Senate Increases National Deficit By $290B

Senate Lifts Debt Ceiling By $290B


A $290 billion increase in the Federal debt ceiling narrowly cleared Congress on Thursday, giving Treasury just enough leeway to pay the government’s bills into February and setting the stage for a showdown over fiscal policy early next year.

Senate Republicans insisted that 60 votes be required for passage and then held back their own members in order to force as many Democrats as possible to walk the plank on what has never been a popular or easily explained decision back home.

The same issue returns with a vengeance Jan. 20th when senators will be asked to vote on a still larger, long-term debt increase within days of President Barack Obama’s new budget and State of the Union address.

Treasury’s daily statements this week indicate it is still about $65 billion under its current $12.1 trillion ceiling, and conservatives argued that special measures could be invoked still to avert default over New Year’s. But with Congress leaving for the holidays, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said that failure to act would have been “catastrophic” for the U.S. internationally. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said that payments to Social Security recipients were also at risk.

“The bottom line is we have no choice,” Baucus told his colleagues. “We have to approve it.”

Between now and the January votes, there will be renewed efforts to try to reach some compromise on a bipartisan deficit reduction commission championed by the leadership of the Senate Budget Committee and more than a third of the full Senate. Without these votes, Treasury has no chance of prevailing, and the White House is already promising to take a more aggressive stance on deficits in its 2011 budget, due about Feb. 1.

But with the economy still fragile, Obama can’t afford to ignore the political threat of high unemployment and demands in his party for greater efforts to spur job creation. And for a man who campaigned on the promise of going through the budget page-by-page, the president has been remarkably silent on the new spending — and billions of dollars in parochial projects — included in annual appropriations bills approved this month.

In recent days, Obama has signed measures totaling more than $1 trillion with scarcely a comment. And going into House-Senate negotiations on health reform, he faces a major task now in convincing the public that the bill’s often tenuous financing schemes will actually hold up and not make the debt worse.

The bitter residue of that historic health care debate hung over the proceedings in the Senate on Thursday. And amid all the Christmas Eve hugs on the Senate floor, the debt ceiling vote was a moment of old-fashioned revenge for what many top Republicans view as a political betrayal last November after they joined in a bipartisan vote supporting the financial industry rescue plan championed by the Bush administration’s own Treasury Department.

The Democratic Senate campaign apparatus — overseen by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a strong ally of Wall Street — later ran highly effective ads attacking Republicans for supporting big bankers. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has never forgiven Democrats for those tactics and worked hard to hold back his colleagues.

“Mitch is hard over on this,” said one Republican, and the sole concession on the 60-39 roll call was among Midwest neighbors: retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) voted “yes” allowing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), up for reelection next year, to vote “no.”

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) had been a second Republican vote Democrats had hoped for — and one that might have been there if a real crisis arose.

As the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Gregg had played a lead part in negotiating a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week guaranteeing him a chance to amend the next debt ceiling increase next month with legislation setting up a bipartisan deficit reduction task force or commission.

The 18-member group would be charged with making recommendations by the end of 2010, which would be voted on in the next Congress in 2011. Gregg is insistent that there be a statutory requirement that the House and Senate consider the commission’s findings under expedited proceedings, without amendment.

In return for getting a sure vote on his proposal, he had argued in Republican circles for more bipartisan support Thursday for the short-term debt ceiling adjustment. But ultimately he voted no in apparent deference to McConnell’s strategy.

“We’ll be back in January to consider yet another increase in the credit limit that probably will only allow us to borrow through the middle of next year if we’re lucky,” Gregg said in a statement later. “While it is critical to protect the government’s ability to meet its financial obligations, Congress should not consider passing a long-term debt limit increase unless the legislation also includes enforceable and meaningful measures to curb out-of-control government borrowing and spending.”

