CBO Gets Baucus Health Bill

By ALLISON BELL

Published 10/2/2009

Subscribe to Life & Health

Print This Article

Return To Article

Normal Text

Large Text

The Senate Finance Committee has approved a health bill amendment that would limit affected health insurers to deducting $500,000 in remuneration per executive per year.

Members of the committee voted 14-8 Thursday to apply that remuneration deductibility limit to health insurers that get at least 25% of their gross premium income from health insurance plans that "meet the minimum creditable coverage requirements" in the bill.

The vote came a few hours before the Finance Committee wrapped up efforts to "mark up," or revise," the America's Healthy Future Act bill. The Finance Committee completed the markup at 2:18 a.m. today.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attacked the idea of Congress establishing specific deductibility limits for executives at private companies.

"This is setting an outstandingly bad precedent," Kyl said. "The United States government should not be setting private firms' salaries."

Lincoln said the deductibility cap would affect only the salaries of executives at insurers that benefit greatly from the new health coverage subsidies proposed in the AHFA bill. If Congress is going to require individuals to buy health coverage, it must avoid any impression that health insurance company executives are receiving personal windfalls as a result of that mandate, she said.

The committee rejected a proposed amendment that would have required permanent residents to have that status for at least 5 years before getting any health coverage strategies. Democrats on the committee noted that permanent residents would continue to be ineligible for Medicaid benefits aimed at the poor, and they said permanent residents, who pay federal income taxes and are eligible to serve in the military, would be simply be getting helping with complying with the federal coverage mandate.

Other questions about immigration-related issues, such as the process for applying for subsidized coverage and verifying citizen or permanent resident status, cropped up several times.

Lawmakers talked about ways to eliminate, postpone soften and narrow the scope of the penalties the government might impose on people who fail to have health coverag. For procedural reasons, they rejected an amendment proposed by Sen. John Ensigh, R-Nev., that would have indexed a proposed flexible spending account cap for inflation.

To pay for part of his bill, Baucus has called for imposing a $2,500 limit on the deductibility of FSA contributions.

Sen.Ron Wyden, D-Ore., drew criticism from Baucus and praise from Ensign when he suggested letting workers who have access to only one employer-sponsored health plan use vouchers to buy other coverage.

Baucus said that approach would lead to destabilizing antiselection; Wyden argued that risk adjustment and reinsurance provisions already in the AHFA bill would reduce the effects of any antiselection.

Ensign conceded that he had not considered all possible effects of Wyden's amendment.

"But I like the idea of individual choice," Ensign said.

Voices grew foggier as the night and morning wore on. Toward the end of the markup, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., observed, "I'm looking at people who are about to drop off of their chairs."

Now that the markup is over, committee staffers will be turning bill and amendment descriptions into formal bill language and sending a completed bill to the Congressional Budget Office, Baucus said.

CBO analysts predict how bills might affect the federal budget deficit. Baucus has pledged to pass an AHFA bill that seems likely to have a helpful or neutral effect on the budget deficit over 10 years.

The CBO might have a "score" for the bill ready by Tuesday, Baucus said. He agreed in response to questions by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee, that he would like to give committee members "a reasonable period" to look at the CBO score before the committee votes on the bill. But Baucus declined to commit to giving lawmakers a full 72 hours to review the final version of the bill.

Baucus said the committee would reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, and he said he would like to see the committee vote on the AHFA bill next week. If CBO gives the bill a good score, then the version of the bill that the CBO gets might be the final version, but, "if we've got a problem, then we'll come back and we'll have to make some adjustments," he warned.

Senate leaders hope to combine the AHFA bill and the health bill developed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Comment on This Article

Name:
Email (will not be published):
Subject:
Comment:

