Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Senate HCR Bill Was released Online, Please Click the Title

(Sadly I could not open this file until 2AM, so I apologize the post on this Bill is late, but I will be working on it tomorrow).
Up front it is looking better than expected. There is a Public Option, and even though the State OpOut Part is there, it is set up that it can not go into effect for atleast 3 years. There is NO Stupak Language or Amendments that I have found. Young Adults could and would be covered on their Parents/Family plan until 26 years old. And up to 31 Million of UnInsured would be covered.
I will give you more information tomorrow. ( Click the Link to the PDF- it is large, over 2400 pages).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ made a List of some of the Major Points::::
Opt out for the public option -- that doesn't kick in until 2014.
Penalty for individuals who don't purchase insurance is $95, also beginning in 2014.
It doesn't include the Stupak language, but the public option won't cover abortion services.
The opt-out mechnism is a law -- so it would have to pass both houses of our Legislature and be signed by the governor.
Subsidies would apply to a family of four making up to $88K or 400% of the poverty level.
Medicaid would be expanded.
No denials due to pre-existing conditions.
They raised the trigger limit for the tax on nice health insurance plans.
Medicare payroll taxes would rise 0.5% on couples making more than $250,000.
Think Progress has the breakdown on this bill that is worth reading...


enigma4ever said...

WITH NO MARGIN FOR ERROR.... Sen. Max Baucus (D) apparently had to travel home to Montana for a family emergency, which means there are now "only" 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus on the Hill. As Ezra noted, this one family matter might delay the health care reform process just a little more.

Word was that Reid was hoping to vote to proceed on the bill on Saturday, but if Democrats don't have Baucus, that could leave them with 59 votes, rather than the 60 needed to break the filibuster. The question then becomes whether Snowe or Collins will vote for cloture, or whether the vote needs to be delayed.

At the outset, this isn't a terribly big deal, but it does show the chilling delicacy of the Democratic margin. If a single senator falls ill, or gets in a car accident, or is otherwise incapacitated, the vote count becomes wildly unbalanced, and health-care reform becomes imperiled.

It's almost farcical.

Remember, this isn't just about health care. Back in February, Congress needed to pass a stimulus bill to help rescue the economy. But with no margin for error, the Senate had to wait around for more than five hours because Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was flying back to D.C. from his mother's funeral.

With a 60-vote majority, one would like to think the Senate would still be able to operate if a guy has to fly home for a family emergency. But that's not the case. If even one Democrat can't show up for a vote for any reason, the legislative process stops -- because majority-rule no longer exists in the chamber (and because GOP moderates have almost entirely disappeared).

There has to be a better way for a legislative branch to function.

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

enigma4ever said...

LA times:::
Reid's legislation would cost less than the healthcare bill passed by the House this month, according to senior Democratic aides, who cited a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would commit the federal government to about $849 billion in new spending over the next decade to expand coverage, compared with $1.05 trillion in the House bill.

Reid's bill would drive down federal deficits by an estimated $127 billion over the same period, relying on cuts in Medicare spending and on new taxes on healthcare industries, high-end "Cadillac" health plans and wealthy Americans.

The bill would cover an additional 31 million people over the next decade. That would boost the percentage of nonelderly Americans with medical insurance from 83% to 94% over the next decade -- slightly less than the 96% who would be covered by the House bill.

Renegade Eye said...

Republicans are less of a barrier to healthcare than Democrats. Modern Republicans act like they're expected to.

The problem started with Obama, who took UHC off the table.