Amid the publicity of a revived public option, the U.S. Senate quietly added another wrinkle to the health-reform bill. It significantly changes how businesses would be penalized for employees who need subsidies for health coverage.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that the Senate is looking at how businesses will pay for employee health insurance, as well as the more publicized possibility of giving states the chance to “opt-out” of the so-called public option, which would be the government-run health-insurance arm.
Regarding the costs to businesses, the Senate is kicking around a plan that would not require businesses to provide health insurance to workers. However, firms with more than 50 employees would be hit with big financial penalties if any of their workers needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own.
The penalties could be as high as $750 per employee, even if only a few workers needed the subsidy.
That’s tougher than the stipulation in the bill OK’d by the Senate Finance Committee. That proposal set penalties of $400 but only for each employee receiving a subsidy.
‘Opt-in’ proposal
The proposal to allow the opt-in public option — pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) – for states is the one that has the best chance for approval by Republicans and moderate Democrats who have opposed the public option until now.
Under the opt-in proposal, each state would be empowered to pass legislation granting or denying access to a public option for residents of that state.
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: health coverage, health insurance, penalties, public option, Schumer, Senate
October 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Well, here we go. Today the Democrats will actually have to stop debating the virtues of a non-existent plan and actually release something. When they do, it will become evident to all of the small business owners, unions and well insured individuals where they are going to get the money from. “The penalties could be as high as $750 per employee” if any of their workers needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own. Unions will be taxed on their ‘Cadillac’ health plans. $500 billion will be taken away from suppliers to Medicare patients (who already struggle to find doctors willing to deal with Medicare). So where do you think the money is going? If everybody we know is losing something, who is gaining?
Wealth redistribution. Say it loud and proud if you voted for Obama. You should have looked at the people on line with you to vote for the Supreme Leader. That would have been your first clue as to who was going to be served by the neo-Marxist Obama.
So, from the sound of this, all of us are going to pay more to be served less. I guess you couldn’t add 39 million people to the plan for nothing after all, huh? I wonder when Americans are going to look beyond the rhetorical semantics played by Obama to the truth that lies just below the surface. You are all business people. When the math doesn’t work, you know it. Well, the math doesn’t work.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:25 am
The need to reform health care is obvious, but there’s a world of difference between “reforming” and remaking”. What has been proposed continues to be a remake with attempts to fund it through some of the lamest ideas anyone, including a three year old could dream up.
“Don’t want health coverage”, DON”T FORCE IT!
Instead, how about:
1) Reduce the cost of Medicare by contracting with a private auditing firm which will supply adequate and tough personnel to detect fraud. Savings approximately 200 billion. Cost of contacting is easily covered by the savings and adds money to Medicare (which will be broke by all federal estimates by 2017).
2) Tort Reform
3) Allow consumers to purchase health insurance as they do auto, fire and property…ACROSS STATE LINES!
4) Provide “dollar one” tax relief to inviduals who use HRA’s or HSA’s.
5) Allow all taxpayers to deduct all health insurance premiums and deductibles from the first dollar paid forward.
6) Limit Medicaid to only American citizens.
7) Larger tax relief to small businesses of 49 or less employees who are providing 50% or more of the premium costs for their employees.
The best part is that the math for all of this will work!
October 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I agree with Mike’s comments.
Mr. Reid’s objectives is to make the free enterprise system’s responsibility cumbersome, burdensome and distasteful to businesses. It appears he wants them to copitulate to socialized medicine.
Health insurance should be taken away from businesses and made the responsibility of each individual or family. And they can obtain their health insurance from anywhere in the US or its territories. Make it competitive.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
It’s all rouse. The House’s bill will be knocked down and they’ll have to cave to the Senate bill, which will be rewritten to accomodate Snowe. The release of the House bill today is a show to Libs “we tried and the republicans got in the way”. End of the day, weak reform and they’ll talk it up like the stimulus.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
At what point did an employer sponsored heath plan go from optional benefit to obligation?
Some employers offer tuition reimbursement for higher education. Congress should make that mandatory too and check off another problem as solved.
We can no longer just pay an employee to do a job. We must adopt them.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans
“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government”
-President Barack Obama
If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security
•Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Over the last three years, 12 million people were denied coverage directly or indirectly through high premiums due to a pre-existing condition. Under the President’s plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons or risks.
•Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age. The President’s plan will end insurers’ practice of charging different premiums or denying coverage based on gender, and will limit premium variation based on age.
•Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most. The President’s plan prohibits insurance companies from rescinding coverage that has already been purchased except in cases of fraud. In most states, insurance companies can cancel a policy if any medical condition was not listed on the application – even one not related to a current illness or one the patient didn’t even know about. A recent Congressional investigation found that over five years, three large insurance companies cancelled coverage for 20,000 people, saving them from paying $300 million in medical claims – $300 million that became either an obligation for the patient’s family or bad debt for doctors and hospitals.
•Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick. The President’s plan will cap out-of-pocket expenses and will prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments. A middle-class family purchasing health insurance directly from the individual insurance market today could spend up to 50 percent of household income on health care costs because there is no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.
•Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. The President’s plan ensures that all Americans have access to free preventive services under their health insurance plans. Too many Americans forgo needed preventive care, in part because of the cost of check-ups and screenings that can identify health problems early when they can be most effectively treated. For example, 24 percent of women age 40 and over have not received a mammogram in the past two years, and 38 percent of adults age 50 and over have never had a colon cancer screening.
•Protects Medicare for seniors. The President’s plan will extend new protections for Medicare beneficiaries that improve quality, coordinate care and reduce beneficiary and program costs. These protections will extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for care for future generations.
•Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs. The President’s plan begins immediately to close the Medicare “donut hole” – a current gap in its drug benefit – by providing a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs for seniors who fall into it. In 2007, over 8 million seniors hit this coverage gap in the standard Medicare drug benefit. By 2019, the President’s plan will completely close the “donut hole”. The average out-of-pocket spending for such beneficiaries who lack another source of insurance is $4,080.
If You Don’t Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
•Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices. The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it. But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange. Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality.
•Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums. There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.
•Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers. Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.
•Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.
•Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.
For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government
•Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront. The President’s plan will not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future and is paid for in a fiscally responsible way. It begins the process of reforming the health care system so that we can further curb health care cost growth over the long term, and invests in quality improvements, consumer protections, prevention, and premium assistance. The plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans.
•Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized. Under the plan, if the savings promised at the time of enactment don’t materialize, the President will be required to put forth additional savings to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.
•Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality. The President’s plan includes proposals that will improve the way care is delivered to emphasize quality over quantity, including: incentives for hospitals to prevent avoidable readmissions, pilots for new “bundled” payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.
•Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. The President’s plan will create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare. The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care. It will ensure that your tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors.
•Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine. The President’s plan instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on awarding medical malpractice demonstration grants to states funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as soon as possible.
•Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform. Under the President’s plan, large businesses – those with more than 50 workers – will be required to offer their workers coverage or pay a fee to help cover the cost of making coverage affordable in the exchange. This will ensure that workers in firms not offering coverage will have affordable coverage options for themselves and their families. Individuals who can afford it will have a responsibility to purchase coverage – but there will be a “hardship exemption” for those who cannot.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I LIKE MIKE. Mike lays out reasonable steps, why is this so hard to fathom. At what point do politicians really want to serve their constituencies vs. self serving egomaniacle plans that are meant to make them look like they care. Sorry, just get frustrated some days. How about they allow tax credits to businesses (especially small businesses) for providing health coverage to their employees. I can get a tax credit for hiring a felon but not for providing health insurance to my employees.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
P.S. A small bussiness is not just a business with less than 50 employees!!
October 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Good God! There are still people out there believing the lies!
(and “nobody who earns less than $250,000 will pay one dime more in taxes of any kind”)
I suspect that this legislation will do for the insurance company’s what the Community Reinvestment Act did for the banks. (and the entire economy)
October 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Perhaps the gov does not have the best plan, but here is how current health ins is destroying the small business I own. For an HMO in CA our average cost increase over the past 5 years is 18% per year. That is to cover 2 families and 2 single employees. My company is now paying $3000 per month in health premiums for an “okay” HMO. I do not know the actual figures, but I can safely guess that a majority of small businesses do not make an additional gross profit of more than 5-10% per year.
I can do the math and unless there is a significant change, health insurance companies are closing down the ability for a lot of small businesses to offer any health coverage to employees.
For Gary Layton -stop making this an us vs them issue. Something must change in health care. This partisan politic thing is childish and non-productive.
For Mike Sutter – Those sound like good ideas. I hope someone is listening.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Gordon – sounds good in theroy. With all due respect, you copied and pasted Pelosi’s sales pitch ( all pros and no cons ). It’s just not sustainable in it’s current form.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I just thought I’d give you something substantial to read…the rest of these remarks were just sniveling drivel.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
So Levin, how is the government of California serving your interests since they apparently are the model for the rest of the country. Talk about unsustainable!
And I agree, Mike’s plan is better than Pelosi’s plan, hands down.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“This partisan politic thing is childish and non-productive.” – Never in Americas history have the partisan politics been so bad (excluding the lead up to Civil War). Democratics in congress have disgraced America and true reform by shutting out honest and open debate.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I thought this was a discussion about how the fed is attempting to change health care. CA gov is not helping at all with health care refom as far as I know. I was only giving a reference to the state my company is in.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Exactly Levin. Your state is a model of the social welfare state; with out of control illegal immigration, generous benefit programs for those who don’t contribute, and outrageous taxes against businesses and the rich to try to pay for it all. How is that working out?
It is the path the entire country is being put on.
FYI, I don’t support either party, so this isn’t about partisan politics to me. This is about stopping people who have an agenda of forcing radical change on America. All of these provisions are merely tools to that end. You will wake up one day soon and not recognize America. That’s what I am against. (This is 1,990 pages of ’simple and understandable changes’ that were done behind closed doors by one party, right? Seems reasonable….)
October 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Yes, CA has its issues, but is this discussion not about the fed making changes to health care?
If you are against health care change, what do you propose? I may not be very current on the whole issue, but I don’t have heard other health care proposals from any other parties.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“If you are against health care change, what do you propose?”
That’s a fair question. But not hearing other proposals is all part of the problem. Others have alternate proposals, but there’s no debate. Nobody but the Democrats are even allowed in the room. The media is firmly behind Obama and doesn’t even expose alternatives… and until today, there has been no bill to compare or contrast anything to. Any ‘debate’ so far as been all posturing since no single firm proposal had been offered.
I imagine this is ‘an emergency’ too, and it’ll need to be voted on by this afternoon…..
The process is broken. Nothing that is a result of this process should be approved, period. I mean really; read this crap: “Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.” Does that pass your ‘blink test’?
(and really, Mike’s proposal above makes sense)
October 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Boehner Won’t Pledge To Offer GOP Health Care Plan, Refuses To Post It Online If He Does
Republicans have been insisting for months that Democrats are shoving a secret bill down the throats of the American public. The health reform legislation “should be posted online for 72 hours so members and the American people get a chance to see what’s in these bills,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told Fox News. “But it seems to me that Democrat leaders want to rush these bills through Congress before anybody has a chance to read them.”
In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) “has repeatedly pledged to Republicans that the health bill and any manager’s amendment would be posted online for at least 72 hours before the House votes,” and he promised again this week.
At a press conference this morning, a reporter turned the tables on Boehner and asked whether he’d post the GOP plan for 72 hours. Boehner declined to make such a pledge:
QUESTION: Will the Republicans put their alternative online for 72 hours as well?
BOEHNER: Uh, we’ll uh, we’ll have our ideas ready. Don’t worry.
Why won’t Bohner post the GOP plan? Because he doesn’t have one. Later in the press conference, this minor detail was revealed when a reporter pressed Boehner for a GOP alternative plan:
QUESTION: Is it your plan to have one Republican alternative that you all would get behind and endorse?
