Senate Dems reach 60 vote threshold on health bill


WASHINGTON – Democratic leaders secure the support of Sen. Ben Nelson to provide the 60th and deciding vote for sweeping health care legislation in the Senate, capping a year of struggle and a final burst of deadline bargaining on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Nelson, D-Neb., said he made his decision after winning fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges, as well as tens of million in federal Medicaid funds for his home state.

"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree," he said at a news conference in the Capitol, referring to the abortion issue. "But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."

He also noted he had successfully fended off attempts to provide for a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the revised measure would lower deficits by $132 billion over a decade, with the possibility of much higher reductions in the subsequent decade.

Forecasters said the bill would expand coverage to roughly 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65, a total that excludes illegal immigrants.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the measure "will finally level the playing field between American families and the insurance industry."

With Nelson's decision, Obama's Senate allies appear on track to pass the legislation by Christmas, overcoming unanimous Republican opposition and a swirling early winter snowstorm.

"This bill is a legislative train wreck of historic proportions," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said. He said it includes cuts to Medicare, home health care and hospices as well as "massive tax increases" at a time of double-digit unemployment.

At its core, the measure is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who lack it, while banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The White House also wants the legislation that eventually makes it through Congress to slow the rate of growth in national medical spending overall. The House passed its version of the legislation last month, and final compromise talks are expected quickly.

Nelson disclosed his decision as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unveiled a final series of changes designed to solidify support. Among them was an increase in the Medicare payroll tax of 0.9 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The bill earlier raised those taxes by 0.5 percent.

The legislation includes new limits designed to limit insurance company profits and overhead, by requiring them to spend 80 percent of their premium income on medical care for individual insurance policies, and 85 percent for group policies. The industry says such a limitation is unnecessary because profits generally are in the single digits.

The estimated 30 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress. Those plans would be privately owned, but operated on a nonprofit basis, as many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are now.

The option amounts to a consolation prize for liberals, who failed to include a government-run alternative.

Additionally, insurance companies would be barred immediately from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing health condition. The prohibition on denial of coverage for adults would not take effect in the Senate bill until 2014, a disappointment for consumer advocates.

On abortion, the measure would let a state disallow coverage in new insurance exchanges by passing a law to that effect. Additionally, it sets up a mechanism to segregate funds that would be used to pay for abortions from federal subsidy dollars flowing to health plans.

Federal law now prohibits public money for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. From the beginning, the issue has been how those restrictions would be applied to a new stream of federal money under the overhaul bill.

The developments occurred as Republicans dug in to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. They objected when Reid sought permission for Nelson to announce his decision in a speech on the Senate floor, then forced Senate clerks to spend hours reading aloud the text of the 383-page package of changes.

Republican opposition, coupled with Senate rules requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, gave Nelson enormous leverage as he pressed for concessions that included stronger restrictions on abortions to be covered by insurance policies offered in a newly overhauled health care system.

The final agreement with Nelson was sealed late Friday night after marathon negotiations in Reid's Capitol office a few steps off the Senate floor. Reid telephoned Obama with the news.

Officials said the federal government would pick up Nebraska's entire cost of a Medicaid expansion in the bill. Other states will have to begin picking up a portion of the added expanse beginning in 2017.

Nelson already rejected one proposed offer on abortions as insufficient, and the presence in the talks of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., indicated additional changes were on the table.

Boxer has a strong record in favor of abortion rights. She told reporters as she left the Capitol at the end of Friday evening there had been progress made on the issue of separating personal funds, which may be used to pay for abortions, from federal dollars, which may not.

The issue is contentious because the legislation provides federal subsidies to help lower and middle-income families afford insurance and the other federal health care programs ban the use of government money to pay for abortions.

Gone from the bill is a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, including Botox injections. Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing a 10 percent sales tax on tanning salons, to be paid by the person soaking up the rays. The Food and Drug Administration says ultraviolet radiation from tanning can increase the risk of skin cancer.

Obama devoted his weekend radio and Internet address to the issue he campaigned on in 2008.