In explaining his vote for the debt increase, Voinovich also alluded to the January debate and the promise by Reid for a vote then on the Gregg commission, also backed by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

“As one who knows all too well about our debt crisis, unbalanced budgets and unfunded liabilities — and one who is keenly aware of how closely the United States is being watched by the international community — I felt conscience-bound to vote for this short-term debt extension,” the Ohio Republican said. “For too long, I have felt alone in the desert in my calls for reform. ... I am … I am truly grateful for the leadership of Sens. Conrad and Gregg and was happy to help move this issue forward.

To hammer home the point further, Conrad released a letter immediately after the debt vote, urging Obama to come off the fence and back the commission. Signed by more than 30 senators, the letter takes note that the president has signaled he intends to make “deficit and debt reduction a center piece” of his State of the Union address.

“To accomplish these goals, we believe it is necessary to put in place a process that is bipartisan, accountable, comprehensive and which assures a vote on recommendations before the end of this Congress. Your support for and involvement in such a process is crucial for it to be a success.”


Sources: Politico

Democrats Search For Another Strong Senate Health Care Leader...Like Ted Kennedy, Not Baucus Nor Reid

(What ails Health Care, ails America.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Wanted: A Senate Health-Care Leader


The Democrat-versus-Democrat battle over Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s health care proposal is more than just political posturing: It’s the latest sign that Senate Democrats so far lack a clear public leader on the issue at a crucial time in the debate.

Part of the problem facing Senate Democrats is institutional; unlike the House, the Senate is a body that gives each member great power to influence the legislative process — significantly limiting the power of leaders. Another part of the problem is the sweeping nature of the issue: Health care reform falls into the jurisdiction of several House and Senate committees, putting far more cooks in the kitchen than on most other matters on Capitol Hill.

And part of the problem is personnel. In Sen. Ted Kennedy, Democrats had a man of “unusual influence for many reasons — his knowledge, his discipline, his friendships, his experience,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

Without him, there are individual Democratic senators playing leading roles in certain parts of the debate, but no overall go-to guy — a figure who could serve as a trusted public leader on the issue, providing a clear argument for the bill across the airwaves and acting as the chief deal maker behind the scenes.

Baucus, a moderate who cut deals with President George W. Bush over Medicare legislation and tax cuts, has long been distrusted by his party’s liberals — and the thought of him leading the Senate on the biggest domestic issue in years is making the stomachs of some of them turn.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trusted by his caucus, and he’s moving aggressively behind the scenes to soothe concerns of possible defectors. But in public, Reid, who faces a tough reelection next year, has taken a hands-off role as the bill works its way through the committee process — and has not driven the policy debate.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who filled in for Kennedy this summer to draft a competing health care bill, now is turning more of his attention toward financial regulatory reform.

And while President Barack Obama has laid out his vision for health care reform, he’s allowing the Senate to fill in the details without offering a written plan himself — exposing the White House and the Democratic leadership to attacks that no one is really leading.

“It’s pretty hard to lead the Senate if you don’t get the leadership out of the White House,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

With the health care bill now at a pivotal moment as Finance Committee deliberations start Tuesday, Senate Democratic leaders and the White House are working intensely behind the scenes to keep the Senate’s Democratic Caucus from fraying along ideological lines. The idea: Soothe concerns of wayward senators by hearing them out and assuring them that they will have ample opportunity to change the bill to their liking by allowing the process to advance.

Democratic senators who speak out against the process or seriously question the health care efforts can expect to hear from the president and their leadership.

When Sen. Jay Rockefeller issued a scathing critique of the Baucus bill last week, Reid called him by telephone almost immediately; soon after, the West Virginia Democrat was on his way to the White House for a one-on-one meeting with Obama. Rockefeller later seemed to take the edge off his critique of the bill.

“There are a lot of important discussions happening behind the scenes,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sits on the Finance Committee.

At a private Democratic Caucus meeting last Thursday, Reid stood up and told his fellow Democratic senators that they need to be willing to compromise, pointing out that he had “never” introduced a bill that went into law with everything that he wanted.

“We have numbers, we have a president, therefore we have a responsibility” to get health care done this year, Reid said, according to a senator in the room.

And at the meeting, liberal Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) invoked a military phrase by saying that Democrats need to “fight or die” when it comes to pushing the health care bill, according to a person familiar with the account.

