Health Care

Then There Were Two - Senate HELP Votes Bill Out of Committee

Published July 16, 2009 @ 12:29AM PT

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted along party lines to advance its bill for comprehensive health care reform to the floor of the Senate.  This makes it the first of three – although the House will be working on its bill through 3 committees, they’ll be working on the same bill.  There were lots of sage congratulatory words and even a pensive release from Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has not been able to attend any of the hearings or mark-ups in person because of his illness.  But because so much of the week has been focused on what the President had to say or about the House bill, the Senate HELP proceedings have largely flown under the radar.  So the obvious question is – how did they do?

Well, if you haven’t seen any of the mark-ups, let me show you the single best three minutes.


No, this isn’t a parody scene on The Office.  Sen. Chris Dodd and the Democrats offered to accept without revision 65 amendments authored by Republican committee members.  The Republican members didn’t want them accepted – they wanted votes.  Why?  Pretty much just to run out the clock.

And the kick in the pants is after scores of non-preposterous Republican amendments were accepted (check out some of the amusing ones here and here) were accepted, all the Republicans on the committee voted against the bill so they could loudly complain the process wasn’t “bipartisan.”  Classy.

So how much did the bill improve or decline under this marathon month of mark-up?  The short version is it’s largely the same bill, with changes so minute that I’m having trouble telling the difference.  That’s a great thing, by the way – Dodd could easily have given away the farm for a bipartisan vote that would never have been forthcoming.  The most intriguing amendment was a requirement that federal elected officials would be required to enroll in the public plan (called the “Community Health Insurance Option” in the bill) once it’s created.  Republicans thought they were being clever when they offered it, but Dodd and others called their bluff.  (For the record, I think this is a phenomenal idea -- I’d throw the whole Federal Employee Benefits Program pool in there while you’re at it!)

How different is the Senate HELP bill from what’s being worked on in the other committees?  Well, we can’t compare it yet to the Finance bill, which doesn’t yet exist.  The general structure of the House and HELP bills may not be identical twins, but clearly they’re fraternal.  A lot of people say the HELP bill is watered down – certainly, the initial principles outline released by Kennedy was bolder than the detailed bill we actually have.  The employer pay (contribute to a fund) or play (give your employees benefits) is weaker than what’s in the House:  Wall Street Journal did some estimations and found that a 50-person company with a $2.5 million payroll would pay $200,000 as part of the employer mandate in the House bill, but only $37,500 in the HELP bill.  The cost of premiums in the Gateway/Exchange for families at 400% of poverty is a little higher than the House.  The cap on how much you spend out-of-pocket is higher, too. The eligibility for people to get their insurance through the Gateway/Exchange would be more closed (the Congressional Budget Office thinks we’d be talking 20 million+ in the Gateways instead of the 30 million + for the House, with those extra millions staying in employer-provided insurance).  The “community health insurance option” would need to negotiate rates with providers from the get-go, meaning it’d take longer to set-up and would have less of an immediate effect on costs – although hey, the Senate HELP bill doesn’t suggest that it will push off creating a public plan until 2013, so it may be faster after all.

All true.  But considering that the Senate is traditionally the place where a good reform goes to get crushed or die, it’s remarkable all the same that we’re really talking about degrees rather than a fundamentally different or even a gutted plan.  The HELP bill’s new regulations on insurance is just as strong, its commitment to developing the provider workforce we need is just as strong, the ideas for improving quality for insured and uninsured alike are just as strong, and its focus on primary and prevention to transform us from a mediocre quality “disease care system” instead of a high-performing health care system is just as extensive.

The Senate HELP bill, for reasons of jurisdiction, can’t outline how it would pay for reform or modify anything relating to Medicare and Medicaid.  But presuming Senate Finance sticks to the script, the CBO estimates it will cover 97% of Americans.  You may or may not agree with the approach Congress and the President have taken, but it can’t be denied that this is a pretty significant milestone on the road to reform.

Jungle gyms and all.

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (5)

  1. Harold Lewis

    I agree strongly that we should enroll Congress and all federal emloyees into the program. I think we should consoldiate all recipients of governmental health benefits under the program - Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPs. We need to give the States relief.

    One thing in mind on the HELP proposal: the second paragraph of their press release yesterday points up the key flaw which will undermine the success of the program: "The legislation builds on the existing employer-based system and strengthens it. If an individual likes the health insurance he or she has, they get to keep it."

    It's a failed model in the hands of a mismanaged and irresponsible financial system with the goal of providing as little as possible and willing to do anything for a buck. As long as the so called "strong" public option isn't playing hardball in the market, costs will continue to rise, people will lack coverage, and we'll be hitting this issue again in another decade.

    The CBO estimates are rosy. It may put insurance within reach of 97% but it still leaves coverage as a commodity, not care as a right. It still leaves out 3% and that's too many Americans left out.

    Before being dazzled by high percentages, as yourself: what if only 3% of US passenger planes crashed? 3% of oil tankers spilled? 3% of motorists were in fatal accidents? 3% of doctors injured patients? 3% of hospitals closed their doors?...

    Wow, we're still 97% successful and that's pretty darn good! I don't think so. This 3% costs lives. So, when they talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good they're saying that 3% of people in danger is the good.

    Posted by Harold Lewis on 07/16/2009 @ 07:07AM PT

  2. Martin Bring

    You'll find some articles with CBO warnigs about the lack of savings that can be expected with current proposals for health care reform... The emphasis of both the CBO and Democrats would be to squeeze more savings out of doctors and hospitals. And in the Senate Finance Committe, taxing employer-provided health benefits.

    http://www.smartbrief.com/news/snm/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=CF8D1BE9-8CE5-4946-8D63-719E9700A01F&copyid=2157F6D5-0788-4A55-A942-4C46E6557373&lmcid=

    Members of Congress have yet to suggest that private health insurers pay out 94% of every premium dollar as Wendell Potter and others have said used to be the norm. Now, with pressure from Wall Street, health insurers pay out 80% and less.

    Posted by Martin Bring on 07/17/2009 @ 09:38AM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  3. Reply to thread
  4. Carla Rautenberg

    Harold and Tim: You are SO right. Congress and ALL federal employees must be enrolled in any healthcare "reform" that passes.

    Posted by Carla Rautenberg on 07/17/2009 @ 07:27AM PT

  5. Martin Bring

    ABC censures Obama's longtime doctor.

    Tell Media: Include Single-Payer in Healthcare Debate
    Add your name below to FAIR's petition.

    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/t/9039/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1993

    Posted by Martin Bring on 07/17/2009 @ 10:02AM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  6. Reply to thread
  7. Lydon Neumann

    Republicans are in a no win situtation.   Claim you disagree with elements of the plan, which make it unacceptable economically or actually reduce cost, and they are accused of wanting the status quo.

    Democrats want air cover by claiming amendments demonsrate bi-partisanship.   If the resulting Bill doesn't lower h/c costs or creates the wrong incentives, Republicans will be blamed for not giving in, when they don't vote for the wrong type of reform.

    Wish we would skip the politics and ideology on both sides and create a "real" bi-partisan answer.   Status quo is unacceptable to everyone.  Not agreeing with Democrats doesn't mean you oppose the reform.

    Posted by Lydon Neumann on 07/17/2009 @ 02:30PM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Timothy Foley

Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.