Another GOP senator open to health care overhaul

[one...two...tree 2,762]

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

A second Republican senator signaled Wednesday she's open to voting for sweeping health care legislation this year, putting President Barack Obama closer to a historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democratic leaders.

But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

"My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview. "I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work."

The ten-year, $829 billion Finance bill was approved by the committee Tuesday on a 14-9 vote, after Snowe broke ranks with her Republican colleagues to support Chairman Max Baucus' middle-of-the-road plan.

Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.

"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."

If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."

Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise.

Such a statement from a Republican can be very influential in an environment in which GOP lawmakers almost universally have opposed any kind of government-run health care option to compete with private insurers. It represents a break in party solidarity, even if finite. Health care proposals advanced in the House include such a government option.

Snowe broached her standby notion again as talks among lawmakers on health care were going back behind closed doors; Senate leaders are trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee passage.

Collins, however, said she could not support Snowe's idea because she thinks it would make it too easy for a Democratic administration to impose a government plan nationwide. "It would simply delay the public plan for a couple of years," she told AP.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he wants move quickly to merge the Finance bill with a version passed earlier by the Senate health committee. His goal is to get health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.

Both bills were written by Democrats, but that's not going to make it easier for Reid. They share a common goal, which is to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.

The Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.

Aides say Reid has a keen sense of what the Senate will pass and he is focused on finding a solution that can get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the Senate Finance Committee bill.

Apart from Snowe, Finance Committee Republicans cited higher taxes, a greater federal role in the insurance industry and other concerns as they lined up to oppose the bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the legislation would place the nation on a "slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."

Snowe said there were problems with the bill but the risks of doing nothing were too great.

Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have been at work for weeks trying to blend legislation approved by three House committees. The eventual result is certain to include a government option, but the details of the plan have split the rank and file and leaders have spent days struggling with the issue.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009...aul.php?ref=fpb

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Support for healthcare reform does not translate into support for any of the five Democratic bills under consideration. I support the idea of healthcare reform, but the version I support, the John Conyers bill, H.R. 676, will be lucky to get a vote as a substitute amendment, when the House finally considers their version of healthcare reform.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Support for healthcare reform does not translate into support for any of the five Democratic bills under consideration. I support the idea of healthcare reform, but the version I support, the John Conyers bill, H.R. 676, will be lucky to get a vote as a substitute amendment, when the House finally considers their version of healthcare reform.

Bill - don't dismiss this as nothing substantial. Many prominent Republicans have publicly stated their opposition to any health care bill, in what ever form. The Republican Party in general needs to understand what compromise means if they want to be truly be bipartisan with health care reform.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Support for healthcare reform does not translate into support for any of the five Democratic bills under consideration. I support the idea of healthcare reform, but the version I support, the John Conyers bill, H.R. 676, will be lucky to get a vote as a substitute amendment, when the House finally considers their version of healthcare reform.

Bill - don't dismiss this as nothing substantial. Many prominent Republicans have publicly stated their opposition to any health care bill, in what ever form. The Republican Party in general needs to understand what compromise means if they want to be truly be bipartisan with health care reform.

You already should know the "Republican" idea of healthcare reform: Tax Credits, Tort Reform, and Deregulation of the Heathcare Industry, none of which will fly in the current political enviroment. As Governor Dean put it, "We can't afford to lose the support of the (trial) lawyers at the moment."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Support for healthcare reform does not translate into support for any of the five Democratic bills under consideration. I support the idea of healthcare reform, but the version I support, the John Conyers bill, H.R. 676, will be lucky to get a vote as a substitute amendment, when the House finally considers their version of healthcare reform.

Bill - don't dismiss this as nothing substantial. Many prominent Republicans have publicly stated their opposition to any health care bill, in what ever form. The Republican Party in general needs to understand what compromise means if they want to be truly be bipartisan with health care reform.

You already should know the "Republican" idea of healthcare reform: Tax Credits, Tort Reform, and Deregulation of the Heathcare Industry, none of which will fly in the current political enviroment. As Governor Dean put it, "We can't afford to lose the support of the (trial) lawyers at the moment."

You glazed over the idea of compromise. At least it's encouraging to see both Snowe and Collins showing a willingness that we haven't seen from the rest of the Republicans.

[Spoom 8]

I'd also like to see HR 676 (a.k.a. the single-payer health care bill) get more serious consideration. The bill would actually cover more than the current Ontario health insurance program (prescriptions, even dental)! And it would retain allowing people to choose their own doctors, allowing doctors to continue their current business model (rather than be employed by the government as in the UK), etc. It has about a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere, but hey, I can dream.

In any case, I hope at least some variation on a public option goes through, and really, really hope they don't pass the "individual mandate" that would basically be a government handout to health insurance companies.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Spoom

[NickD 203]

With health insurance companies spending 1.5 million bucks per day on our congressman and senators, would be nice to know if our leaders are representing these companies or the will of their people they are representing or are suppose to be representing. All this deals with election reform with our leaders having open books. But only our congress can do this and apparently, they don't want to.

Never really adds up why someone would want to pay millions of dollars to get elected for a very low paying job. Least on paper.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You glazed over the idea of compromise. At least it's encouraging to see both Snowe and Collins showing a willingness that we haven't seen from the rest of the Republicans.

I saw and interview with Sen. Collins yesterday. She has a good and very valid point in saying that the reform of the delivery system is largely absent from the currently existing versions of the reform bill. After all, that is where the majority of desperately needed cost efficiencies would come from. At the same time, however, she attacked the proposed savings in Medicare which are in large part what she just said is lacking from the bill - cutting waste out of the system.

I'm not sure how to read her position. Seems to me that here we have the complaint that this is too much reform at this time and that we need to go slower and yet we complain that the reform isn't comprehensive enough. Which is it? Too much or too little? Right, it's too little. But if you can't get reform done that merely reigns in the pimps of the system - the health insurance industry - then how does anyone think we'll get reform done that reigns in the delivery side of the equation as well?

I keep standing where I've been standing pretty much from the start: The Democrats need to get done what they were elected to do. They have the majorities and they need to get their shite together and get it done.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Democrats need to get done what they were elected to do. They have the majorities and they need to get their shite together and get it done.

And if they don't, the same netroots that gave them their super-majorities will tear them the fuсk down and they will have deserved it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Now that it's imminent, they are on board?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Now that it's imminent, they are on board?

It may be imminent, but what it will look like is still very much up in the air. They're just trying to stay relevant.