Emerging from the meeting, Democrats sounded confident that they had the same goal in mind.

“If you’d been sitting in this room just now, you’d be amazed how calm, optimistic and determined the entire caucus is to get this done,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Asked why Democrats didn’t seem on the same page publicly, she said, “It’s a work in progress,” citing the various legislative proposals — including the Senate Finance Committee bill and one developed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Indeed, Reid will take a much bigger role once the bill heads to the floor as he tries to reconcile the HELP bill with the Finance measure, a daunting task that risks dividing his caucus further.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the majority leader will work with the Finance Committee, HELP Committee and Obama in a bid to produce a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate.

So far, Democrats seem optimistic that Reid will bridge the divide behind the scenes.

“Once the committees are out, then Harry Reid will lead,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I’m not concerned about that.”

Still, Reid, whose poll numbers have sunk during his 2010 reelection bid, is under pressure back home to show he won’t support a bill that could hurt Nevada. And last week he criticized the Baucus plan for placing too heavy of a burden on his state to help finance Medicaid programs.

“If he fixes the bill for Nevada, the Democratic senators from a lot of other states are going to fix the bill for their states,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

A clear leader may yet emerge as the process continues to advance — whether it’s Baucus, Dodd, new HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) or Reid.

“What I’ve suggested to my own colleagues and to our leader [is that] we need to keep in the mind this: The process we’re about to begin in the process in the Finance Committee is the end of the beginning,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del).


Sources: Politico, MSNBC

Baucus's HC Reform Bill Even Discriminates Against Low Wage Earners...Despicable!

(What caused Sen. Max Baucus a Democrat, to make such terrible compromises in this bill? Could it be he has already sold his soul to the Health Insurance companies for big campaign bucks? Why didn't he just stand up to his GOP colleagues in a civil way of course, instead of allowing them to call all the shots? Inquiring minds would like to know if he's able to rest well at night after helping to draft such a crappy, ineffective bill?)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(What ails Health Care, ails America.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Baucus Bill: The Worst Policy in the Bill, and Possibly in the World


Sen. Baucus's bill (America's Healthy Future Act) retains the noxious "Free Rider" provision on employers. Rather than a simple employer mandate that forces every employer over a certain size to provide health-care insurance or pay a small fee, the free rider approach penalizes employers for hiring low-income workers who are eligible for subsidies. That will create an incentive to do one of two things: Don't hire low-income workers (hire a teenager looking for a job rather than a single mother, or hire a housewife looking for a second job rather than an unemployed breadwinner), or hire illegal immigrants.

And it actually gets worse. The employer pays more if the low-income worker needs subsidies for his family as opposed to just himself. So it not only discriminates against low-income workers, but it particularly discriminates against low-income parents. Single mothers will get the worst deal, as they have lower incomes, and as you might expect, children who need health care.

The penalty itself is a bit confusing, and if anything, even worse than one might imagine: The employer will pay the lesser of A) the average subsidy in the exchange times the number of subsidized workers or B) $400 times the total number of workers. Two examples should clarify this:

Baucus Corp has 100 employees and does not offer health-care coverage. Thirty of the employees receive subsidies on the exchange. The average subsidy that year is $5,000. Baucus Corp woulds pay $400 times 100 employees, as $40,000 is less than $150,000 ($5,000 times 30 employees). Each of those low-income employees is costing Baucus Corp $1,333 more than an employee who didn't need subsidies.

Now imagine that Baucus Corp. only has five employees who need subsidies, and the average subsidy that year is $5,000. In that scenario, Baucus Corp would pay $25,000 rather than $40,000, because $25,000 is less than $40,000. Each low-income worker now costs Baucus Corp. $5,000 more than a worker who doesn't need subsidies.

So in the scenario where Baucus Corp. has a lot of low-income workers, they cost a huge amount overall because they're multiplied against the total number of workers. In the scenario where Baucus Corp. has a few low-income workers, they cost a huge amount individually because they're multiplied against the average subsidy cost. No matter how you look at it, the policy makes it profitable for employers to discriminate against hiring low-income workers. It is not only the worst policy idea in the bill, but one of the worst policy ideas I've ever seen.

