Some Details Emerging in Senate Health Reform Talks
EmailABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: The closed-door health care slog at the Senate Finance Committee continued today, without resolution. But it does appear that negotiators have begun to tackle the treacherous issue of how to pay for health reform. Both Sens. Olympia Snowe and Max Baucus talked on-camera to reporters after today's talks. They meet again tomorrow afternoon. Baucus said he has been speaking to President Obama almost daily about the talks. There is no deal yet on any issue, and all negotiators are careful to qualify that “we don’t agree on anything until we agree on everything.” But some themes of what a compromise could look like are starting to emerge. And these are often riffs on controversial ideas. Instead of an employer mandate, there is talk of fees levied on "free rider" employers. The result would be similar – employers of people who can’t afford insurance on their own would either have to offer insurance or pay the government to offer it for them. "Its not a broad based employer mandate," argued Snowe. She said the idea is to "encourage employers to continue their coverage." Negotiators seem to be rejecting a so-called mandate for employers to provide insurance for employees, but there is apparent agreement that employers who drop coverage for employees should have to cover the cost of any government subsidy their employees would qualify for under reform. This is modeled as a way to keep employers in the benefits game and discourage so-called "free rider" employers who would try to drop their benefits plans to save money. Another contentious issue for Democrats is that of paying for health reform in part by taxing workers' high cost “Cadillac” health benefits plans. Many such plans are offered by unions, who have accepted better benefits in exchange for lower wages. The idea of taxing high-cost plans is painful for many Democrats. Instead, there is talk of not taxing the people who receive the plans, but instead taxing insurance companies that offer them. The idea here is to tax the companies instead of the recipients. Snowe suggested today that companies offering benefits worth more than $25,000 or more – a small minority of health insurance plans – would be taxed.
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
I appreciate ABC finally focusing on the SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES instead of focusing on the process.
Posted by: Jerald | July 27, 2009, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
Would there be an employee mandate where employees would have to get health insurance. If there employer didn’t offer it they could perhaps participate in an insurance exchange.
Posted by: sarah | July 27, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Would there be an employee mandate where employees would have to get health insurance. If there employer didn’t offer it they could perhaps participate in an insurance exchange.
Posted by: sarah | July 27, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
I’m sorry, could someone please explain the “crisis” to me again?
Posted by: Woody | July 27, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Since it’s true that corporations don’t pay taxes (they collect taxes from us and send them to the government), who do these “wise” politicans think will be paying the taxes levied on the insurance companies. The people who pay the premiums, that’s who. And that would be all of US!
We are all screwed.
Posted by: hoover | July 27, 2009, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
There is talk of not taxing the people who receive the “Cadillac” plans, but instead taxing insurance companies that offer them. Let me get this straight. They want to tax insurance companies even more so they can pay for a health plan to compete with the insurance companies they are taxing…am I getting this right? Second, if you are an insurance company wouldn’t you simply no longer offer those “Cadillac” plans which would leave those unions with less benefits to go along with their supposed lower wages. And when insurance companies do this where is all the money to pay for this reform going to come from? That is one tax that easily can be avoided.
Posted by: Matt | July 27, 2009, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
Does Obama accept this? If he does, that should get all of the Blue Dogs to go along. Won’t touch the kooky GOPers, but that’s no loss.
Posted by: matt | July 27, 2009, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
“Employers of people who can’t afford insurance on their own would either have to offer insurance or pay the government to offer it for them.” Simple way to avoid this is to hire only those who can afford insurance on their own which would kill jobs…if your not worth $30 an hour we don’t need you.
“This is modeled as a way to keep employers in the benefits game and discourage so-called “free rider” employers who would try to drop their benefits plans to save money.” What about those new businesses that never offered health benefits? Would they be forced to get insurance or are they exempt?
Posted by: Matt | July 27, 2009, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
I think that the currant administration has forgotten that it is not HAVING HEALTH CARE that is costing so much its is the kick backs the doctors, insurance companies and drug manufacturing companies (and maybe even some elected officials, lets see the transparence in that or do they call them campaign donations? Another day, another problem) are giving out that cost all of us way to much. If true reform of our health care is to be done they need to stop looking at 1) mandating employers to offer health insurance- this will cripple most small to medium business and think about this they hire more employees nation wide collectively than all the big ones combined. So who is it really going to hurt when the price of goods goes up to pay for this mandate? YOU 2) Start looking at why insurance companies mandate what tests are need – this causes more misdiagnosis and costs more because of return visits and charging the insurance company and the patient again. 3) A better look in to the mismanagement of most major hospitals would be the next thing to look at – making hospitals run as efficient as most business would, I estimate would save in the millions of dollars quickly. If you look through history when the government gets involved and mandates that employers pay for something the COST TO CONSUMERS ALWAYS GOES UP. ARE YOU READY FOR AN INCREASE AND POSSIABLY INFLATION? It is time for this push to socialism to be hedged and I am letting my Senators and Representatives know how I feel. By the way don’t they work for WE THE PEOPLE? We elected them didn’t we? It is time we start telling all the elected officals.
Posted by: Bob | July 27, 2009, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
A new ‘ Sale Snack Tax’ on junk foods will help fight obesity an help raise public funds to pay our public health plans. Its the Public choice to pay for snack sales tax when we buy junk foods like, candies, carbohydrate drinks(cokes), chips and other snack taxes.
Or we can buy health food snacks tobe tax free and fight obesity an to defeat other health deseases..
Posted by: viewpoint | July 27, 2009, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
Health care benefits should be treated as income because it is the same as receiving cash in the pocket. End of story. My neighbor was a police officer for 29 years and he receives health care for 16 more years. Tax ‘em Barack…after all, he’s a white guy.