- 10/2/2009 12:26:18 PM
- Sheryl Lewis
- No to government dictating salaries of private industry
- I too agree that government should NOT dictate salaries of private industry. That is VERY VERY VERY BAD.
- 10/2/2009 12:31:03 PM
- Robert Mitchell
- Salary Deductions For Insurance Executive
- I guess we're getting closer to the United States Socialist Republic than we realized . How about restricting Congressmen's term limits to one , all laws the enact they are subject to (no exclusions for Federal/State employees), Congressmen's retirement (Mandatory)moved to Social Security, and no gravy train for them after they serve their constituants. The arrogance never ceases to amaze me .Vote all of them out of office and start with a clean slate of non-corrupt politicians. Washington DC is a pit full of vipers.They are here to serve the public not themselves.
- 10/2/2009 12:51:30 PM
- Lyle L Austin
- What does AHFA
- When writing an article, please, at least once, spell out what an abbreviation means and then use the abbreviation through out the article.
- 10/2/2009 12:57:36 PM
- ishmel greene
- health bill
- the bills should be discussed and scrutinized as long as needed. the cost of rushing is the loss of the US Economy.
- 10/2/2009 1:08:46 PM
- Paul Daugs
- Is this bill constitutional?
- The single largest problem with this bill is it is not constitutional. Where does it say in the constitution that there is a right to health care? Go take a look you won't find it there. The rights you will find that are called negative rights. In other words, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. We all have a right not be killed, this negative right puts an obligation on others to refrain from killing. So why is Health Care different? Because Health Care is what we call a Positive Right, which is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In other words, if I have a positive right to health care than you are subjected to pay for my health care for me whether I can pay for it or not. The government is not here to enforce positive right it is here to enforce negative rights. This bill should not even be being discussed because it is unconstitutional.
- 10/2/2009 2:08:18 PM
- Cynthia
- So much for Freedom of Contract
- Insurance was classified as commerce in 1944 because of the potential to cause great economic instability and chaos, thereby harming consumers and businesses. If the insurers were doing their jobs and managing risks to make sure that their contracts were functioning according to their legal purpose and that the risks they assume met the definition of an insurable risk, they would not be having these problems. They should know that abuse of discretion will cause great harm and that the insurance companies and their contracts will become suspect. Consumers will complain and the heavy hand of Uncle Sam would get involved. Freedom of contract. The doctrine that people have the right to bind themselves legally; a judicial concept that contracts are based on mutual agreement and free choice, and thus should not be hampered by external control such as governmental interference. ? This is the principle that people are able to fashion their relationships by private agreements, especially as opposed to the assigned roles of the feudal system. As Main famously said, “[T]he movement of progressive societies has been a movement from Status to Contract.” Henry Sumner Main, Ancient Law 165 (1864). – Also termed liberty of contract; autonomy of the parties. [Cases: Constitutional Law (key) 89. C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 491.] “Like most shibboleths, that of ‘freedom of contract’ rarely, if ever, received the close examination which is important deserved, and even today it is by no means easy to say they used this phrase. At least it may be said that the idea of freedom of contract embraced two closely connected but none the less distinct, concepts. In the first place it indicated that contracts were based on mutual agreement, while in the second place it emphasized that the creation of a contract was the result of a free choice unhampered by external controls such as government or legislative interference.” P.S. Atiyah, An Introduction of the Law of Contract 5 (3d ed. 1981). Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, freedom of contract, page 689
- 10/2/2009 2:45:36 PM
- KiHawaii
- Solutions for TAXPAYORS
- Our US Senators will have less than 72 hours to comprehend a bill costing taxpayers about $900 billion dollars! That's $12.5 billion dollars per hour to digest in 72 hours, are you kidding me? Vote everyone of these politicians out of office. Require them to term limits, participate in Social Security and whatever health reform plan that they enact. We Americans should be fed up with the contempt, greed and arrogrant behavior of these politicians. May God Bless America.
- 10/2/2009 5:30:35 PM
- Harold Martin
- Bacus Health bill
- Letting these people debate who will pay for, who will get and who will not be eligible for these benefits is the same as having a serious illness treated by a pack of lawyers.
- 10/3/2009 2:08:14 PM
- Stephen Robinson
- CBO gets Senate health bill
- Good article. Some terms were mystical though, such as "antiselection" and how that works in the health reform agenda.
- 10/3/2009 4:25:43 PM
- Shelby J McIntosh
- Baucus Bill
- My question to Senator Baucus remains, "What is the hurry?" Why such urgency in bringing this massive piece of legislation to a vote before anyone , and I mean anyone, really knows what it is in the legislation? I further question the Senator and ask if this total change of how I get my healthcare is good for me why is it not also good for him and all the other Senators and Congresspeople? And last but not least if Americans are going to save billions of dollars in changing how health care is delivered in order to pay for this boon doggel being proposed why don't we implement those savings and see if they are real or not before wrecking the best health care system in the world? s.mcintosh, Metairie, LA
- 10/4/2009 11:52:04 AM
- American Tax Payer
- 72 hours
- What are they hiding. This is bull. We are against the whole thing. We are happy with our health plans.
- 10/4/2009 1:14:27 PM
- grendel007
- health care bill
- The nightmare continues. Will it ever end? Or will government keep taking away more and more of our freedom and our money in order to "help" us and "protect" us?
- 10/5/2009 7:38:26 AM
- gary
- are you involved?
- If you feel this article discusses things that should happen or have happened sooner, like; government placing limits on salaries & not allowing "bills" to be reviewed & discussed before voted on then continue doing what you're doing now. On the other hand, for those do are not comfortable with what's going on our government then ask yourself; are you a spectator or a participant? Get involved!
- 10/5/2009 9:28:44 AM
- Tom Briggs, Health Insurance Agent
- Health Care Reform
- Not enough thought and time has been spent reforming the existing system. The system is full of unbelieveable waste and a general lack of automation regarding patient records. The uninsured are clogging the emergency departments and acute care is suffering badly. Patient records are still not computerized leading to many errors as well as wasted man hours by physicians and their well paid staffs. Annual increases in healthcare costs still outpace inflation by a wide margin proving the lack of efficiency in the system. Do Congressmen have the understanding to digest and address these problems? I have some serious doubts and I am concerned that their current efforts will simply add to the current budget excesses and National Debt.