WORLD> America
|
WORLD> America
|
|
House health bill unacceptable to many in Senate
(Agencies)
Updated: 2009-11-09 19:41 That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim." Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of. He will keep meeting with senators this week to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.
Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide. Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether. All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own. To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers. Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people. The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage. The are several major differences between the bills. ? The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not. ? The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans. ? The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion. By defusing the abortion issue - at least for now - the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation. Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."
|
