Archive for January, 2010
Health Care News
the_title()?>

The Obama Administration’s health care reform agenda is stalled, but still alive. But there is a huge change. Last year, Congressional leaders wanted the thousands of pages of complex legislation enacted before the August recess. It was urgent, they insisted, thousands were losing their coverage daily. Now, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled a 180-degree in his quest to ramrod a massive health care bill through Congress this year. Telling reporters this week that “we’re not on health care now,” Reid gave this telling quote: “There is no rush.”
The big change is that public opinion, especially when registered at the ballot box, is consequential. American voters will hold Congress accountable for imposing on them laws and rules and regulations that they do not want, while attempting to takeover one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s win corresponds with what many opinion polls have shown — that the public doesn’t want Washington securing more power of their health care decisions and dollars.
Tags: ballot box, competition, ObamaCare, personal choice, Public Opinion, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, start over
Health Care News
the_title()?>

Extending health care to the uninsured and those who can’t get coverage for pre-existing conditions is the epicenter of Democrats’ health care bills, but achieving that goal requires adding younger, healthier Americans to insurance pools to hold down costs. And achieving coverage for sicker populations comes at a significant price to young Americans, according to a recent report by Rea Hederman and Paul Winfree of Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis.
Two provisions in the bills ensure that those with pre-existing conditions will be able to get coverage at an affordable cost. “Guaranteed issue” requires that insurance companies provide coverage to anyone, regardless of their medical history, and age rating would entail insurance companies charging older or sick customers no more than twice as much (three times as much in Senate bill) as they charge younger enrollees. This guarantees that premiums for the young will increase to subsidize the cost of covering the older and more sickly population. (more…)
Tags: health care costs, health care reform, insurance, ObamaCare, pre-existing condition, young Americans
Health Care News
the_title()?>

Time and time again, congressional leaders have denied that the proposed health care legislation would result in a federal takeover of health care. Proponents of Obamacare claim that consumers would retain personal choice in selecting health plans and physicians. For example, consider President Obama’s comments at a Raleigh, NC town-hall meeting on July 29, 2009: “Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. I’m tired of hearing that…Under the plan I’ve proposed…if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.”
The President and Congressional leaders fail to mention that, under the House and Senate bills, the federal government would determine the kind of health plans Americans get— the kinds of insurance Americans would get, the level of coverage they can receive, and the premiums, co-payments and taxes they would pay. It even mandates that all individuals purchase a government-defined level of health insurance coverage, regardless of their personal wants or needs. (more…)
Tags: bureaucracy, House Bill, ObamaCare, President Barack Obama, Senate Bill, townhall meeting
Key Documents
the_title()?>
The Senate Health Bill can be found here
(An in-depth look at the Senate Health Bill by Heritage analysts)
The House Health Bill can be found here
(An in-depth look at the House Health Bill by Heritage analysts)
Read about the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Bills
Tags: House health care bill, Key Differences, senate health care bill
Health Care News
the_title()?>

It is still far from clear what the White House’s new strategy to pass health care reform will be in the face of Scott Brown’s election to the Senate. But according to Federal News Radio negotiations between the House and Senate are still ongoing, including this victory for House Democrats:
Federal employees covered under some of the more expensive plans in the Federal Employees Heath Benefit Program now have some breathing room as well.
Federal workers had been left out of an earlier compromise on health care reform shielding union workers from a proposed 40-percent excise tax until 2018.
The office of Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) says he “personally called the White House to express his concern of leaving federal employees out of the deal.” An agreement reached Wednesday extends the exemption to federal employees through 2018 as well.
Tags: Cadillac Plans, congress, ObamaCare, taxes
Health Care News
the_title()?>
Does marriage provide health benefits? According to the research, it does, but not according to many in Congress. Under the Senate-passed health care bill, couples who choose to wed, or to remain wedded, will face financial penalties cohabiting couples will be spared, even if a married couple makes the exact same combined income as a cohabiting couple.
Robert Rector explains that the “anti-marriage discrimination” found in the Senate bill is due to married couples’ income being counted jointly, reducing the amount of subsidies they can receive for health care. For example, assuming that neither Ben nor Beth, age 20, receives employer health insurance, and each makes $20,000 for a combined income of $40,000, Ben and Beth will receive the same total subsidy that an individual making $40,000 would receive. On the other hand, if Ben and Beth choose to cohabit instead, their incomes would be counted separately and each would receive the subsidy that a person making only $20,000 a year would receive. The difference in this case amounts to $4,317 a year.
Tags: "anti-marriage discrimination", disincentives, ObamaCare
Health Care News
the_title()?>
In order to secure the votes to pass a health care bill, Senate Democrats were forced to scrap the widely unpopular public option. But before chalking this up as a victory for opponents of government-run health care, though, its replacement deserves a closer look. As described in Sec 1334 of the Senate bill, the Director of the Office for Personnel Management (OPM) would now be charged with sponsoring a set of multi-state health plans to compete with private insurers. As a recently published detailed analysis by Heritage’s Bob Moffit and Kathryn Nix shows, this new program is simply a placeholder for the public option.
On January 20, The Heritage Foundation hosted three former OPM directors to explore the ramifications of the new proposal. Former Director Linda Springer opened by questioning the role of OPM in the proposal. OPM currently administers the successful Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and it is due to this expertise that the agency was chosen to run the new multi-state plans. However, Springer warned that overstretching OPM beyond its traditional role could result in the cannibalization of the existing FEHB program.
Tags: Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, OPM, public option
Health Care News
the_title()?>
This week’s election of conservative Sen.-elect Scott Brown (Republican) in a very blue Massachusetts has sent shock waves throughout the White House and congressional leadership. In the last few days, the media has filed countless articles about Democratic members dropping their demands to ramrod a massive overhaul on the health care sector and instead start over with smaller components.
That’s because despite some political analysis that stated otherwise, the Massachusetts senate vote was in part a referendum on ObamaCare. Politico reported this week that exit polls circulated by Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates “found that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters said they opposed [President Barack Obama’s] health care push, and 42 percent said they voted to for Brown to stop reform.”
Tags: backroom deal-making, Gallup, ObamaCare, Pew Research Center, start over, Zogby
Health Care News
the_title()?>
Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts sent shockwaves across Capitol Hill as voters rejected the idea that the only true course for health reform was to raise taxes, raise spending, raise premiums and put the federal government in charge of yet another unpaid-for entitlement crisis. Campaigning as the 41st vote against Obamacare and the fiscally-irresponsible policies of the Obama administration, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) seized on the frustration Americans feel toward the direction Washington is heading. But saying ‘no’ to Obamacare is only a first step. It’s also critical that conservatives continue to offer alternative solutions to the health care and entitlement problems that our nation faces.
Make no mistake; conservatives have been offering solutions to our health care problems throughout 2009. You wouldn’t think so if you listened to liberal leaders in Congress who continue to label Republicans as the “party of no” and accuse them of offering no alternatives. As Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) incorrectly stated: “The minority has offered no alternatives, just apocalyptic rhetoric.” Just because liberals like Senator Levin choose to ignore conservative solutions does not confirm they don’t exist. (more…)
Tags: entitlement reform, ObamaCare, state-based reform, tax equity
Heritage Research
the_title()?>
Jim Capretta, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, testified today before the House Budget Committee. His testimony on the subject of long-term deficits can be found here.





