Senate passes its version of health insurance reform

by: Gerald Weinand

Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 08:39:37 AM EST

The bill will now have to be reconciled with the House version in Conference Committee.

In a prepared statement, Rep. Chellie Pingree wrote:

The vote by the Senate today is like an early Christmas present. It puts us one step closer to real, significant health care reform.  Although I still believe in the need for a public option like the one in the bill we passed in the House, both bills will rein in costs, improve coverage for those who already have it and put health care within reach for millions of individuals and small business who currently can't afford it.

There is still much work to be done to reconcile the bill the Senate passed today with the House version, but I am confident we can work out the differences and I look forward taking a final vote on health care reform early next year.

My guess is that even though the markets will be open for only half a day, insurance company stocks will soar in value.

Update: Rep. Mike Michaud sent along this prepared statement:

The Senate took an historic vote today to advance health insurance reform. However, a lot of work remains to be done to reconcile the House and Senate bills. I will continue to work to make sure my concerns are addressed, and I will read and carefully study the details of the final agreement once it is completed to make sure that it is good for Maine. I am hopeful that the best policies from each bill can be adopted and that Congress takes the time to get this right. This issue is too important to rush.

Snowe, Collins, vote against Nelson's 'Stupak-like' anti-abortion amendment

by: Gerald Weinand

Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 23:43:38 PM EST

Maine's senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were the only Republicans to vote against the amendment (you can't leave office soon enough Judd Gregg). Seven Democrats voted for the measure.

Senate to debate Stupak-like amendment restricting access to abortion

by: Gerald Weinand

Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 14:10:17 PM EST

Prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

It's been assumed that both of Maine's senators would vote against this restriction, but after hearing this report from Josie Wong on MPBN, it's not so clear.

Sen. Collins appears to want to maintain the status quo, that is the Hyde amendment that bars Federal funds from being used to perform abortions:

"The underlying bill makes very clear that federal funds cannot be used for abortion. That is current law, that is what we ought to stick with."

But then read what Sen. Snowe has to say:

In a statement, Snowe says, "I will continue to protect coverage options for women when they are using their own personal funds to purchase health insurance."

From this, it sounds like Snowe could very well support Nelson's amendment. It never hurts to call and remind her how you feel about it:

Sen. Olympia Snowe: 202.224.5344

One Voice for Choice

by: Gerald Weinand

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 08:40:18 AM EST

FireDogLake has established a nationwide phone bank to call House members that voted in favor of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962. The amendment would basically ban insurers from covering all abortions, whether the insurance was through the public option or private.

I'll remind you that Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-2) voted for Stupak.

You can volunteer to call targeted Democratic members that supported Stupak by clicking on the logo at the right.

Jane Hamsher of FDL was on Democracy Now! this morning; listen/watch here.:

AMY GOODMAN: Prominent blogger Jane Hamsher has launched a national phone bank campaign to target districts of the representatives who voted for the anti-abortion Stupak amendment. The campaign is called "One Voice for Choice." Jane Hamsher joins us now from Washington, DC, founder of the blog FireDogLake.com.

Jane, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain what this campaign is all about, and in the process, exactly explain what the Stupak amendment is and whether you think it will be included in the Senate bill.

JANE HAMSHER: Well, the Stupak amendment, it was introduced by Bart Stupak, a congressman who began on July the 1st of this year getting signatures from fellow anti-choice members of the Democratic Party in the House to be able to keep any abortion funding out of the healthcare bill. But he went much further than that. That's already the law of the land. That's the Hyde Amendment. But he went much further than that, and they say that no insurance company offering insurance on the exchange, whether it's funded with government money or not, can offer elective abortion coverage. And that threatens to take away abortion coverage from just about any insurance policy, because even the private insurance plans for reinsurance of big companies that have their employees insured can be affected by it, because money for that is provided under the plan.

Ben Nelson will introduce an amendment, but he would have to get sixty votes in the Senate-or, I'm sorry, he'd be able-yeah, I think you have to get sixty votes in the Senate in order to be able to get it into the bill. So I don't really think that it's going to be in the Senate bill. However, Nancy Pelosi has privately been telling people that she can't pass a bill in the House without it. So, even though Diana DeGette got a letter of forty-one members of the House to say they would vote against any bill that didn't have one, the fact is that she had that letter before the last vote, and all of them did vote for it. Furthermore, they won't say who their names are on that letter, and it's been my experience as someone who's run these kinds of whips before that unless those names are public, these people have-feel like there's nothing that they're accountable to, and in the end they'll do it.

So we took a look at the sixty-four members of the Democratic Party who were the ones who voted for the Stupak amendment, and we looked at what was going on and thought, well, how can we micro-target them in order to be able to use the leverage that we can create by people having phone banks and calling into their districts in order to be able to affect them? You're looking at people who are very scared about the 2010 election. They are in close districts. They feel like they have to appeal to Republicans in their districts in order to get votes. And they're voting for the Stupak amendment because they think that it will make them more popular in 2010.

