Go Home

Senate Finance Committee

10 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (106)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (637)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Democrats in North Carolina say they could have defeated a bill to repeal renewable energy subsidies on Wednesday if Republicans had not pushed it through committee without counting the votes.

The state Senate Finance Committee debated the bill to end the state's 6-year-old renewable energy program for over 40 minutes before Republican chairman Bill Rabon called for a motion.

"It's still a factor that renewable energy sources really don't provide a constant reliable source of electricity to be put into the grid and that means that we still have to have the baseload plant cost into delivering electricity so that anytime that switch is turned on, there has to be power there," bill supporter state Sen. Bob Rucho (R) argued. "So with that being said, I move for a favorable report."

As one lawmaker shouted out to have the votes counted by a show of hands, Republican chairman Bill Rabon called for the yeas and nays, decided that the motioned carried and then gaveled the hearing to a close.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (789)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1495)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

The responsibility for the most partisan atmosphere is Washington history goes to President Barack Obama, according to Sen. John McCain. "[Obama] said there would be a change in the climate in Washington. There's been a change. It's more partisan. It's more bitterly divided than it's been," McCain told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

A few Republicans have participated in crafting major legislation during Obama's first year in office. Three Republican Senators voted for the stimulus bill and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe voted for the health care bill coming out the Senate finance committee.

But for the most part, Republicans have voted together to block Democrats' attempts to pass legislation more often than any Congress in history. On December 18, Republicans broke the modern-day record for the most filibusters in history, according to Campaign for America's Future.

John Amato:

John McCain is one of the biggest sore losers in all of American politics. The media for some insane reason gives him unlimited face time on my TV to bash President Obama who soundly defeated him and the conservative movement in 2008. When will the Villagers go after conservatives for being ideologically against this president and their efforts to block every piece of legislation is all for political gain. America is on the receiving end of their very destructive games. John McCain is a bold-face-liar for blaming Obama for the lack of that stupid word called bipartisanship.



The Colbert Report: Send Your Medical Bills to Max Baucus

From The Colbert Report:

Senator Max Baucus will pay for your medical bills from the $3.2 million he's received from the health care industry.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1442)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3318)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Wendell Potter takes Chuck Grassley to task on Democracy Now when asked about his reaction to his rejection of the public option amendment offered by Chuck Schumer.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to yesterday’s debate in the Senate Finance Committee. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who introduced one of the public option amendments, questioned Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa over his rejection of government-run health insurance option.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: I’d just like to know what you think of Medicare, a government-run program that’s far more government-run than what Senator Rockefeller has proposed? Do you think Medicare is a good program? Because most of the amendments on the other side have been aimed at preserving Medicare, a government-run program.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: I think that Medicare is part of the social fabric of America, after forty years, just like Social Security is. And I don’t say that because it’s perfect. There’s a lot of things that need to be changed, and a lot of the things in this legislation are changing a lot of things that’s wrong with Medicare. And to say that I support it is not to say that it’s the best system that it can be.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: But it is a government-run plan, isn’t that right?

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: It is a government-run plan.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Thank you.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: And not—and the reason I say it’s part of the social fabric of America is there are private health insurance plans and retirement plans that are connected with Medicare and Social Security, and it’s not easy to undo a Medicare plan without also hurting a lot of private initiatives that are coupled with it. But that does not make it perfect. And I’ll bet, based upon fifty years of experience, if we had to do it over again, we’d do it other ways, even if it were a government-run plan.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Chuck Grassley. Wendell Potter, your response?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, clearly, this senator has the insurance industry’s best interests at heart, not the American public and not his constituents. The Medicare program is, as he said, part of the social fabric of this country and has been for many years. And it is a government-run plan that has meant a great deal of difference to a lot of people in this country, including certainly his constituents.

He has said that he didn’t think a public plan would be fair, compete fairly with insurance companies who—the private insurance industry. I’d like to ask him what is fair about the way that the insurance industries operate today, the companies that dump sick people when they need insurance most. What is fair about the way the insurance industry operates, Senator Grassley?

AMY GOODMAN: Forty-five million new customers, that’s what the private insurance companies can now look forward to, if a bill like what came out of the Senate Finance Committee moves forward with the mandate. Explain how they will make out and how important, how significant, how profitable this is for the for-profit companies.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, this is the first time that the insurance industry has really seen great opportunity in healthcare reform, with an individual mandate, which would require all of us to buy insurance if we are not eligible for a public, government-run program, which, fortunately, many people are. We would have to buy it in the private market from insurance companies, many of whom—many of which are for-profit companies. We would not have the option of buying or getting insurance through a government-run program like the public option would create.

So, not only would our premium dollars go into this—into the private insurance industry, but a lot of tax dollars would. Most people who don’t have insurance can’t afford it, and they wouldn’t be able to afford it after healthcare reform is passed without the government subsidizing their premiums. So billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars will flow right into the treasuries of these big for-profit insurance companies. So we will be essentially paying a tax that will help support these insurance companies. It will be an enormous bailout of the health insurance industry.



Jay Rockefeller: The Mayo Clinic Now Supports a Public Option

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (140)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (372)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jay Rockefeller says he is going to introduce an amendment for the public amendment in the Senate Finance Committee even though Baucus has said he's against it. He said we got some good news and that the Mayo Clinic has now come out in favor of a public option. When asked by Schultz if he knew for sure that what they were supporting was an independent government run public option Rockefeller could not say for sure that was the case but said he didn't know what else they could be supporting if they're in favor of a public option.



