The author of a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage on Tuesday predicted that health care reform legislation would stall if the White House tries to step in and strip it out.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., dismissed a claim by White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod that President Obama would intervene to change the language, saying Axelrod is clueless on the issue and that such an intervention would imperil the bill.
"They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward," Stupak told Fox News. "We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."
SOURCE: Fox News
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Baucus Health Care Legislation Advances
One study was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) trade association, the other by Oliver Wyman Inc. for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA). Together they show Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) health reform legislation could result in higher prices and less flexibility for the insured.
Higher Premiums Expected
“The PWC report correctly notes that the Baucus bill would impose tremendous financial hardships on many middle-class Americans by forcing them to purchase expensive state-mandated insurance on terms set by the politicians,” said Paul M. Hsieh, M.D., cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine in Denver, Colorado.
The BCBSA report concludes premiums would rise as much as 50 percent for individuals and 19 percent for small group plans under current reform proposals, which include weakened forms of the individual mandate.
“Requiring insurers to guarantee they will issue coverage regardless of preexisting conditions—without an effective mandate—means that people can wait to purchase coverage until they need it, causing premiums to increase for most new purchasers,” the BCBSA study said.
At Table, But on Menu
One Capitol Hill insider, a senior health policy staffer on the Senate side who requested to remain anonymous, offered his explanation for why the health care industry is suddenly realizing the potential harm in the reform package.
“Through a combination of backslapping and arm-twisting, the White House cobbled together a fragile coalition of industry and insurers to support ‘health reform,’” the staffer said. “Industry and insurers convinced themselves being at the table meant they would not be on the menu. But as the rhetoric evolved to policy reality, supporters of ‘reform’ are now scrambling.”
Hsieh believes insurers ultimately will regret not fighting the reform package by arguing for market freedom.
“Earlier this spring the insurance industry could have taken a principled stand in favor of genuine free-market reforms, such as repealing laws banning sales across state lines as well as laws mandating guaranteed issue and community rating,” Hsieh said.
“Such reforms could have greatly reduced insurance costs for millions of Americans currently priced out of the market,” Hsieh continued. “Instead, they chose to make a deal with the devil and accept new regulations requiring them to cover everyone regardless of preexisting conditions, in exchange for a Massachusetts-like individual mandate.”
SOURCE: Heartland Institute
Higher Premiums Expected
“The PWC report correctly notes that the Baucus bill would impose tremendous financial hardships on many middle-class Americans by forcing them to purchase expensive state-mandated insurance on terms set by the politicians,” said Paul M. Hsieh, M.D., cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine in Denver, Colorado.
The BCBSA report concludes premiums would rise as much as 50 percent for individuals and 19 percent for small group plans under current reform proposals, which include weakened forms of the individual mandate.
“Requiring insurers to guarantee they will issue coverage regardless of preexisting conditions—without an effective mandate—means that people can wait to purchase coverage until they need it, causing premiums to increase for most new purchasers,” the BCBSA study said.
At Table, But on Menu
One Capitol Hill insider, a senior health policy staffer on the Senate side who requested to remain anonymous, offered his explanation for why the health care industry is suddenly realizing the potential harm in the reform package.
“Through a combination of backslapping and arm-twisting, the White House cobbled together a fragile coalition of industry and insurers to support ‘health reform,’” the staffer said. “Industry and insurers convinced themselves being at the table meant they would not be on the menu. But as the rhetoric evolved to policy reality, supporters of ‘reform’ are now scrambling.”
Hsieh believes insurers ultimately will regret not fighting the reform package by arguing for market freedom.
“Earlier this spring the insurance industry could have taken a principled stand in favor of genuine free-market reforms, such as repealing laws banning sales across state lines as well as laws mandating guaranteed issue and community rating,” Hsieh said.
“Such reforms could have greatly reduced insurance costs for millions of Americans currently priced out of the market,” Hsieh continued. “Instead, they chose to make a deal with the devil and accept new regulations requiring them to cover everyone regardless of preexisting conditions, in exchange for a Massachusetts-like individual mandate.”
SOURCE: Heartland Institute
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