Dem to introduce "Stupak-like" amendement to Senate health insurance reform bill

by: Gerald Weinand

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:33:16 PM EST

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will attempt to strengthen language in the healthcare reform bill prohibiting federal funding of abortion, he said.

Nelson, a key swing vote on the overall bill and an opponent of abortion rights, specifically said he would base his amendment on language authored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that passed in the House's healthcare bill - and ignited a firestorm among Democrats and supporters of abortion rights that quickly spread to the Senate debate.

Nelson said he and other senators, "perhaps" including Democrats, plan to introduce an amendment "something like Stupak" on the Senate floor. The prospects of such an amendment passing, however, are slim. Republican abortion-rights opponents include Nelson's home-state colleague, Sen. Mike Johanns, have conceded they cannot muster the 60 votes they would need to attach the Stupak language to the Senate bill.

Both of Maine's senators are strong supporters of a woman's right to choose, but they might need to be reminded of that. You can call them:

Sen. Olympia Snowe: 202.224.5344

Sen. Susan Collins: 202.224.2523

Michele Bachmann: Health insurance reforms will create "sex clinics" at public schools

by: Gerald Weinand

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 20:49:07 PM EST

While I normally don't do this, I will copy and paste an entire blog entry from the White House site, this written by Macon Phillips:

Ed. Note: Opponents of health reform appear to have run out of fresh smears against health insurance reform and have started recycling old debunked attacks. In response to those that brought up this attack that Politifact proved false months ago, we simply bring back this classic Reality Check first published on October 1, 2009.

Last night Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann questioned health insurance reform, raising the spectre of school-based "sex clinics" that would take students to "have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night":

It means that parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment that their children are receiving.  And as a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on -- comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser.

The absurdity of this claim earns high honors from Politifact, a non-partisan research organization: Pants on Fire!

Critics of the Democratic health care proposal have been increasingly raising concerns that the plan would provide taxpayer-subsidized abortions (a claim we address here). The Liberty Counsel, a conservative group, puts a different twist on that concern, alleging that Page 992 of the bill "will establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"

The claim comes from a long list of items allegedly in the bill that is posted on the group's Web site and has been widely circulated in a chain e-mail. The list looks a lot like one that we checked in July, based partly on blog postings by Peter Fleckenstein on his blog Common Sense from a Common Man. In fact, the Liberty Counsel says it adapted its memo from Fleckenstein's original work.

...

We spoke with Sarah Speller at the Liberty Counsel, who told us that the group had been getting a lot of calls about the memo and that everyone there was very busy as a result. However, she assured us that "as far as our office can tell, everything in the overview is accurate. That's about all I can tell you," she said. "I'm just relaying what I've been told to say."

That's not persuasive. We see no language in the three main versions of the bill that would allow school-based clinics, which have a long history of providing basic health services to underprivileged students, to provide abortions. Nor would the clinics even be new - they have been around for three decades. So we rate the claim Pants on Fire!

NYTimes: Drug Makers Raise Prices

by: Gerald Weinand

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:45:50 AM EST

In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation's drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.

Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years.

In response to this, Rep. Chellie Pingree had this to say in a prepared statement:

The drug companies promised us they would deliver $8 billion in savings into the health care system. What they failed to tell us was that they apparently planned to jack up prices by $10 billion first. It sounds like classic bait and switch scheme to me.

I can't think of a worse time for the drug companies to suddenly start charging so much more for their products. With American families struggling economically and inflation at near record lows, there is just no excuse for it.

No real surprise here. After all, the oil industry jacks up the price at the pump when crude oil prices rise, and then keep the price of gasoline high long after the cost of crude has fallen.

Health insurance reform: Why is the cap on medical loss ratios allowed to sunset?

by: Gerald Weinand

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:23:09 AM EST

The top priority of the for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies' quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what is left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administration expenses and, of course, profits.

To win favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they've filed to trim medical costs.

In other words, for every dollar that it receives in premiums payments, an insurer will typically reimburse between 75 and 90 cents to health care providers for their services, with the remaining used to cover businesses expenses and profit.

In theory, should premiums and overhead expenses remain constant, the only way for an insurer to increase earnings is to reduce what it pays out in medical expenses. Insurers do this now by refusing to enroll people with pre-existing conditions, and/or denying claims because of them.

Such practices would be banned in the health insurance reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).

Bruce Webb noted an interesting section in H.R. 3962, and writes about it in his excellent blog Angry Bear. Sec. 102 places a cap on MLR:

That final sentence simply guts the insurance companies current business which involves widening the spread between premium dollars collected and medical care actually provided. This sentence sets a hard limit on raising premiums while managing the risk pool to exclude those actually being likely to make claims. The tighter you manage your enrollment the harder it is to actually hit your mandated MLR, and every time you raise premiums you have to demonstrate that you have increased payouts to that same degree. Or else you have to rebate the difference.

In the original House Tri-Committee Bill this language was included in Sec. 116 and a site search on that term will pull up a series of posts on this dating back to July. And I have diaried on this elsewhere, yet somehow almost everyone has simply missed the significance of this.

