Moderates seek health care controls
Posted by ConnPolitics.tv Staff on December 4th, 2009
Washington (AP) – Two moderate senators who could be crucial to passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul pushed for greater cost containment measures in the landmark legislation.
Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, along with Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., unveiled a package of amendments Friday that would reward Medicare patients for picking efficient doctors, require insurance companies to make public more information about claims denials and speed up programs shifting from paying providers for services to paying them for performance.
Collins cited an “inexcusably high rate of hospital-acquired infections” and said the amendments would double penalties already included in the bill for hospitals with high infection rates.
The amendments could also have the effect of making the legislation more palatable to Collins and Lieberman, who have voiced opposition to the bill because it includes a new government insurance plan to compete with the private market.
Lieberman has threatened to filibuster over the issue, and both senators said they couldn’t envision a government insurance plan compromise they could support. Urgent talks are under way behind the scenes to find one.
Despite that sticking point, both Collins and Lieberman indicated a desire to support health care legislation
“The bill before us does contain a number of promising ideas to help improve the quality of care while containing costs,” Collins said. “All of those reforms represent positive improvements to our current health care delivery system.”
“This is a good bill in many ways,” Lieberman said, noting that it includes attempts at cost controls, extends coverage to millions of the uninsured and bars insurance industry practices like denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.
“To me the public option, so-called – which is really a government-created and government-run insurance company – doesn’t support any of those purposes,” Lieberman said.
“Senator Lieberman said it very well,” Collins added.
There are 60 senators in the Democratic caucus – including Lieberman and another independent, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders – precisely the number Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., needs to overcome Republican delaying tactics designed to kill the bill. Reid has no votes to spare and may need support from moderate Republicans such as Collins if he loses any members of his own caucus over contentious issues such as the government plan or abortion.
Senators on Friday debated proposed cuts to Medicare on the Senate floor as a rare weekend session loomed with Reid determined to get the legislation passed before Christmas.
Behind the scenes Democrats were trying to settle the abortion question and the government insurance plan issue. Liberals support the government plan but it’s opposed by most Democratic moderates and conservatives. Democratic leaders also are confronting the prospect of a showdown over abortion, with moderate Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., planning to introduce an amendment with strict abortion restrictions.
Liberals say they can’t accept that, and as a result the amendment will probably fail – but Nelson says he’ll oppose the underlying bill without strong abortion restrictions.
“Abortion and public option are really the major obstacles at this point,” the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told reporters on a conference call Friday.
Durbin said leaders were working toward an abortion compromise that could satisfy Nelson. With the powerful U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushing for Nelson’s amendment after helping to force similar language into the House version of the legislation last month, it’s not clear where any compromise could lie. But Durbin said Democrats couldn’t lose Nelson.
“At the end of the day we need Senator Nelson’s vote. We still don’t have a promise of a vote from the Republican side, so we would need his vote,” Durbin said. He held out hope, however, of getting support from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.
Nelson is also among the centrists queasy about the government insurance option in the Senate bill, even though it would be open to a relatively small number of people – mostly the uninsured and small businesses – and Reid included a provision that would allow states to opt out of it.
With the knowledge of Reid and the White House, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., along with Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Warner of Va., are taking the lead in crafting a compromise. The idea remains a work in progress, but the three presented the outlines Thursday evening in a private meeting with Nelson, Lieberman and about a half-dozen other moderates.
As described by Carper and Begich, the compromise would put a nonprofit insurance option in place only in states that didn’t meet certain criteria for affordability and access. Instead of being controlled by the government, the plan could be run by a nonprofit board, and any initial government startup money would be repaid.
17 comments
ATTEMPS????? lol
There is NOTHING in this pathetic bill addresses the over-valued healthcare system....NOTHING..........
This whole fiasco is just government " business AS usual...."
"Dump Dodd"
With what is going on in our government these days, it is very clear that our politicians are very "left wing."
You are correct on the analysis that of the absolute/living document element. If the Constitution were not, then we would still have slavery.
'The Constitution is only a living document for the left IF the changes fit their agenda.'
So limiting Congressional pay raises is a Left Wing point? Interesting. Please show me how this is true.
'Unfortunately, their agenda has not good for America and is the source of most of our problems today.'
Pure rhetoric. Facts needed.
'The original framers of the Constitution had it right in the first place and is the reason of our success since the beginning.'
Consult above statement about slavery.
We don't need an interpretation to outlaw slavery, just an amendment.
I oppose government health care, the DMV is screwing my wife - we do not have the "proper papers" to sell her old 9 year old car...... So much for "ownership"!
Does anyone want DMV personnel / attitude at he Emergency Room?
The Constitution was framed to protect the citizen from the government and not to promote bigger government which the left is trying to install via Constitutional interpretation and trickery.
A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what the left wing wants it to mean. This is the “living constitution” of “evolving standards,” reflecting what “thinking people” believe. Such sweeping dismissals of the past are more than a passing fashion or a personal vanity. They are a dangerous destruction of the hard-earned experience of millions of human beings, living through centuries of struggle with the tragedy of human condition, and the replacement of this rich legacy with unsubstantiated theories and self-flattering fancies.
We presently have government that is hell bent to change the Constitution using “the living document” as a mantra to grow government and not protect the people from the government as it was originally intended.
So, then it is a living document, yes? Point proven, backed up and seconded.
'We don't need an interpretation to outlaw slavery, just an amendment.'
This has nothing to do with a living document. It is meant to be interpreted, for many Amendments are written in vague prose.
'I oppose government health care.'
As you have a right to, but no where in the Constitution does it say you can ban in.
'It also was changed to adopt other noble improvements, but the "living part" is a nuance of the left to provide their interpretations to make changes to our society not changes to the Constitution itself.'
It is a living document, wherein Amendments can be made that reflect a need within the nation. Also, unless you're horribly confused on how this process works, there needs to be a 3/4 majority of states. So, while you hope to make the claim that 'liberals are running amok' with the LIVING document, you're entirely wrong and sadly making a mockery of yourself.
'The Constitution was framed to protect the citizen from the government and not to promote bigger government which the left is trying to install via Constitutional interpretation and trickery.'
Please explain this with facts and analysis, for your claim is structurally inaccurate.
Leave a comment
| « Dems defeat GOP on restoring $40B in Medicare cuts | Conn. Capitol police chief dies at 47 » |