BOHNER: We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and we’re not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, it’s pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan.
Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/boehner-gop-72-hours/
Earlier this month, Fox’s Greta van Susteren asked Boehner why House Republicans didn’t push for transparency when they were in power. “It was a different time,” Boehner said in response.
It’s clear why Republicans have been insisting on having as much time as possible to read the bill. As Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) explained, health insurance lobbyists need to be given “at least 72 hours” so they can try to kill the legislation.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Yes the process is broken badly. This two party system is broken unfortunately.
Also unfortuntely, I have to go back to work… I have make money so my employees have health care
Thankfully Al Gore invented the internet so that we could have this discussion…….
Thank you Gary for the conversation.
Thank you Mike for the ideas, good luck getting them looked at.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Levin is correct the two party system is broken. Republicans – woulda, coulda, shoulda, Democrats- republicans suck. That’s our government right now. I’m sick of it.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Whatever proposal comes out, if we the people do not like it talk to your congressman. Tell him we don’t want this. If the majority does not want this then it should not be passed. If your congressman votes against your wishes. Vote his lame butt out!! Then we can have the new congressman pass a law going back to the old way.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Thanks to those who have found some sense in what I proposed. I’m guilty in part (#’s 2 thru 5) of a certain level of plagarism since these have been expressed in part by the Republicans!
The fact that I find amazing however, is why these ideas haven’t been made more public despite the Right’s inability to be part of the “inside” debate. Certainly well placed news releases (even if limited to the Fox Network!!) would at least give us hope that there is some type of reasonable thinking happening in Washington. Are the Republicans waiting for a more “timely” moment, or are they hoping for more Democratic Party implosions such as occurred during the last six months?
Finally, since my comments are not “copied and pasted” they are never “sniveling drivel”. On the contrary, sound thinking always wins out over the substantial regurgitating of “Botox” Pelosi’s remarks!!
October 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Here’s why they don’t have a plan – its because they don’t have a clue.
Mike – It’s good that you admit that they aren’t really your ideas, cause we’ve seen all of them before. It was starting to look like you invented health care.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Gordon is a ‘blinded partisan’. You won’t have any reasonable debate with him. (in fact, it’ll only be a few more emails before he’s calling all of us Fox News watching racists…. I think that’s what the Democratic playbook calls for)
October 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
If Gordon were in Congress, he would be called a back-bencher. Go ahead and follow them right off the cliff.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Gary – your true colors come out; a self-proclaimed expert on everything. And the Republican playbook is….oh wait they don’t have one.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Gordon:
Long ago, I learned that “when dealing with idiots, make sure you’re not similarily occupied”. Since I’ve quickly learned that you’re on that fine line between psuedo-intellectual and idiot and I care not to be in either category, I’ll move on and let others argue with your far left political rantings.
God Bless you and keep up the work. We will always need a nut-case or two for the purposes of a two minute discussion.
………and yes, I did invent health care 22 years ago for my employees. By the way, fully paid for by the company (me).
October 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mike – call names and walk away. Okay go back to your fantasy world. How droll to even jokingly claim that you invented health care for your employees. You know, the ones that didn’t have ANYTHING to do with making you enough money that you could afford to GIVE them health care. God Bless you too, Mike.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Businesses should quit providing health care to their employees altogether. They started this practice in the 1960’s and it became universal over the next 40 years. I guess they had to do it to attract employees. Now they don’t need to do that. It was a mistake back then and it’s a mistake today. Health care should not be one of the things businesses have to contend with to make a profit in our capitalist democracy. IMHO. And by the way, this is the only country where businesses provide health care for their employees. That right there should be a clue there’s something wrong with it.
Mark
November 13th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I much prefer the idea of a national healthcare system, that gives employees the opportunity to change their employment without fear of losing health cover. The current use of insurance traps employees in jobs they no longer really want to be in, simply because they might not be able to get affordable cover elsewhere (especially with a pre-existing condition).