Posted by: Me | July 27, 2009, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
Me: I seriously hope that your comment was sarcastic. If not, no wonder our country is headed to hell on a runaway train.
Posted by: Aaron | July 27, 2009, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
Bottom line – only way to make rich pay for anything is to tax them “directly” – any other taxing gets built into the system and passed on to consumers. The first plan of income tax supplements was great. Now the rich “controlling” congress are getting them to screw the middle class and poor – AGAIN !!!
Posted by: HOTBOB | July 27, 2009, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
The CBO released an analysis of the Public Option today that indicates the option will not adversely harm private insurers, thus disputing the Blue Dog/Republican argument. Why was this not reported by ABC?
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | July 28, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am
I don’t like this a bit. Obama has 36 Zars running his administration, then, how many more to run the Healthcare ??
No one has read the 2,000 plus pages of bureocracy rules that will compose this nightmare. The Gov. will decide who lives and who dies.The amount of paperwork and rules placed on this bill will deter physicians from making sound decisions and YOUR life will pay. By the way I’m an independant voter. I don’t listen to none of the right or left wingers in this country, they are all feather of the same bird.
Posted by: Frank | July 28, 2009, 6:20 am 6:20 am
Watch carefully. The insurance companies may get their puppets in Congress to use the “Public Plan” primarily for the worst cases. That way, they don’t cost the insurance companies any profits and because the Public Plan’s costs will be so huge they can misleadingly point to that and say: “See? A Public Plan doesn’t work!”
Posted by: The_Mick | July 28, 2009, 7:14 am 7:14 am
Our Government has NEVER set up anything that works. How in the crap do you people think they are going to manage something as big as this???
Sorry, I cannot support it.
Posted by: ajax | July 28, 2009, 7:46 am 7:46 am
“See? A Public Plan doesn’t work!”
It won’t.
Posted by: ajax | July 28, 2009, 7:51 am 7:51 am
You people don’t get it do you.. This will be just like taxes. A way for politicians to get a vote and in the end control us.
Now, they promise to cut the taxes to get people to vote for them. When this is passed, they will promise to give more benefits, or blah blah to get your vote.
IN THE END, it is ALL ABOUT CONTROL over us.
IS THIS WHAT WE WANT? IS IT??
Posted by: ajax | July 28, 2009, 7:58 am 7:58 am
Aren’t there more of the devil in the details than this article points out? I’m sure there are.
Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Matt (9:27 AM July 27th); “They want to tax insurance companies even more so they can pay for a health plan to compete with the insurance companies they are taxing…am I getting this right?” It’s a beautiful thing huh Matt?
Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
It only stands to reason the CBO would change things after the private meeting with Hussein last week.
Politics as usual…no change from Bush.
Posted by: evelyn | July 28, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
If it’s w2hat we need then members of congress should be forced into the exact same plan !!!
Posted by: hkdakota | July 28, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
People PLEASE call your senators and say NO, NO and hell No. Alot of the people who don’t have healthcare would rather have a big screen, high definition television instead. I have healthcare and and OLD T.V. thats on its last leg. Its called RESPONSIBILITY.
Posted by: Carol in Alabama | July 28, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Why is it that everyone points fingers at each other ? The doctors, insurance companies, pharmacies and hospitals all blame each other for high costs. The rich and poor blame each other. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!! The reality is that the political strength of the F.D.A. and big pharmaceuticals is behind the problem. The F.D.A. standard for approval of new drugs does not have a litmus test for need. The more stuff on the market the more expense. DUH !
Keep in mind the saying ” BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME “. The manipulation of doctors, by pharmaceutical reps, to get them to prescribe expensive medicine is
always going to happen. We need the FDA to evaluate a new drugs neccessity before approving it.
Posted by: douglasweaver | July 28, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
The bottom line to all this is simple. If you want a reform plan that will pay for coverage for those who do not have it or cannot afford it – someone will have to pick up that bill and pay the costs.
Who do you want to pay the costs? Santa Claus is a definite NO – so we are going to have to find a way to way for it.
Posted by: Jon F | July 28, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
obama healthcare plan violate the rights of the people of this country
Posted by: RAMBOW99 | July 28, 2009, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
if the obama health care plan passes they will be a lot of people die becaseof the politics of the plan but the politics are not in the same plan we all are
Posted by: RAMBOW99 | July 28, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
this health care plan is for the dogs
Posted by: RAMBOW99 | July 28, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Barack Obama will never say to your face what he actually plans to do -or achieve- with these huge new government programs. Everything’s rolled-out in a trojan horse, and you’re not allowed to look inside or ask any questions. Suffice to say, good-faith disclosure is not how this crew operates.
Rather, you get “soaring rhetoric” with styrofoam props to wow the plebes, like the tacky greek columns in Denver. To him, the revolutionary ends justify the Alinskyite means- so the Dear Leader just tells you whatever he needs to.
And the truth is that Obama is out to nationalize health care.. they’ll be no private insurance industry left after five years of Obamacare- but of course he’s lying about it. And this bill is a P-I-G pig… small wonder then that anyone with a brain that is facing an election next year is running for the hills on this one.
As for the American public, the reality that Obama is not up to the job seems to finally be setting-in; the poll numbers are now headed steadily south- is he already facing his Waterloo on this legislation?
Looks like it from where I’m standing… and it would do the country a lot of good to have this arrogant montebank knocked-down a peg or two at this point, because Obama/Pelosi/Reid are completely out-of-control.
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | July 28, 2009, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm