Ezra Klein writes today that the blending of the two health care bills into one for the Senate floor will be a true blend – those issues where both the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee weighed in will result in one compromise or other, and other issues where only one committee addressed them will largely go with the approach from that committee.
However, a couple issues may have to be solved on the floor, particularly with respect to financing for the bill. On a conference call today sponsored by Families USA, Tom Harkin, the chair of the HELP Committee (but not the lead negotiator in the merging sessions, because Chris Dodd largely shepherded the bill through committee at that time) suggested that Democrats would modify the excise tax on high-end insurance plans, which only appears in the Finance Committee version of the bill, and that they may look at the House provisions to fund the bill, including a surtax on people making over $350,000 a year.
This would come as news to President Olympia Snowe of the United States of Maine, who wants all the money in the bill to come from inside the health care system. But Harkin believed that Democrats would look outside the system as well for additional financing, considering the excise tax too punitive on middle-class workers who may have given up wage increases for better benefits, or those with long-term chronic illnesses who need stellar coverage.
The tension here comes between lowering the excise tax and wanting to ensure affordability of coverage for all Americans; the two necessarily conflict. Ultimately, the money for subsidies has to come from somewhere, one of the major battles in the debate.
Later in the call, Harkin gave a nod of support to the “opt-out” compromise, while maintaining a preference for a nationally available plan. And he made the case for allowing the interests of the majority to take precedence over the interests of a few in the caucus:
There are 52 solid Democrats for a public option and only about five Democrats really kind of opposed to it… One has to ask if the 52 should give into the five or if the five should come on board with the vast majority. I think the answer is clear.
Blanche Lincoln, one of those five in opposition, threw some support behind triggers to local reporters in Arkansas today, though she didn’t even fully support that. Again, nobody asked her the key question – would she invoke cloture, even if the bill didn’t include everything she wanted.
…Lincoln has an online chat with constituents about health care scheduled for tomorrow. Details here. Maybe some readers would want to ask the Senator something or other.
6 Comments
Spotlight



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Advanced search
Oh boy, more of THAT bullshit.
I still haven’t read ANYWHERE a reasonable explanation for why we need an “opt-out” for a system that is entirely an “opt-in” to begin with.
So many, many, many tax breaks over the past decade or so to the very, very rich. Even while waging wars (on credit), losing jobs (to overseas tax havens), eroding the social contract and the safety net (because we could no longer “afford” them, with the add’l defense spending, after all).
I think it’s time for the elites to suck it up and pay the piper.
Concur, but I’ll just add PAST time to pay the piper.
Hypothetical… I would bet that if we were trying to reform health care this year and we had NOT already squandered a couple trillion dollars on two wars, all the same people would still be complaining about the cost.
There is no reason why start-up costs for health care reform have to come from within the system. Under those rules most businesses would never get off the ground.
If the government wants to tax employer benefits it should let everyone cash out those benefits, like the Wyden plan suggested. A 40% tax on hard-won benefits is anti-union and discriminatory against older, sicker workers, and those in high cost areas.
The ongoing savings from health care reform should come from a more cost-effective system. Single payer and Medicare drug price negotiation would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year with negligible effect on patient care. Barring that, a public option paying Medicare+5% rates is the only idea left on the tablet which could generate enough savings to ensure affordability. Congress can go round and round trying to avoid this reality but they will not be able to escape it.
Political cover.