« Senate Democrats Reach Health Care Compromise: Nelson Reportedly Signs On
Boxer, Murray Statement: We Were Happier With Capps, But Compromise Was Necessary »
Nelson to Support Health Care Reform; Summary of Reid’s Newest Amendment; States Get Power to Limit Abortion Coverage
Dec 19th, 2009 | 85 responses
I don’t know what fumes the folks on the Hill are living off of but Senator Harry Reid has introduced the Manager’s Amendment (#3276) and word is that Senator Ben Nelson, a Democratic holdout, will support the overall health care reform bill.
How they got Nelson:
Mr. Reid’s amendment includes major restrictions on abortion that were intended to win support for the bill from Mr. Nelson. Under Mr. Reid’s proposal, health insurance plans are not required or forbidden to cover abortion services, but there is a major exemption that would give states power to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.
Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.
The Wonk Room has more on the abortion-related language.
Here’s a link to the full 300plus pages and here’s the summary of it:
Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Providing More Competition & Affordable Choices for Americans
The Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act builds upon the strong bill we already have. It demands greater accountability from health insurance companies while creating more choice and competition for consumers. It implements new programs to further rein in health costs and makes health insurance policies more affordable; and it improves access to quality, affordable health care for children and vulnerable populations.
Tougher Accountability Policies for Health Insurance Companies
Stronger medical loss ratios. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans.
Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.
Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.
Patient protections. Health insurers will have to abide by a set of patient protections that, for example, protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.
Ensuring access to needed care. The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.
Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.
Stronger Policies to Make Health Care Affordable
Innovation. Medicare will be able to test new models and, if successful, implement them via a stronger Innovation Center, Independent Payment Advisory Board, and other authorities.
Transparency. New requirements will ensure that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, empowering patients to make the best possible decisions.
Small businesses. A package of improvements include starting the health insurance tax credit in 2010, expanding eligibility for the credit, and improving the purchasing power of small businesses.
More Health Insurance Choices
Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.
Improved Access to Quality Health Care for Seniors, Children, and Vulnerable Populations
Quality of care in Medicare. Seniors will benefit when additional health care providers are reimbursed by Medicare for the quality of care they deliver, not the quantity of services they provide.
Children’s health. Support will be extended for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the adoption tax credit. Foster care children aging out of Medicaid will be able to retain its comprehensive coverage.
Community Health Centers. A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is most needed
Rural and underserved communities. Access will be expanded through funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers.
Vulnerable populations. A range of new programs will tackle diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and children’s congenital heart disease, will improve the Indian Health System, and will provide support for pregnant teens and victims of domestic violence.
Identifying Alternatives to Litigation
Testing new models. States will be eligible for grants to test alternatives to civil tort litigation that emphasize patient safety, disclosure of health care errors, and early resolution of disputes, with a provision for patients to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. Alternatives will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
85 Responses to “Nelson to Support Health Care Reform; Summary of Reid’s Newest Amendment; States Get Power to Limit Abortion Coverage”
HI THERE EVERYONE
THe USE OF THE “N” WORD WILL CEASE IMMEDIATELY here. I know the times are tense for many, politically, economically and otherwise. All the more reason to raise a cup of kindness to others, at the very least, a civil tone.
Debate, discuss, teach, tell..,. use your best facts and arguments… but be aware, that commenters attacking each other or the writer are way outside the longstanding and stated rules for commenters at TMV.
I personally would rather read your wisdom and wild and well-reasoned points of view than have to police the site for the very few slip ups some make. Majority of commenters at TMV stay on topic and their comments are intense or calm, but nonetheless, to the point. I and the other editors appreciate it.
thanks
dr.e
deputy managing editor, TMV
There is to be commigling of federal and non-federal (abortion-okay) funds. It's that simple.
I assume you meant to write “There is to be NO commingling…” and in fact there isn't any.
No federal money involved, Kathy. That's what's being sought.
The problem is, the Senate language isn't as restrictive as it would need to be to ensure no federal money is involved in any way. There will probably be an effort by some in the House to press for more, rather than less, restrictive language. I'm still unsure what the rest of the House is going to do — those in favor of less, not more, abortion restrictions are also those generally who want the federal government also to provide much more and be more involved in health care than what the rest of the Congress has arrived at (which is more in touch with the public, notably on abortion; the mainstream public is not largely in favor of a new federal abortion entitlement any more than it is insterested in a massive replacement of what we have now for health care with rushing to substitute some massive new federal scheme — the public just wants sensible reform, not what so many liberals misuse “sensible” to mean instead). It's unsure what the end
result will be with abortion, and so long as this remains a big issue itself it becomes a distraction and still a likely reason why health care “reform” may ultimately fail — because of ridiculous abortion obscession. What will the far lefties fight illogically about next? Will they compromise their political “climate” energy legislation next year due to similarly silly obscessions and distractions, I already have wondered, for example. What's going to happen with immigration “reform” (amnesty and worse)? Etc.