Update: Originally, this post didn't include one of the penalty options, as I was basically confused on how it worked and thought it would apply too rarely to be worth mentioning. I reread the section, though, and corrected the post to offer a fuller picture of this no good, very bad, horrible policy.



View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC, Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, Google Maps

America's Healthy Future Act: What It Doesn't Include (223 Page Draft)

AMERICA'S HEALTHY FUTURE ACT

(You can download and read the 223-page bill over at Senate.gov or read it online at OpenCongress.org)


Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT] has been working for months in his committee, and specifically with a bipartisan “Gang of Six” negotiating senators, to produce a healthcare reform bill that would appeal to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Today he released a 223-page Chairman’s mark of the bill, which you can download here (pdf) or read online at OpenCongress.

It’s definitely worth taking a look at. Unlike the bills we’ve seen come out of other committees in Congress, the draft released today by the Finance Committee is written in plain language, so you can actually read it and understand it pretty easily. The Finance Committee will hold their mark-up session of the legislation next week. That’s when the bill presented in the document released today will be put into full legislative text and expanded to 1,000+ pages. Shortly after that, we’ll have it posted on OpenCongress like the House bill, so the process of public mark-up and review can begin.

In many ways, the basic framework of the Baucus bill matches Congress’ other healthcare bills and President Obama’s outline for reform. It would put in place new consumer protections, for example banning insurance companies from denying patients because of pre-existing conditions. It contains an individual mandate requiring all Americans to get some form of insurance. It would expand Medicaid and provide subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance. It would set up new state-wide marketplaces, or exchanges, to help people comparison shop for insurance plans.

How does the Baucus bill released today differ from the healthcare bills form other committees?

First off, it doesn’t contain a public insurance option. Instead, it sets up the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program. Under the program, the government would allow and provide seed money for the creation of private, non-profit healthcare co-ops. The co-ops would be government by majority votes from its members, and all profits would have to be used to lower premiums, improve benefits, or otherwise improve the quality of healthcare delivered to its members.

Secondly, the Baucus bill contains fewer subsidies to help middle income people buy health insurance as it would require them to do.. Under the bill, people making above 300 percent of the federal poverty level would be expected to spend about 13 percent of their income on health insurance. And people in that income range would be subject to out-of-pocket limits. For example, a family of four making abover 300 percent of FPL would have an out-of-pocket limit of $11,600 on top of their $10,800 in premiums.

Third, it costs less. While most of the other bills coming out of congressional committees had price tags above $1 trillion over 10 years, Baucus’ bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at $856 billion. The savings come from a combination of the reductions in subsidies for middle-income people and a plan to tax some of insurance companies’ most expensive plans.

Though the bill was specifically written to attract Republican support, no Republicans have said they are willing to vote for it. For example, Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME], the Democrat’s most likely Republican ally said yesterday that she could not back the bill, citing “concerns” that have yet to be addressed. On the other side of the spectrum, Democrats are beginning to come out against the bill.

Finance Committee member Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV] said today that he can’t support the bill because of its plan to tax insurance company’s premium plans. Rockefeller said that the tax will simply get passed down to the middle class in the form of higher premiums. He has also cited the lack of a public option as a reason for his opposition to Baucus’ bill.


Sources: Senate.gov, OpenCongress.org

Republicans Attack Baucus' HC Reform Bill Like Vultures!...Key Dems Hate It Too

America's Healthy Future Act:

You can download and read a copy of the Health Care bill from this link at Senate.gov


(Sen. Max Baucus unveils his Health Care Reform bill which pleases Insurance companies. I can just hear the Insurance co Execs laughing with glee. He tells the American people "we can't allow this historic opportunity to pass us by")

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Will there be Republican support for this particular bill? I doubt it. In fact it doesn't matter what kind of bill is drafted, the GOP has no plans to support Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform agenda at all!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(GOP Operatives are working hard to derail Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform agenda.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senate's 10-year health fix would cost $856B

Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

The bill by Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine, and language prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems.