"Now — for the first time — there is a clear majority in the Senate that's willing to stand up to the insurance lobby and embrace lasting health insurance reforms that have eluded us for generations," Obama said.

In the Republican response, Sen. John McCain warned that rushing through legislation now would do more harm than good.

"The best thing government could do to ensure more Americans have access to health care insurance is to institute reforms that would rein in costs and make health care more affordable," said McCain, R-Ariz.

In an article she wrote in Saturday's Washington Post, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said that while the Senate bill is imperfect, it would achieve many of the goals her husband fought for over four decades.

"I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go forward and to pass health care reform now. As Ted always said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what took so long," she said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_
overhaul;_ylt=AvHFH5kIGUgZjk_3ALRNxM8UewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJxYW9mbWtnBG
Fzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjE5L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb
3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3NlbmF0ZWRlbXNyZQ--

don't worry, it ain't over yet. they still haven't voted on any final bill. also,the attack ads have yet to really get into the full swing.In addition, the dems are not doing a good enough job with their own ads countering the repubs ads and not explaining things. I saw a 20 sec. commercial on the importance of allowing the US to re-import drugs from other countries. It just said we should stop the repubs from stopping the legislation. nowhere did it explain the importance of it, nor even what it is about.

until they start getting the info out, it won't matter. one of the 60 will balk and run.

I think if the dems just held out for a single-payer option or lowering the Medicare eligibility age, they may have gotten a plan that will work. as it is, premiums will go up next year with or without the legislation and nothing good will come of it. the dems will be blamed for this increase and may lose in the mid-term elections, thus ending meaningful health-care reform
that's my take anyway

Read the article again.
It does a pretty good job at explaining the changes and if you'd been keeping up with the issue from the beginning you'd know the rest.

With 60 votes, it should clear the Senate by Christmas as projected. It's already cleared the house, and after final amendments are made in a joint session all it will need is Obama's signature to make it law!

I fail to see how this is such a great thing when he did nothing more than make sure that the people in his state were well taken care of, but did basically nothing for the people who don't reside there.

None of the perks that Nebraska gets will be available for any other state.

Sounds like a sell out to me.

You should read the article.

The bill still makes some significant changes.

I like this part,

The legislation includes new limits designed to limit insurance company profits and overhead, by requiring them to spend 80 percent of their premium income on medical care for individual insurance policies, and 85 percent for group policies. The industry says such a limitation is unnecessary because profits generally are in the single digits.

The estimated 30 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress. Those plans would be privately owned, but operated on a nonprofit basis, as many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are now.

The option amounts to a consolation prize for liberals, who failed to include a government-run alternative.

Additionally, insurance companies would be barred immediately from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing health condition. The prohibition on denial of coverage for adults would not take effect in the Senate bill until 2014, a disappointment for consumer advocates.


Although it doesn't go quite as far as I'd like, it is a start. A Compromise, something Republicans don't understand, is better than the way things have been.
No one can expect to agree 100% on everything.
Other changes can be made in the future with less complications. I'm certain they will be.

Me myself,
I'm going to be signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress, as soon as they're available.

Just for spite, as they will be non-profit plans that will screw the major Insurance companies.

Amen!

Ha, you call it a "sell out" yet you ignore the GOP selling out to the Big Insurance/pharma to oppose HC reform...that's funny. What isn't funny is we have 46 million people who do not have HC coverage and 44K DIE every year because of that....pretty sad to WANT that to continue...

"This bill is a legislative train wreck of historic proportions," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said. He said it includes cuts to Medicare, home health care and hospices as well as "massive tax increases" at a time of double-digit unemployment.

Ya know what I just LOVE about this place??

The fact that, any time I disagree with anything the Libs say, I absolutely must want things to stay exactly as they are.

Now, had you actually decided to pay attention to what I actually SAY, rather than what you want to SEE, you would have noticed that at no point, EVER, have I said that things should stay the same as they are. I am well aware that things are completely screwed up. Just because I don't buy into the idea that tearing down the entire system and running the insurance companies out of business ( which will only add more unemployed people to the rolls ) is something that this country can ill afford to do right now.

