President Stamps His Imprint on ‘ObamaCare’
Feb 22nd, 2010 | 9 responses
For the first time since the start of the health care reform debate, the president has publicly placed his imprint on the legislative package. He has proposed compromises on key elements that are different in the bills passed by the House and Senate.
The summary of what we can now finally call “ObamaCare” without the ridicule from opponents is in a pdf online. It was posted Monday by the White House, 72 hours in advance of the summit meeting Thursday between President Obama and members from both parties of Congress.
As a representative of Main Street, I urge Congress to adopt the proposals. Easy for me to say.
The ObamaCare plan is a start. It bridges the gap between essential elements of both bills.
It avoids discussion on two contentious elements.
One is on the abortion funding question which in my mind is a red-herring considering the magnitude of the sweeping reforms offered in the two bills and the president’s proposals.
The other is no public option to compete with the private insurers. Although most progressives favor a single-payer system modeled after Medicare, the president’s proposal offers a market-based pool offering what is billed as affordable options to individuals, families, employees and small businesses.
One thing is certain. All Americans except the poorest will be mandated to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Businesses employing 50 or more workers also will be fined if they do not offer shared health insurance costs.
Where the president really stepped his foot in is proposals stronger than the House and Senate bills over fighting fraud, abuse and other criminal acts involving the billing of Medicare, MediCaid and private insurers by doctors, contract providers and individual miscreants who game the system. Those convicted will be jailed and their names placed on a universal data base.
Deleted for good measure from the Senate bill will be Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s deal that would have given his state free MediCaid increases forever. Instead, the president proposes more MediCaid funding paid by the federal government to all the states.
The plan would establish review boards in each state supervised by the U.S. Health and Human Resources agency to justify private insurance premium increases and forever end the practice of denying an individual coverage because of preexisting conditions.
ObamaCare would cover an additional 31 million Americans who now cannot afford health insurance and reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.
I can’t vouch for the deficit savings Obama concocts because we’ve heard such glowing promises in the past with vastly different results.
I am also unclear how the Senate in particular will enact such a proposal into law either by reconciliation or challenging the 60-vote filibuster rule. As I understand Senate rules, it appears what the president is proposing could be handled by reconciliation — 50 plus one vote for passage.
If the Senate Republicans hold the line at 41 votes, which they are likely to do with their new buddy Scott Brown of Massachusetts aboard, I would force them to actually take the Senate podium and talk a blue moon.
The Republicans would be seen for what they are by the American people — obstructionists.
Easy for me to say. Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t return my phone calls.
9 Responses to “President Stamps His Imprint on ‘ObamaCare’”
I read the Obama plan and actually there is a lot to like in it. I see two potential problems off the bat. One is the tax on employers who don't offer insurance, which will rightly be portrayed as anti-jobs.
The other is I don't buy the budget projections and believe the CBO will eventually probably say this increases the deficit. The House and Senate versions were pretty shaky financially and the Obama version makes most of it's compromises on the funding side, which makes me think the math will be even shakier.
The federal price controls on rates or rate increases is low-grade demagoguery. I'm really surpised he would stoop to such an appeal-to-base-motive gimmick but I wonder if he's just doing it for show or for puffing up the Dems' initial bargaining position (assuming that they really intend to bargain with the GOP, which we've not seen evidence of so far). If this is serious, it was another inept move, and if some of the Dems really intended to bargain with the GOP, and this was just posturing before the negotiations, this just works against confidence the Dems will ever start acting in good faith.
“Deleted for good measure from the Senate bill will be Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s deal that would have given his state free MediCaid increases forever. Instead, the president proposes more MediCaid funding paid by the federal government to all the states.”
I suspected this might happen. (After all, where a bribe was necessary before, why risk losing that vote by taking the bribe away? Plus opening the federal coffers to bribe everybody eliminates any harsh feelings and conflict.) It's shameful if the Dems boast they “eliminated” the bribe, in this case.
The move makes sense otherwise, simply to be consistent and equitable with the bribery (it's logical).
“reconciliation”
They're low-lifes if the Dems do it now, after what's being advertised is more rather than less excess in particular. On the other hand, I'm also looking at it in this way: If the GOP continues to oppose everything the Dems want to get passed (irrespective of how bad it is), sooner or later the Dems will have to break the lock, or force it to be released later, by taking the PR hit with reconciliation just to start passing legislation again. In this light, too, Harry Reid needs to be like, ahem, Ronald Reagan about attacking Libya: “If necessary, we shall do it again.”
A couple of points. From: http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/…
“In every state, health plans must provide data showing that requested premium increases are necessary to meet the expected rise in health care costs,” Zirkelbach says. “Creating a new duplicative layer of federal premium regulation on top of what states are already doing is unnecessary and will only add regulatory complexity and increase health care costs.”
– The mandates/fees/taxes are still weak and healthy individuals may opt to pay them instead of obtaining insurance, hence adverse selection will result in the insured pool (more un-healthy people).
– Union members are still getting a tax exemption on Cadillac plans, while non-union people have to pay tax.
– The fraud and enforcement appear to be good.
This is likely a worse and more partisan proposal than either the Senate or House bills. It has some good points, as did those earlier propossals but has even more liberal baggage.
First I take you to the Wall Street journal for a few snippets:
ObamaCare at Ramming Speed
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 04352.html
It concludes:
now to Libertarian Reason:
ObamaCare, the Upgrade
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/obamacare-the…
and concludes:
If only Jerry could have worked Sarah Palin into the title he'd be getting more comments. I believe this is the only post so far taking a look at the substance of Obama's proposal and hardly anyone seems to notice.
The White House just killed the Public option yet again, take cover as liberal heads will be exploding with the news:
Gibbs: The Public Plan Doesn't Have The Votes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/2 … 73443.html
“The White House just killed the Public option yet again, take cover as liberal heads will be exploding with the news”
Actually, that's another explanation of having something alarming like the new federal rate regulation idea in the new attempted legislation, to keep the angry savages assuaged.
I don't see much in it that reforms–or even positions us to reform in the future–the real cost drivers. Insurance companies get a larger role that looks even less like actual insurance. Medicare will still be paying for quantity rather than quality. Citizens will still be carefully insulated from the cost of the services they get.
So it seems like a wasted opportunity. I would have hoped the popular revolt we've seen would have provided leverage to force bigger changes on the doctors, the unions, the insurers, and the other vested interests.