At a Capitol Hill news conference, the Montana senator cited the rising costs of health care as an imperative to act. He said lawmakers cannot let this opportunity pass. He said he expects Republican support when his committee finally acts. Baucus said it is "a good bill. This is a balanced bill."

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member-owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

In other ways though, including its overall cost and payment mechanisms, the bill tracks closely with the priorities Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last week.

Baucus is still holding out hope for GOP support when his committee actually votes on the bill, probably as early as next week.

The measure represents the most moderate health care proposal in Congress so far, compared to legislation approved by three committees in the House and the Senate's health panel. Obama's top domestic priority is to revamp the health care system to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and to rein in rising costs.

The bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges — reflecting the White House's newly stringent stance on the issue after a Republican House member interrupted Obama's speech last week to accuse him of lying about it.

The bill also would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It's all but certain that the Baucus provisions will not be the last word on either of those volatile issues.

The bill would set up a verification system to make sure people buying insurance in the exchanges are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, using Social Security data and Homeland Security Department files. The bill would impose penalties for fraud and identity theft.

While only legal residents would be able to buy coverage through the exchanges, illegal immigrant parents would be able to get insurance for their U.S. born children.

The bill would prohibit abortion from being included in any minimum benefits package. However, plans in the exchange could offer unrestricted coverage for abortions, provided that no funds from government subsidies are used to pay for them. Women who want coverage for abortions would have to pay for it with their own money.

Wednesday's bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the "Gang of Six" — Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Enzi said he couldn't support the Baucus bill and preferred an incremental approach. "Let's start by focusing on the issues where we already have broad, bipartisan agreement," he said.

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support Tuesday night. "Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," she said.

The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders.

"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

Many liberals also have concerns. Some wanted Baucus to include a public option, while others fear that, in his effort to hold down the price of his bill, Baucus didn't do enough to make health coverage affordable to working-class Americans. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a member of the Finance Committee, said Tuesday that he couldn't support the bill in its current form.

Baucus' plan, released as a detailed 223-page summary, aims to make health insurance more affordable for self-employed people and those working for small companies, who now have the biggest problems in getting and keeping coverage.

People insured through large employers would not see major changes, but some of their health care benefits would be nicked to help pay for the cost of the plan. The Baucus proposal would limit to $2,000 a year the amount people can contribute to flexible spending accounts, which are used to cover copayments and deductibles not paid by their employers. That provision would raise $16.5 billion over 10 years.

Everyone covered through an employer would learn the full costs of their health benefits, which starting next year would be reported on employees' W-2 tax forms. Although family coverage averages about $13,000 a year most workers don't know how much their employer is paying.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

The plan proposes a $6 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which would recoup some of the profits the companies expect to make from millions of new taxpayer-subsidized customers.

Unlike the health care bill written by majority Democrats in the House, which permanently rolls back scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, the Baucus plan only suspends the reductions for one year. That trims more than $100 billion from the cost of the bill, but has already led to criticism from the American Medical Association.

The legislation makes no changes in medical malpractice laws. It does incorporate Obama's call for federal funds for state experiments on alternatives to malpractice lawsuits.

Democratic leaders are aiming for votes in the full House and Senate this fall.



View Larger Map

Sources: Senate.gov, MSNBC, NY Times, Politico, ABC News, Zimbio, Google Maps

Max Baucus Unveils Ineffective 10-Yr, $856 B, Bi-Partisan HC Reform Bill...A Plan To Sink Obama's Agenda

(Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., joins the Morning Joe gang to discuss Health Care Reform just hours before the release of Max Baucus' committee's bill.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Pres. Obama administration has exposed the greed of Health Care Insurance companies. No wonder they're angry.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Is it safe to say that the G.O.P.'s agenda involves stopping Health Care Reform because it benefits them personally? Yeah!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Max Baucus releases Health Care Bill

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) proposed an $856 billion plan Wednesday to overhaul the health care system, releasing a bill after months of bipartisan negotiations without any immediate Republican support.

