in 2013 – $600 million tax increase
Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures – begins for surgery in 2010 – $6 B tax increase!

Andy A. · 11-19-2009, 12:44 PM

Thanks to 30ashopper, I see when all the taxes kick in but when does the healthcare kick in? If it is 2013 as many have said, does anyone else find that a bit odd? One year after the end of Obama's second term should he get one. We don't have nearly enough information on this wonderful present being given to the American public. Could be because the bill is 2,074 pages long. Dr. Tom Coburn has the right idea. Read the damn thing on the floor of the Senate.

AlphaCrab · 11-19-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Thanks to 30ashopper, I see when all the taxes kick in but when does the healthcare kick in? If it is 2013 as many have said, does anyone else find that a bit odd? One year after the end of Obama's second term should he get one. We don't have nearly enough information on this wonderful present being given to the American public. Could be because the bill is 2,074 pages long. Dr. Tom Coburn has the right idea. Read the damn thing on the floor of the Senate.

Yet another stalling tactic of the party of "No." Why bother?

scooterbug44 · 11-19-2009, 01:34 PM

I propose a similar idea - all bills must be read (at a normal speaking pace) and in their entirity TO THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLED BODY in 8-10 hour blocks w/ regular breaks for restrooms, meals etc.

All elected representatives must be present and may ONLY listen or take notes on the bill - no texts, cell phones, etc.

THAT is how you get reasonable length bills!

Long bills are not a new phenomenon, and it is long past time that they get trimmed!

Andy A. · 11-19-2009, 01:41 PM

The present trend in bill of such extrodinary length is fairly new, IMO. Social Security was formulated in something like 23 pages or therabouts. There is absolutely no compelling reason for bills to be the length they have become. The bureaucrats will only make rule and regulations to enforce what they want anyway.

scooterbug44 · 11-19-2009, 01:54 PM

Clinton's health care bill (1993) was 1,300+ pages, Bush's budget (2007) was 1,400+.

Definitely agree they should be MUCH shorter - as demonstrated in the past it is doable.

Is 1,000 pages long for a piece of legislation? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

30ashopper · 11-19-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaCrab

Yet another stalling tactic of the party of "No." Why bother?

Are you suggested elected officials should vote on a bill they have not read or do not understand?

AFAIC, the party "No" has a lot of good reasons to say "No" to this bill.

BeachSiO2 · 11-23-2009, 10:21 AM

Here is a WaPo article with some limited comparisons between the Senate and House Versions