Earlier this week, Lisa Wangsness of The Botson Globe reported on an unusual meeting on Sunday between President Obama and Senate Democrats. The President made a visit to Capitol Hill in an attempt to resolve disagreements that have arisen concerning health care.
Although it was stated that progress was made, the meeting ended in failure to come to an agreement on one of the major causes of this conflict: “whether to establish a government-run health insurance option.” According to the article by Wangsness, the Democrats were also not able to come to a conclusion on the friction that they are experiencing concerning whether to restrict abortion coverage in the new insurance markets.
The meeting consisted of ten lawyers, five liberals and five moderates. The purpose of the meeting was to find a solution and accord on whether or not to form a public health insurance program, and how it would be configured if it was created.
According to the article, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, mentioned that they found considerably collective foundations. Wangsness went on to say that Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska, stated, however, that “there is certainly interest in trying to find significant common ground. It’s a tall challenge to try to reach that.”
The Senate is anxious to resolve the health care debate, with Harry Reid, the majority leader, wanting to come to a resolution and end the debate by Christmas.
Wangsness then stated that a senior Democratic aid mentioned that the leaders of the discussion plan to file motions later this week in hopes of ending the debate on the controversial amendments. Apparently, these motions will each take “30 hours of debate and 60 votes under Senate rules; with the House having passed its version of the bill one month ago.”
It appears that President Obama asked the lawmakers to, rather than focusing on the conflicts over the details of the bill, petition to the senators’ “sense of history” instead.
Obama expressed that the health care bill is an extremely important legislative response to astonishing issues the nation is facing this year. The President urged the group to consider and meet the “expectations of the American people and the needs of the uninsured.”
The Democrat of North Dakota and Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Kent Conrad, outlined that “it would be very hard to have listened to the President’s presentation and not have been persuaded of the historic importance of what’s being discussed here. It was a powerful speech.”
Sentor Joseph Lieberman, an independent of Connecticut, verbalized that “Obama did not once mention the public option. He talked about the cost-containment provisions, the insurance market reforms… He said that these are historic accomplishments, the most significant social legislation in decades, so don’t lose it.”
As it stands, the current bill would institute a national government-run health plan, which would enable states to opt out, should they choose to do so. Nelson, Lieberman and two other senators, however, are determined to stop that bill from passing if that provision is not eliminated.
The stance of the liberals is that the government-run plan is vital in demanding private insurers to hold down costs. There are some conservative Democrats, along with the majority of Republicans who, as Wangsness put it, “see it as a back door to a government-run health system, or they fear that taxpayers could wind up bailing out an unsuccessful public insurance operation.”
A conciliation that was being discussed on Sunday is to have the US Office of Personnel Management (which runs the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program) negotiate with insurers in the federal program in efforts to make national non-profit plans accessible and obtainable in every state so that individuals and small businesses can purchase them through the new insurance exchanges. The exchanges are said to be modeled after the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector Authority. According to Senator Nelson, democrats are in the process of looking for alternative compromises, like individuals and small businesses being allowed to buy into state employee insurance plans.
It is said that talks concerning the abortion conflict began on Monday. As stated in the Boston Globe article, lawmakers on both sides of the controversy outlined that they want to continue with the age-old federal prohibition on using federal money to pay for abortions; except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. What they differ on, however, is how to extend that policy into a novel structure, in which the government helps subsidize insurance premiums for low and moderate income people who are know otherwise able to obtain affordable coverage through work.
Wangsness articulated that last month, the House passed an amendment to its health care bill which would proscribe insurance plans that cover abortion from accepting people who get federal subsidies. The liberals are in high objection to this because they feel the effect of the amendment would limit women’s ability to buy plans that cover abortion, even if it is with their own money.
Senator Nelson, whose stance is against abortion rights, is creating much friction. The article stated that he planned to submit his proposal last Monday. His proposal, however, is not expected to pass because the majority of the senators are for abortion rights. Nevertheless, Nelson has decided to block any bill that does not meet and suit his apprehension.
Another issue that was tackled during the discussion was the rejection of the amendment limiting tax deductions that insurance companies take for what they pay top executives. The measure was lead by Senator Blanche Lincoln and needed 60 votes. It was rejected 56 to 42.
Another measure that was also rejected was aimed at limiting plaintiff lawyers’ fees in medical malpractice cases. The measure was a republican-backed one and was defeated 66 to 32.