The bill forces insurance companies to change the way they do business, such as prohibiting them from dropping or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. To force competition with private insurers, Baucus chose creating nonprofit consumer-owned cooperatives over the public insurance option, which most Democrats prefer.

“This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long,” Baucus said in a statement this morning. “We worked to build a balanced, common-sense package that ensures quality, affordable coverage and doesn’t add a dime to the deficit.”

The long-awaited bill sets off a battle over what could be the shape of a health reform deal that wins at least one or two Republicans votes in the Senate. By trying to add measures to appeal to some

Democrats and some Republicans, Baucus has managed to upset all sides. But what he came up with could be viewed as the kind of balanced approach that threads the needle to achieve a final compromise.

None of the three Republicans involved in the bipartisan negotiations have signed onto the bill, saying there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved. But they said they would continue talking with Baucus and the other two Democrats in the so-called Gang of Six.

The lack of Republican support — at the outset, at least — suggests Democrats will need to make more concessions if they hope to produce a bipartisan bill. Otherwise, the Senate leadership may have to use a last-ditch procedural maneuver known as reconciliation to move the bill through the chamber with 51 votes.

The absence of Republicans could also damage President Barack Obama's efforts to convince Americans that his reform plan has broad support.

The Finance Committee markup is expected to begin Tuesday. Baucus will meet Thursday with the full committee, and amendments will be due Friday at 5 p.m.

The Baucus plan is a more conservative approach than those produced by three committees in the House and by the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but it tracks closely with the concepts that Obama promoted in his speech to Congress last week. The bill is deficit neutral and fully paid for, and less costly than bills approved by other committees.

Baucus chose an alternative to the public insurance option – nongovernmental consumer cooperatives – to provide competition with private insurers.

The bill requires individuals to buy insurance, or else face penalties as high as $3,800 for a family. It would not mandate businesses to provide coverage for their employees – as the House bills do – but it would require them to defray the cost of any government subsidies for which their employees would qualify.

To pay for the overhaul, the legislation calls for imposing a 35 percent excise tax on high-end insurance plans, assessing fees on industry players, including device manufacturers, insurers and clinical laboratories, and making a series of tax code changes.

The bill expands Medicaid coverage to include adults whose incomes are 133 percent above the poverty line, and requires states to pick up more of the tab for the federal-state cost-sharing program.

Government subsidies would be available to families between 100 percent and 300 percent of the poverty line to purchase insurance plans through a new marketplace known as an exchange.

For families with incomes 300 percent and 400 percent of poverty, their annual premiums would be capped at 13 percent of their income. It’s a level that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) says is too high, but it would be less than the current average cost of a family insurance plan, which is $13,375, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the likeliest Republicans to support the bill, said she is waiting for cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, which she has not yet seen.

"Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," Snowe said Tuesday.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a statement Tuesday that was silent on his ultimate decision, but the tone of his message does not bode well for Baucus’s hopes of bringing him on board.

He ticked off a long list of concerns, saying the bill “does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage,” and it does not resolve outstanding issues dealing with abortion and illegal immigration. He suggested the bill does not include his alternative proposal to the individual mandate, nor does it include stronger medical liability reform measures he had pushed.

“We’ve been clear from the start that we’re willing to stay at the table,” Grassley said. “There’s no reason not to keep working until we get it right. In the end, legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support.”




Senate Health Bill Draws Fire on Both Sides

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee said Tuesday that he could not support sweeping health care legislation drafted in more than three months of bipartisan negotiations by the chairman of the panel, and several liberal Democrats criticized the bill from the other side of the political spectrum.

The statement by the Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, came just as the chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, put the final touches on his bill to provide health benefits to millions of the uninsured.

“Unfortunately,” Mr. Grassley said, “we’re operating under an artificial deadline set by the Democratic leadership and the White House. I’m disappointed because it looks like we’re being pushed aside by the Democratic leadership so the Senate can move forward on a bill that, up to this point, does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage.”