This should not be going on in a country with this much wealth. It's just shameful. From Democracy Now--As Baucus Unveils Health Plan Absent of Public Option, New Study Finds 45,000 Uninsured Die Every Year.

A long-awaited healthcare bill from Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus includes no public option and would require almost all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. This comes as a new study finds that nearly 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. We speak with the study’s co-author, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, primary care physician, and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Nearly 45,000 Americans die every year—that’s 122 deaths a day—due to lack of health insurance. That’s the startling finding of a new study that appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

The figure is about two-and-a-half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine in 2002. The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.

News of the study comes as the drive for healthcare reform is entering a new phase on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Montana Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, released his long-awaited healthcare reform proposal. The Finance Committee is the last of five congressional panels to produce legislation.

AMY GOODMAN: Despite months of talks to find a bipartisan compromise, Baucus’s plan had no Republican co-sponsors. The $856 billion proposal would require almost all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty and drops a mandate that all employers offer health coverage. The bill does not include a government-backed public option to compete with private insurers, instead proposes funds to set up nonprofit cooperatives.

For more on the proposal, we’re joined by Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, professor of medicine at Harvard University, primary care physician in Cambridge, also co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. She’s co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and co-authored the American Journal of Public Health study called “Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,” joining us from Watertown, Massachusetts.

Professor Woolhandler, Dr. Woolhandler, thanks so much for being with us. Assess Baucus’s plan.

Continue reading »



'Baucus Bill' booed at Obama rally

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1421)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3228)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

President Barack Obama asked University of Maryland students to help him pass health care reform at a rally Thursday. Boos could be heard as the president mentioned a bill from the Senate Finance Committee chaired by Sen. Max Baucus.

"POTUS mentions Baucus bill -- it gets booed," wrote ABC's Jake Tapper.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1786)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3995)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Keith talked to Rep. Anthony Weiner about whether he'll vote for the horrid Baucus bill that's coming out of the Senate Finance Committee. As Keith notes, what looks like is coming out of the that committee is particularly bad for women and as Anthony Weiner adds, may just be a giveaway to the insurance industry and something that can hardly be called reform.

I'd like to know when Rep. Weiner is going to run for President. He has been one of the honest brokers out there with some straight talk on health care reform and how the insurance industry is taking us all for a ride, and it's refreshing as hell to hear instead of political double talk. If this Baucus bill is as bad as what I've been reading, the progressives in the Congress need to be saying "hell no" and Max Baucus needs to be hearing from all of us.

I'll revert back to what I've said before about agreeing with Howard Dean. If they're not going to get a bill through that at minimum has a public option, then don't put the money into the system, and just regulate the insurance industry and make them change their ways.

OLBERMANN: Rescission… what just might be the most pernicious practice in an industry teeming with it. Insurance companies actively seeking out so-called pre-existing conditions to cancel your health insurance policy after you get sick, even though you have been paying your premiums on time and in full for years. They also seek them to reject new insurance applicants.

Our fourth story on the Countdown, the latest Senate Finance Committee compromise bill would reportedly allow insurance companies to charge most employers more to insure women employees - this while the current system that Republicans are defending includes rescission which itself allows for pre-existing conditions to include being beaten by your spouse or being pregnant.

Every woman in this country supporting the Republicans and the status quo is directly or indirectly also supporting canceling or precluding insurance for battered women or pregnant women.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (369)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (925)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Sen. Olympia Snowe told CBS' Bob Schieffer that there will not be a bill from the Senate Finance Committee that includes a public option "trigger."

"It's not on the table. It won't be. We'll be using the co-op as an option at this point as the means for injecting competition in the process," said Snowe.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (160)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (381)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Oh joy. More wonderful news from the world of Max Baucus satistying the insurance companies with some payola for their campaign contributions. Is this what's going to be passed off for "reform"?

From Business Week:

This is good news for UnitedHealth, which benefits when patients pick up more of the tab. In late spring, the Finance Committee was assuming a 76% reimbursement rate on average, meaning consumers would be responsible for paying the remaining 24% of their medical bills, in addition to their insurance premiums. Stevens and his UnitedHealth colleagues urged a more industry-friendly ratio. Subsequently the committee reduced the reimbursement figure to 65%, suggesting a 35% contribution by consumers—more in line with what the big insurer wants. The final figures are still being debated.

Stevens says UnitedHealth and its corporate clients want to steer Congress toward benefit levels and cost sharing that can help control overall health spending: "We are providing another resource of actual modeling and advice on how proposals in the committees are structured and some potential unintended consequences of going down certain routes."

Perhaps more than any other insurer, UnitedHealth is poised to profit from health reform. Its decade-long series of acquisitions has made the company a coast-to-coast Leviathan enmeshed in the lives of 70 million Americans.

As Wendell Potter notes in the interview, this is "the last trick up their sleeves to try to control health care costs for themselves" and that they used to spend about 95 cents of every dollar on medical claims. They pay no where near that now and this would make their reimbursement rates even lower.

If this is what comes out of the Senate and called reform, doing nothing would truly be better than this.

You can read the entire article from Business Week here: The Health Insurers Have Already Won.