Has ANYONE, in the rush to run insurance companies out of business, ever stopped for one second to consider the thousands upon thousands of people who are employed by those companies?? You know the ones. The people who answer the phones to answer questions. The people who sell the policies. The ones who are guilty of NOTHING except working hard at their job?? Ever think of those people?? Not as far as I can see. It's all about the 10 or 20 CEOs that make a lot of money.

Here's an idea for you to try. Stop reading the things I say as a Republican vs Democrat thing. Especially since I am affiliated with neither party.

I think Nelson is a sell out because he made damn sure that his state got all kinds of concessions, while he basically told anyone that doesn't live in his state " Sorry about your luck ".

Maybe the Senator from the state I live in should decide to hold out now and see what kind of sweet deal there is to be had.

OH!!! Take a good look back through my posts and show me where I " ignore(d) " what the Reps were doing.

Each State has its own particular set of circumstances and problems.

That's one of the reasons they say, "United we stand, Divided we fall."
The strong must help the weak.

Our Union is unique in the world. It's a major reason we are so strong and our civilian population doesn't know what its like to live in a war zone.

Yep. And NOTHING that Nelson held out for does one thing for THIS state. Michigan is already losing population due to joblessness and high taxes. The answer from our legislature? Raise taxes on the ones who are still here! BRILLIANT!!!

That's one of the reasons they say, "United we stand, Divided we fall."
The strong must help the weak.

" United we stand "??

" The Strong must help the Weak "???

Who in the blue hell did Nelson " help " other than the people in Nebraska??

There is no " United We Stand ". It's all " What's In It For Me? "

Our Union is unique in the world. It's a major reason we are so strong and our civilian population doesn't know what its like to live in a war zone.

I don't know what country you are looking at...but Trillions in debt and seemingly on the course to being completely bankrupt, both financially and morally, I really don't see America as all that " strong " anymore.

Nevada has a very small population, but due to its ideal climate it also has a very large retired population. It would be a little harder for them to meet the medicare increases.

The United States will either stand together or fall together.

Could you imagine our economy if States declared war on their neighbors?

Ya know...at least it would get all the closed down factories around here back up and running.

But, oh wait. We couldn't allow THAT to happen because if the factories started back up, the government would have to step in because they would be polluting and causing Global Warming.

* shakes head *

Pssttt....by the way....

Florida has a HUGE population of retirees. So does Arizona.

So...maybe THEIR Senators should decide to hold out too. Maybe they can get a deal like Nelson did.

I had what they call good Insurance when I had 1/2 of my right lung removed.
After years of paying $37 a month premiums. I was faced with a catch-22.
The hospital needed me to stay another week because of fluid between my lung and rib cage. The Insurance would not pay for another week.
I was faced with either paying the cost out of pocket, cash in advance mind you, or the hospital was going to evict me.
LOL, not funny, but what choice did I have. I didn't have that kind of cash.

Now after changing jobs and health plans, I fall into the ever so present and damning pre-existing condition category!

Your case is absolutely one of those for which the insurance companies should be held accountable.

However, the Federal Government, great fans of regulations that they are, has failed us on this one.

Rather than tear down the entire system and call it " reform "...true reform would have been to regulate the industry with a set of rules.

Such as...if the hospital and doctors deem it necessary that the insured stay in the hospital for any time additional to what was originally expected, the insured shall remain covered and have the costs paid by the insurance company.

Such as...the insurance companies cannot deny someone coverage because of a " pre existing " condition.

There would have been a lot less uproar about actual reform, than there was about the Health Care bill that the House passed.

Such as...the insurance companies cannot deny someone coverage because of a " pre existing " condition.


That's still in there.

The bill isn't perfect, thanks a lot to the Republicans and Leiberman, but the Republicans are a far cry from claiming a victory.

Do you really think there could have been a " perfect " bill??

What would the " perfect " plan entail??

Perfect for whom??

Liberals??? Conservatives??

No plan would be " perfect " for everyone involved.

So what if the part I mentioned is in there?

There are many other things they could have done that aren't in there.

Perfect for Americans.
A single-payer system!

A Socialized Health-care plan!