The problem is, the Senate language isn't as restrictive as it would need to be to ensure no federal money is involved in any way.
That's not true. The Senate language is substantively identical to the language of the Hyde Amendment, which has been denying poor women federal funds to pay for abortion in the Medicaid program for over 30 years.
and so long as this remains a big issue itself it becomes a distraction and still a likely reason why health care “reform” may ultimately fail — because of ridiculous abortion obscession. What will the far lefties fight illogically about next?
I do not agree that the issue of whether a woman can obtain a medically necessary abortion is a “distraction” or a “ridiculous obsession.”
“The Senate language is substantively identical to the language of the Hyde Amendment”
“Substantively identical,” Kathy, or “identical-identical,” i.e., truly identical?
This issue isn't dead. There will be people in the House seeking to move the laws in both ways before this issue is closed.
* * *
“I do not agree that the issue of whether a woman can obtain a medically necessary abortion is a 'distraction' or a 'ridiculous obsession.'”
“Medically necessary”: Please don't even try stuff like this. Most abortions are elective. “Medically necessary” means in practice to save the mother's life, and the mainstream doesn't object to this. (What the mainstream objects to is the more florid, agitated, demented view that all abortions are legitimate and that there should be an absolute “right” to them, including a federal entitlement, and that dispute of this extremist view is somehow oppressive, evil, et cetera, ad nauseum.)
The real issue that should still be paramount is the new role the federal government is to have in health care in this country, and health care as a federal entitlement which is general, not specific. The minority that has made a much bigger deal of abortion than it should have made of it has made it a great distraction as well as revealing obscession with the issue, notably among the fringe leftists who view it in a mentally ill manner as some kind of crusade (their defensive behavior related to abortion and judicial activism is routinely mentally ill), or excuse for Perpetual Oppression and Victimhood stupid game-playing, is long-established fact. This has become a distraction from the real issue and goal, as well as once again an obscession. It can't be denied (honestly, at least).
I knew this abortion issue would arise inevitably, once federal non-low-income health care's scope was extended beyond its currently nearly-exclusive retiree-age beneficiary group. I had thought that, even after a year of misconduct, that the Dems would have the competence and the discipline this time not to lapse into fringist farther-left silliness and risk more failure, this time on what so many of them consider their most important goal currently. But leave it to some Dems in Congress and fringists elsewhere to jeopardize even this goal (while once again discrediting themselves). We'll have to see if reason (and arm-twisting by more-realistic Obama administration members) prevails or if the inmates ruin the asylum.
Don't screw up federal health care because of a neurotic or psychotic political obscession with abortion.
Kathy, some additional reading for you (and others) is in order here. Note particularly the last portion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135972428799…
Talk about one tree, in particular…
“Substantively identical,” Kathy, or “identical-identical,” i.e., truly identical?
Substantively identical means identical in meaning. I figured if I said just “identical,” you would tell me that it wasn't literally a copy and paste from the Hyde Amendment. So I said substantively identical, which means that the meaning and substance are the same as Hyde.
This assumes an understanding that one single meaning can be conveyed using different word choices and combinations of words.
For example, I can say, “It's a beautiful sunny day today,” and I can also say “The sun is out and there isn't a cloud in the sky.” Two different sentences, different words, but the two sentences convey the same meaning.
Do you understand, DLS?
Don't screw up federal health care because of a neurotic or psychotic political obscession with abortion.
Oh, you can't fool me, DLS. You said that just to get me riled up, because you know how much I hate it when I'm told that it's psychotic to be pro-life.
Kathy, do you mean “pro-choice” (i.e., pro-abortion[-rights])? You aren't riled up about this, are you?
Abortion's debate with respect to federal health care entitlements has not ended with this year's legislative effort (nor has what people want or will seek for federal health care, generally). It has only begun. (In the end, I do not believe the current lunacy surrounding abortion will defeat this legislation.)
Talk about one tree in particular? I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
Aside from that, everything in the article is familiar to me. I've read it all, heard it all, before.
No, I mean pro-life. Pro-life is pro-life. Not just pro-fetus. I start from the underlying belief that a woman is a person, and thus a human life.
“Talk about one tree in particular? I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.”
The abortion tree, Kathy. It's just one (1) tree within a much larger, more important health care forest.
Lefties choosing to make abortion a truly hot issue risk sending the whole forest (effort) up in smoke.
