Committee Passes Baucus's $829 Billion Healthcare Bill

Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe joined Democrats to vote yes on the healthcare reform bill

October 13, 2009 RSS Feed Print

After two weeks of debate and a closely watched examination by the Congressional Budget Office , Sen. Max Baucus's healthcare bill has, for now, proved resilient. On Tuesday, after several final hours of debate, Baucus's Senate Finance Committee approved the bill by a 14-9 vote, as Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican, joined the committee's 13 Democrats in voting yes.

As Snowe rightly pointed out, Tuesday's vote is merely the first step of a process that will intensify in the coming weeks. Democrats now have to decide among themselves how they want to iron out conflicts between various wings of their party.

Up to this point, the success of the Baucus bill has rested largely upon its financial promises, mainly its pledge not to increase to the federal deficit.

It got a major boost last week when Congress's number crunchers, said it would in fact lower the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years. The bill's overall cost is $829 billion, significantly lower than the other bills floating around Congress.

For Baucus, that must have been a relief. In June, the first draft of his bill came in around $1.6 trillion, prompting him to slow down and, in effect, kill President Obama's hope of having a healthcare bill by the August recess. Now Baucus seems to have redeemed himself.

The CBO's numbers, however, are more than just bottom lines. The analysis gives an overview of what the bill will and won't do and hints at the debates that are expected over the next few weeks.

The $829 billion will be spent mainly in two ways. More than half will go to help lower-income people buy health insurance. Much of the rest—about $340 billion—will expand existing government programs that cover children and the really poor. In other words, the bill's costs are mainly associated with giving insurance to those who don't have it.

To pay for the bill, Baucus is looking in several places. He'll raise about $200 billion by taxing expensive insurance plans, and additional money by fining people who refuse to buy insurance. But the bulk of the money, more than $400 billion, will come from curbing government payments to hospitals and doctors who treat Medicare patients.

All of these ideas have advocates and detractors. For example, the bill sets up a Medicare Commission, an independent group made up of doctors and policy experts. If government spending on healthcare doesn't come down enough, the commission would be required to propose spending cuts, which would take effect automatically unless Congress stopped them. The bill prohibits the commission from cutting elderly people's benefits. But many Republicans warn that the commission could make changes that would eventually force people on Medicare to spend more of their own money for health coverage.

Now that the bill is out of committee, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have to combine it with the Senate Health Committee's reform bill. Perhaps the biggest question Reid faces is the fate of the public option. Baucus, in his plan, opted for "healthcare cooperatives" instead of the public option, saying that co-ops would provide the same competition to the private insurance market. But the CBO isn't buying it. "The proposed co-ops had very little effect" on its estimates, it wrote, "because . . . they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country." That should give liberal Democrats something to talk about.

In fact, this morning, Sen. John Kerry reiterated that liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the public option. Kerry lashed out a new study, released Sunday by the insurance industry, claiming that the Senate Finance bill will raise insurance costs. The study, prepared by Pricewaterhouse Coopers, has been heavily criticized by experts who say it ignored important parts of the bill, and Kerry took his criticism a step further.

"It's extraordinary that in the final hours of this effort, as we come to a vote, that the industry remains right where it's remained all along," Kerry said. "There is your argument right there [for a public option]...and it's one we are going to make on the floor."

Tags:
Max Baucus,
Senate,
healthcare reform,
healthcare

Reader Comments Read all comments (29)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

East Treaty,nurse temperature somewhere special fire paint sorry read revolution love president first sorry package record except to instead look her mass account appearance fly chain holiday conclusion raise motion journey mark director voice century way exercise name species again high also when news danger with growing instead turn extra subject once say last seat science practice within additional establish procedure totally settlement publication ring sea engine same market peace represent it convention afternoon yes influence one reply race basic important and danger satisfy allow afterwards share close type continue listen odd

free acai berry weight loss pills of 7:16AM May 08, 2010

This has been an interesting research topic for me - not so much this particular bill(s)(plural when you count the original committee bill which was merged with the senate version and recently voted into debate for the week following Thanksgiving), but the whole idea of entitlement. I'm slightly amused when I see the little news stories about isolated cases supporting this extreme overwrite of the healthcare system (thanks CNN). In one of the videos, a small business owner is speaking about his inability to afford his diabetes medicine, so he only takes half of the suggested dosage. These news stories serve, for the most part, as emotional appeal to promote ideas.

I think entitlement is a dangerous concept. It's a mindset that says to those in political power, "I really want to take care of myself, but it's a little too hard, so I'ma let you do it for me..."

Is the government tacking on billions to an already staggering national debt to create a "public option" really what we need? What about antitrust loopholes that enable current healthcare providers to somewhat monopolize certain geographical areas (I would appreciate more good references and explanations on these loopholes, if anyone cares to provide)?

I guess the main question in my mind is, why not do the less extreme path? Why not fix what's messed up instead of creating even more of it? Why create artificial competition from a seemingly endless masked budget instead of fixing the core problems that make health insurance so expensive?

I would love to know - thanks for reading.

Chuck of UT 3:18AM November 29, 2009

Freedom isn't free first of all. But if we want to be free then we need to tell this so called government to stay the hell out of our business! And have the morons actually read our Constitution and then make them abide by it instead of acting like it doesn't exist! If someone doesn't want healthcare then by all means that should be up to them not up to our government! SOCIALISM it's here!!! Y'all want your freedom back then it's time to fight for it! But hell there are so many brainless people in the USA that they just go along with anything that sounds like it will be free for them when that isn't the case at all. But the way these politicians sugar coat everything how can braindead stooges see past the BS. If this healthcare bill goes through every american can kiss their freedoms goodbye and they can kiss our beloved Constitution goodbye as well. Who has done their homework on socialism here? How about Adolf Hitler and the socialism in Germany? Well enough said!

Freedom reigns of ID 5:31PM November 10, 2009

Photo Galleries

Before and After the Joplin Tornado

A look at Joplin one year after the deadly tornado.

advertisement

Latest Video