Mr. Grassley, who participated in the bipartisan negotiations, said he wanted to lower the overall cost of the bill. In addition, he said he wanted stronger guarantees that federal money would not be used to pay for abortions or to subsidize health insurance for illegal immigrants, and he is seeking unspecified “medical malpractice reforms.”

At the same time, Mr. Grassley said he hoped to “stay at the table” working with Democrats. “Legislation that impacts every American should have strong bipartisan support,” he said.

For their part, liberal Democrats said Mr. Baucus’s bill did not go far enough to make insurance affordable to people with low and moderate incomes.

One of the Democrats, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, said he could not vote for the bill in its current form, in part because it did not include a new government insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

“The way it is now, there’s no way I can vote for the Senate package,” Mr. Rockefeller said.

His comment came just minutes after President Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, met separately with House and Senate Democrats in the Capitol. Mr. Axelrod said it was urgent for Congress to overhaul the health care system, Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority, and he cited public opinion polls to support his contention that Americans shared the president’s view.

Congressional Democrats voiced their concerns as Mr. Baucus prepared to unveil a detailed proposal, on which he wants the panel to vote next week.

Four other Congressional committees have approved health care bills drafted by Democrats and passed without any Republican support.

Democrats expressed a variety of concerns. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said Mr. Baucus, by paring the cost of the bill, had also cut the subsidies that would help people buy insurance.

“This is reducing coverage for poor and working people,” Mr. Rangel said, adding that such cuts “could destroy the bill.”

The House bill, in its current form, is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years, while Senate Democrats said the price tag for the Baucus proposal would be $880 billion or less.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said he doubted that subsidies in the Baucus bill would be enough to enable middle-income people to buy insurance without straining family budgets, and he vowed to seek changes.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, challenged Mr. Baucus’s plan to help finance coverage of the uninsured by imposing $4 billion a year in fees on manufacturers of medical devices and diagnostic products.

Mr. Baucus’s plan, like the other major bills in Congress, would expand Medicaid to cover childless adults and other people with incomes less than 133 percent of the poverty level ($29,327 for a family of four).

In a telephone conference call with governors on Tuesday, Mr. Baucus said states would have to help pay the cost of covering people newly eligible for Medicaid. But he tried to allay the concerns of governors, who oppose any type of “unfunded mandate.”

Under Mr. Baucus’s proposal, the federal government would pay most of the new Medicaid costs — at least 80 percent in high-income states like Connecticut and 95 percent in poor states like Mississippi.

This represents a significant increase in the federal share. Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, and the federal share — not counting extra money provided under the economic stimulus program — ranges from 50 percent to nearly 80 percent.

Mr. Baucus promised aid to states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs along the lines of his proposal. But officials in two such states, Massachusetts and Vermont, said they needed more details about the proposal to know how they would be affected.




View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, NY Times, Washington Post, AP, Google Maps

Key Dems Livid Over Baucus' Version Of HC Reform Bill...Public Option Intentionally Excluded

ABC News----

Sen. Jay Rockefeller Dumps on Baucus' Bill and No Snowe Yet

(Is the fate of the Health Care Reform bill in trouble?)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Physicians nationwide appear to agree that a Public Option should be included in Pres. Obama's HC Reform bill.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Following up on his "This Week" appearance where he promised to fight on for the public option, Sen. Jay Rockefeller blasted the draft bill produced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus: “there is no way in its present form that I vote for it unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.”

He’s not alone. Fellow Finance Committee member Ron Wyden is livid too. Expect a rocky mark-up next week. As one top Democrat told me, the fundamental problem is that Democrats “are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support.” The compromise without the cover.

Meanwhile, Republican Olympia Snowe's office just told me that the Senator is not ready to sign on to the Baucus draft. He will introduce it tomorrow without her support. But Snowe intends to keep negotiating and working with Baucus through the mark-up next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a special caucus on Thursday for Democrats to discuss the Baucus bill. Should be lively.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, ABC News, Huffington Post, Google Maps