July 10, 2009
Deirdre Walsh CNN Congressional Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday proposed a graduated tax on wealthy Americans to pay for health care reform, several Democratic sources told CNN.
The new tax would apply to individuals who make more than $280,000 a year and married couples who make more than $350,000, the sources said.
Individuals making up to $400,000 and couples making up to $500,000 would be assessed a 1 percent tax on their adjusted gross income, they said. A higher rate would apply to individuals making up to $800,000 and for couples making up to $1 million per year, and an even higher rate would apply to individuals and couples with higher incomes.
The rates for the tax on the two higher brackets are still being finalized, according to the sources.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The AP (7/10, Espo, Werner) reports that the health reform "system suffered yet another setback" in the House Thursday, when the "pivotal" Blue Dog Coalition of "moderate to conservative Democrats" complained to House leaders that "the emerging bill 'lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken.'"
The Washington Times (7/10, Haberkorn) reports that the "core of President Obama's congressional agenda stalled" with the Blue Dogs' statement that they "won't support a bill that's not fully paid for" and their expressing of "doubts over increasing taxes."
Congress Daily (7/10, Edney, Cohn) reports "plans to release a final House overhaul bill today came to a screeching halt as the Blue Dog Coalition raised major concerns."
CQ Today (7/10, Armstrong, Wayne) reports House leaders "tried to stave off an insurrection" by the moderates, but "acknowledged that they would not be able to release a final version of their legislation Friday as planned" because of the Blue Dog opposition.
However, in addition to the Blue Dogs' letter, The Hill (7/10, Soraghan) reports 22 New Democrats and Blue Dogs also sent a letter to House leaders saying they "support a 'robust' government-run health plan, boosting chances of moving healthcare reform with a public insurance plan through the House." Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) said, "While we may belong to a more moderate branch, we want it known that we support the public option."
The Washington Times (7/10, Haberkorn) reports that the "core of President Obama's congressional agenda stalled" with the Blue Dogs' statement that they "won't support a bill that's not fully paid for" and their expressing of "doubts over increasing taxes."
Congress Daily (7/10, Edney, Cohn) reports "plans to release a final House overhaul bill today came to a screeching halt as the Blue Dog Coalition raised major concerns."
CQ Today (7/10, Armstrong, Wayne) reports House leaders "tried to stave off an insurrection" by the moderates, but "acknowledged that they would not be able to release a final version of their legislation Friday as planned" because of the Blue Dog opposition.
However, in addition to the Blue Dogs' letter, The Hill (7/10, Soraghan) reports 22 New Democrats and Blue Dogs also sent a letter to House leaders saying they "support a 'robust' government-run health plan, boosting chances of moving healthcare reform with a public insurance plan through the House." Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) said, "While we may belong to a more moderate branch, we want it known that we support the public option."
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Democrats Propose to Raise Taxes on Rich to Fund Health Care Legislation
AP
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- An income tax surcharge on highly paid Americans emerged as the leading option Wednesday night as House Democrats sought ways to pay for health care legislation that President Obama favors, several officials said.
As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, they added. In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the proposed surtax on high-income taxpayers appealed to her and others as a way to avoid a "nickel-and-dime" approach involving numerous smaller tax increases. She added that other earlier options had fallen away, including an increase in the payroll tax.
Berkley and others cautioned that no final decisions have been made, either by the tax-writing committee or by the Democratic leadership, which hopes to have legislation drafted by Friday and through the House by month's end.
Aside from Berkley, other officials discussed the private discussions only on condition of anonymity.
The developments stood in contrast to the Senate, where Democrats edged away from their goal of passing ambitious health care legislation by early August amid heightening partisan controversy over tax increases and a proposed new government role in providing insurance to consumers.
"I think the ultimate goal is to have a bill by the end of this year" that is signed into law by the president, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said Democrats would make "every effort to stick to the timetable" that included initial Senate action by August.
Separately, Republicans who met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor.
The evident slippage coincided with a formal announcement that the nation's hospitals had agreed to give up $155 billion in projected Medicare and Medicaid payments over the next decade, money than can help defray the cost of the legislation the administration wants.
"Folks, reform is coming. It is on track," Biden said at the White House, urging the Senate to enact legislation by the now-imperiled August goal.