Sec. 102 includes this:

(a) In General- Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer's medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.

What this means is that in no case can an MLR fall below 85%, that is, for every 85 cents an insurer reimburses care providers, it can only collect another 15 cents in premium costs.

By capping profits, this section is meant to control the rate at which premiums increase, since insurers will be no longer be able to refuse to honor pre-existing conditions, the only way to ensure continued growth in profits is to increase premiums.

Obviously, capping MLR does nothing to limit the rate of increase in actual medical costs.

But also included in Sec. 102 is a provision that sunsets the cap:

Sunset- Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first date that health insurance coverage is offered through the Health Insurance Exchange.

And my question is why is this sunset provision in the bill?

HuffPo: Stupak says, "There'll be hell to pay," if his amendment is removed

by: Gerald Weinand

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 12:57:25 PM EST

"We won because [the Democrats] need us," Stupak said. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us -- and that could be the final version of this bill."

Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-2) voted to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the health insurance bill.

You can call Michaud's office and tell him that there will be hell to pay if he continues to support it:

202.225.6306

Pingree vows to vote "No" on health reform bill that includes Stupak-Pitts amendment

by: Gerald Weinand

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 13:51:50 PM EST

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

As members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law.

This afternoon, Willy Ritch, Communications Director for Rep. Chellie Pingree, told me that Rep. Pingree intends to sign onto this letter upon her return to Washington.

While not unexpected, it is great to see Rep. Pingree out in front of this issue. That some would restrict a woman's access to a legal procedure simply because they may be of lesser means is unconscionable, and again Rep. Pingree demonstrates her unflagging support of the rights of all women to control their own bodies.

Thank you Chellie Pingree.

Affordable Health Care for America Act passes House

by: Gerald Weinand

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 23:35:16 PM EST

You can sense my excitement.

House to vote on amendment barring Fed funding of abortions in health bill

by: Gerald Weinand

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 07:23:22 AM EST

Under the agreement, anti-abortion Democrats will be permitted to offer an amendment on the House floor to the health-care overhaul bill. The amendment would prohibit a new government-run insurance plan created by the health-care bill from offering to cover abortion services, congressional sources said. It would also block people who received federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offered coverage for abortions.

The deal clears the way for the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who oppose abortion to lend their support to the health care package, the most dramatic expansion of health coverage in more than 40 years. It also satisfies the demands of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had threatened to oppose the House bill.

If the amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) passes, said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops conference, "we become enthusiastic advocates for moving forward with health care reform."

The amendment is expected to pass with the combined support of more than 40 anti-abortion Democrats and virtually every House Republican. That likelihood meant that leaders of the much larger group of Democrats who support abortion rights were not happy to learn of the deal.

"There will be no abortion, not just with public funds, but with private funds under the public option, and that's not acceptable," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

House leaders met with that bloc of Democrats late Friday to try to quell their frustration., but the agreement makes clear that they believe abortion-rights Democrats will find it difficult to vote against the health-care bill even with such a restriction attached to it.

If you believe that a woman has a right to choose how to treat her own body - even if she is poor - then I urge you to call your Congressman and demand that they vote against the Stupak amendment.

The House can be reached at 202.224.3121, or you can find your Representative's website here.

Make the call.

Obama adminstration statement on the Affordable Health Care for America Act

by: Gerald Weinand

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 13:20:37 PM EST

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a bill that represents a critical milestone in the effort to reform our health care system. H.R. 3962 will provide needed insurance reforms for Americans with insurance, expand coverage for those who do not have insurance, lower costs for families and businesses, and begin to reduce the Nation's deficit. It meets the President's criteria for health insurance reform: it assures that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care that is there when they need it and does so without adding a dime to the deficit.

This legislation is the product of unprecedented cooperation and countless hours of hard work by Members of the House of Representatives who share the President's conviction that the Nation cannot wait another year for health insurance reform.  They have forged a strong consensus that represents an historic step forward.

The House legislation includes critical reforms to the insurance industry, so that Americans will no longer have to worry that they will be denied coverage, or that their coverage will be dropped or watered down when they need it most. It covers virtually all Americans and ensures that all Americans with health insurance are protected against high out-of-pocket spending. The Administration is pleased that the bill includes a public health insurance option offered in an exchange. As the President has said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is one of the best ways to ensure the choice and competition that are so badly needed in today's market.

The House bill also includes important health care delivery system reforms, and would extend the solvency of Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund. Its Medicare and Medicaid policies promote integrated care, quality care, and primary care. It invests in research on the most effective treatments, prevention, and the health care workforce. It also makes critical improvements for Medicare beneficiaries including closing the coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit known as the donut hole.  In addition, it provides new options for long-term care.  Moreover, the House bill is fully paid for and will help to reduce the deficit in the long-term.

This bill provides the necessary health reforms that the Administration seeks - affordable, quality care within reach for the tens of millions of Americans who do not have it today, and stability and security for the hundreds of millions who do. The Administration appreciates the hard work of the House on this bill, which contributes to transforming the health care system. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress on this legislation and urges quick action on this landmark bill.