Your research is flawed, Don.
You stated that California had 2 meth labs per 100,000 population.
According to California's own Dept of Agriculture:
“As seen on the US map, California is ground zero for meth production. The state is home to 80 percent of the nation’s meth labs, making the drug a leading export to other states. In addition, 97 percent of the nation’s “super labs,” those that produce more than 20 pounds of meth in a single batch, are located in California. “
http://www.ag.ca.gov/publications/methlabs/inde…
The rest of your “research” is from the liberal Perrspectives.com, hardly a dependable source.
According to that very site: “Perrspectives.com is the work of Jon Perr, a technology marketing executive and supporter of Democratic causes with 20 years of experience in each.”
Show me some objective research on the subject, Don. What you've given is akin to someone citing nra.org for anti-gun perspectives.
“when a Red State somehow manages to attract young well educated people, said urban area turns blue, see Austin TX or Chapel Hill NC as prime examples.”
That's the funniest wrong thing I've heard all day.
What makes areas “blue” Don? Is it the industry? No. Because the South is much more industrial now than the “rust belt”. It is liberalism. Liberalism makes these areas blue. Why are they liberal? Because urban areas are swine pits. No one knows one another. They barely speak to one another and fear for their lives. They NEED big government. They have the highest robbery crime rates in the nation, and have a bigger portion of their populations on government assistance (typically…there are exceptions). For those of us that live in crime-free areas, we don't need government as much as you do.
“You can choose to ignore or not believe that many supporters of this legal medical procedure want it “on demand” but I have never, ever, EVER met anyone who believes in that”
Jill….
Kathy Kattenburg has, herself, supported that very notion. She is one of many that have said this on TMV, let alone many other liberal blog spots.
“THe USE OF THE “N” WORD WILL CEASE IMMEDIATELY here.”
Thank you archangel. Sorry for repeating it, but I was offended by its use as well.
Eek – now we know I don't read or agree w/everything Kathy says!
/sarcasm w/smile.
The left of center side still has more voters on it than the right of center – and both sides have tens of millions of people who populate them. I am speaking the truth based on my experience, Jefferson, I'm not going to fabricate. I have never been in the presence of anyone – online, in person or otherwise, who advocates something they or anyone else I've been in the presence of calls “abortion on demand.” They may speak more to my left of center consistency, versus being further out on the left, but there you are. Or, I suppose, there I am.
thanks JeffersonD, I saw that commenters were only quoting the original comment.
Appreciate it
and blessed holidays JD
dr.e
thanks JeffersonD, I saw that commenters were only quoting the original comment.
Appreciate your note acknowledging.
and blessed holidays to you and your loved ones JD
dr.e
Thank you, always.
The abortion tree, Kathy. It's just one (1) tree within a much larger, more important health care forest.
You have no idea what's important, DLS. You're not even interested in health care reform, and you really know nothing about either the forest or the trees. You are, however, extremely good at playing the concern troll.
Lefties choosing to make abortion a truly hot issue risk sending the whole forest (effort) up in smoke.
DLS, you have truly fallen through the looking glass. It's Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak who are “choosing to make abortion a truly hot issue,” not liberals, progressives, or “lefties.”
Kathy Kattenburg has, herself, supported that very notion. She is one of many that have said this on TMV, let alone many other liberal blog spots.
Another poor soul who has fallen through the looking glass and does not know up from down. I have never said anything about abortion “on demand.” I agree with Jill that it's not even a concept that exists on the pro-choice side. The only people who ever talk about “on demand” as a concept relating to the subject of abortion are people like you who think abortion is murder and want it to be illegal. And that “one of many” bit is even more hilarious. You're just making things up as you go along.
Jill, don't accept JD's assertion about me at face value. He has no idea what I believe, or why.
“You have no idea”
That is oh, so very ironic coming from you, on this topic, right now, especially, Kathy. Very ironic.
Kathy – me and my saying I know my way around blog commenting! You are right – sorry I didn't seek to check w/you or reference needing to hear it from you first. So noted, my bad.
Jill….
I truly appreciate your candor and opinion. As a social conservative Democrat, the opinions I here from the more liberal in my own party is along the “abortion on demand” line. Of course these usually come from the more militant democrats and groups (NOW, ACLU, etc). I totally agree that the populous out there in the “real world” do not want “abortion on demand”. I think my main point was with the more militant political crowd mentioned above. They always start with a social “need” based upon class warfare of some sort, when their actual goal is more dubious.
” I have never said anything about abortion “on demand.” I agree with Jill “
Kathy. You have on countless occasions said that very thing about “abortion on demand”.