Any failure to meet the goal would be a setback -- but not necessarily a fatal one --for Obama's attempt to win legislation this year that both slows the growth in health care costs and extends coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who now lack it.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- An income tax surcharge on highly paid Americans emerged as the leading option Wednesday night as House Democrats sought ways to pay for health care legislation that President Obama favors, several officials said.
As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, they added. In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the proposed surtax on high-income taxpayers appealed to her and others as a way to avoid a "nickel-and-dime" approach involving numerous smaller tax increases. She added that other earlier options had fallen away, including an increase in the payroll tax.
Berkley and others cautioned that no final decisions have been made, either by the tax-writing committee or by the Democratic leadership, which hopes to have legislation drafted by Friday and through the House by month's end.
Aside from Berkley, other officials discussed the private discussions only on condition of anonymity.
The developments stood in contrast to the Senate, where Democrats edged away from their goal of passing ambitious health care legislation by early August amid heightening partisan controversy over tax increases and a proposed new government role in providing insurance to consumers.
"I think the ultimate goal is to have a bill by the end of this year" that is signed into law by the president, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said Democrats would make "every effort to stick to the timetable" that included initial Senate action by August.
Separately, Republicans who met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor.
The evident slippage coincided with a formal announcement that the nation's hospitals had agreed to give up $155 billion in projected Medicare and Medicaid payments over the next decade, money than can help defray the cost of the legislation the administration wants.
"Folks, reform is coming. It is on track," Biden said at the White House, urging the Senate to enact legislation by the now-imperiled August goal.
Any failure to meet the goal would be a setback -- but not necessarily a fatal one --for Obama's attempt to win legislation this year that both slows the growth in health care costs and extends coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who now lack it.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Biden Announces Deal With Hospitals to Help Fund Health Care Reform
AP
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Biden has announced a White House deal with the hospitals to help pay for President Obama's overhaul of health care.
Biden made the announcement Wednesday morning at the White House with hospital administrators and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Biden said "reform is coming."
Biden said the hospitals are ready to give up about $155 billion over 10 years in government payments. The money could then be used to help pay for covering millions of uninsured.
Despite the deal, some Democrats are rebelling over taxing generous health insurance benefits to pay for any overhaul, jeopardizing bipartisan legislation in the Senate and Obama's ambitious timetable.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Biden has announced a White House deal with the hospitals to help pay for President Obama's overhaul of health care.
Biden made the announcement Wednesday morning at the White House with hospital administrators and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Biden said "reform is coming."
Biden said the hospitals are ready to give up about $155 billion over 10 years in government payments. The money could then be used to help pay for covering millions of uninsured.
Despite the deal, some Democrats are rebelling over taxing generous health insurance benefits to pay for any overhaul, jeopardizing bipartisan legislation in the Senate and Obama's ambitious timetable.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Hospitals Expected to Agree to $155 Billion in Healthcare Savings
The Washington Post (7/7, Connolly, Shear) reports hospital groups have agreed "to contribute $155 billion over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans without health coverage, according to two industry sources."
White House officials and members of the Senate Finance Committee reached the agreement with the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and the Catholic Health Association. It "is the latest in a series of side deals that aim to reduce the cost of revamping the nation's healthcare system and to neutralize influential industries that have historically opposed such reforms." According to the Post, "With President Obama out of the country, a formal announcement is expected tomorrow from Vice President Biden."
The AP (7/7, Espo) reports "under the emerging agreement, hospitals would accept lower-than-anticipated payments under Medicare and Medicaid, the federal healthcare programs for seniors and the poor." Such an agreement "would give fresh momentum to efforts to write bipartisan legislation on an issue that Obama has placed atop his list of domestic priorities."
White House officials and members of the Senate Finance Committee reached the agreement with the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and the Catholic Health Association. It "is the latest in a series of side deals that aim to reduce the cost of revamping the nation's healthcare system and to neutralize influential industries that have historically opposed such reforms." According to the Post, "With President Obama out of the country, a formal announcement is expected tomorrow from Vice President Biden."
The AP (7/7, Espo) reports "under the emerging agreement, hospitals would accept lower-than-anticipated payments under Medicare and Medicaid, the federal healthcare programs for seniors and the poor." Such an agreement "would give fresh momentum to efforts to write bipartisan legislation on an issue that Obama has placed atop his list of domestic priorities."
Monday, July 6, 2009
Senate HELP Bill Includes Public Option & Insurance Mandate
The AP (7/3, Alonso-Zaldivar) reported Americans "who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a healthcare overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority." The Congressional Budget Office "estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage."
USA Today (7/3, Fritze) reported leading Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee "unveiled new details of a plan to revamp the nation's healthcare system Thursday, including a public, government-run insurance program and a $750-per-employee annual fee on companies that do not offer health benefits." Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), "a leading architect of the legislation, said the new bill will cost $611 billion over the next decade - lower than an earlier $1 trillion estimate - and that he hoped his committee could have its version completed next week." The HELP legislation "would provide insurance to 15 million who do not have it now, about 30 percent of the uninsured population, the CBO said. Obama and Dodd said once the bill is merged with a separate proposal by the Senate Finance Committee as many 97 percent of uninsured would be covered."
The Wall Street Journal (7/3, Adamy) noted that, despite the lowered estimate of $611 billion, the "total cost of the healthcare overhaul is likely to increase substantially once a key element to expand insurance coverage is added in." The new plan "gives employers more incentive to provide coverage, and makes it harder for people with employer insurance to get government-subsidized coverage." But the "latest proposal doesn't include provisions for a large number of uninsured Americans whom lawmakers intend to cover by expanding Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor."
According to McClatchy (7/3, Lightman), President Obama "quickly embraced the plan, saying it 'reflects many of the principles I've laid out.' Among them: changes that 'will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and the concept of insurance exchanges, where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick.'" Still, Obama "stopped short of specifically endorsing the 'fee' on employers."
The Washington Post (7/3, Connolly), The Hill (7/3, Young), the New York Times (7/3, Calmes), the Washington Times (7/3, Haberkorn), CQ HealthBeat (7/3, Wayne, subscription required), and Bloomberg News (7/3, Faler, Dodge) also covered the story.
USA Today (7/3, Fritze) reported leading Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee "unveiled new details of a plan to revamp the nation's healthcare system Thursday, including a public, government-run insurance program and a $750-per-employee annual fee on companies that do not offer health benefits." Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), "a leading architect of the legislation, said the new bill will cost $611 billion over the next decade - lower than an earlier $1 trillion estimate - and that he hoped his committee could have its version completed next week." The HELP legislation "would provide insurance to 15 million who do not have it now, about 30 percent of the uninsured population, the CBO said. Obama and Dodd said once the bill is merged with a separate proposal by the Senate Finance Committee as many 97 percent of uninsured would be covered."
The Wall Street Journal (7/3, Adamy) noted that, despite the lowered estimate of $611 billion, the "total cost of the healthcare overhaul is likely to increase substantially once a key element to expand insurance coverage is added in." The new plan "gives employers more incentive to provide coverage, and makes it harder for people with employer insurance to get government-subsidized coverage." But the "latest proposal doesn't include provisions for a large number of uninsured Americans whom lawmakers intend to cover by expanding Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor."
According to McClatchy (7/3, Lightman), President Obama "quickly embraced the plan, saying it 'reflects many of the principles I've laid out.' Among them: changes that 'will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and the concept of insurance exchanges, where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick.'" Still, Obama "stopped short of specifically endorsing the 'fee' on employers."
The Washington Post (7/3, Connolly), The Hill (7/3, Young), the New York Times (7/3, Calmes), the Washington Times (7/3, Haberkorn), CQ HealthBeat (7/3, Wayne, subscription required), and Bloomberg News (7/3, Faler, Dodge) also covered the story.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
CMS Proposes Medicare Payment Reforms for Physicians, Hospitals
The Wall Street Journal (7/2, Zhang) reports, "The Obama administration said Wednesday that it plans to cut Medicare payments for imaging services and specialists, and will use the savings to increase payments to physicians providing primary care."
The proposal would "put specialists' payments for evaluating and managing illnesses on par with those of primary-care physicians starting in January."
The move, "combined with other changes, would boost payments to internists, family physicians, general practitioners and geriatric specialists by six percent to eight percent next year," according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The proposal would "put specialists' payments for evaluating and managing illnesses on par with those of primary-care physicians starting in January."
The move, "combined with other changes, would boost payments to internists, family physicians, general practitioners and geriatric specialists by six percent to eight percent next year," according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