You have stated that it is “not anyones business to fetter the “choice” within a woman's body nor the reasoning WHY”. You give no rights to the fathers of aborted children. You give a passing wave of indifference to physical or psychological damage that abortion has upon those who choose it. You have on countless occasions defended abortion “on demand” for any reason. Based upon your past comments, I have no doubt that you had no problem with partial birth abortion. I don't know this to be true, but it is a good presumption.
In fact, most of your posts are about abortion or homosexuality. You occasionally wax about a sentimental tune or your daughter (which I actually enjoy, by the way), but most others are about abortion or homsexuality, as if you were getting a kickback from the ACLU.
And you have a joyous and blessed Christmas, archangel!
No worries, Jill. I've got your back.
You have on countless occasions defended abortion “on demand” for any reason.
This is what you said before. LOL. But I have not “defended abortion 'on demand' for any reason.” You make a claim and then don't even attempt to support and then just repeat it. Nice work, if you can get it.
Based upon your past comments, I have no doubt that you had no problem with partial birth abortion. I don't know this to be true, but it is a good presumption.
Not at all. I would not dream of such a thing. If a woman in her second or third trimester is diagnosed with cancer, I would tell her to forget about radiation treatment and chemotherapy (it could hurt the baby, you know), and just put the whole thing out of her mind until her baby is born. Absolutely, it would be unconscionable for her to end the pregnancy if that was the only way she could safely get the treatment she needed. Same thing if her kidney failed, or she went into diabetic shock, or she had a stroke, or a life-threatening embolism (whatever that is, something to do with a woman, not with the baby).
“I have not “defended abortion 'on demand' for any reason.” You make a claim and then don't even attempt to support and then just repeat it.”
So am I do presume from that comment that you are against abortion except in the case of the life of the mother, incest, rape, or extreme medical requirement?
No?
You have said that you do not want ANY legislation preventing a woman's “right” to choose to murder what's inside her uterus.
That, Kathy, IS abortion on demand!
Women do not just “demand” abortion, JeffersonDavis. Your entire lens for viewing this issue is distorted and cracked.
You have made it clear many times that you believe that situations in which abortion is necessary to save a woman's life, OR, situations in which a woman's health would be seriously damaged by full-term pregnancy, are extremely, exceedingly rare. That they almost never happen. The absolute, incontrovertible fact is, you are wrong. But of course you will never accept that or believe it.
The point is that no one other than the woman involved and her doctor are in a position to know what constitutes “extreme medical requirement.” Women must be allowed to make that decision. No one else has the right to make it. No one else CAN make it. You are simply not in a position to make a judgment that any given woman is having an abortion “on demand” (whatever that even means — as opposed to not demanding it?).
That is what I am telling you. Your entire concept of something that you call “abortion on demand” is fraudulent.
I have not said that I BELIEVE in situations in which abortion is necessary, Kathy. I said, I can UNDERSTAND and empathize with women in those situations. It can hardly be called murder when the life of the mother is in danger – that is more like “self defense”.
You LOVE spouting off exceptions, yet you won't come right out and say that you support “abortion on demand”. That is true cowardice.
And you are correct in your “extreme medical requirement” statement. You and your liberal pals will lower that bar as far as will be tolerated by the public to allow abortion on demand, without calling it abortion on demand.
Baby has downs syndrome? Kill it.
Baby has one arm? Kill it.
Baby has a wart on it's butt? Kill it.
I'd take a Downs Syndrome child in a heartbeat.
Many Christians out here would take just about ANY child that is not wanted.
Many Christians out here would take just about ANY child that is not wanted.
Would you and they take in all the women who are not wanted? The ones whose bodies have been battered and damaged by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term in the presence of a serious health condition because a government bureaucrat decided he knew better than the woman's doctor? Will you take in their children whom they cannot care for because they are too ill? Will you take in the children of the women who die in childbirth because a doctor could not give a 100 percent guarantee that the woman would die? Will you comfort the fathers and the families of these women?
Do the lives of women and the well-being of the children they already have mean NOTHING to you? Really? There is only ONE human life involved when an abortion takes place, and that is the life that hasn't been born yet?
You LOVE spouting off exceptions, yet you won't come right out and say that you support “abortion on demand”
I support abortion on necessity. And necessity is defined and decided by the pregnant woman and her doctor. No one else. Period.
And you are correct in your “extreme medical requirement” statement. You and your liberal pals will lower that bar as far as will be tolerated by the public to allow abortion on demand, without calling it abortion on demand.
No. I will not lower any bar because the only bar that exists is the woman's health and life, and the only person who decides where that bar is set, is the woman involved and her doctor. I don't decide that. My liberal “pals” don't decide that. You don't decide that, and your right-wing pals don't decide that.