Obama’s health care plan adds tension to upcoming summit

The Obama administration released a $950 billion
health care proposal Monday as a “starting point” for a possible
compromise with Republicans during this week’s planned health care
summit.

The White House version tweaks the Senate and House health care reform bills, but it does not dramatically change them.

Within hours, however, leading Republicans firmly
rejected the administration’s blueprint and suggested the summit itself
may be in jeopardy.

“The president has crippled the credibility of this
week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of
health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already
rejected,” Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House Republican leader, said in a statement.

His Senate counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, echoed that assessment.

“Our constituents don’t want yet another partisan, back-room bill,” McConnell said.

But Democrats and the White House vowed to continue pressing for passage of a health care overhaul plan at Thursday’s health care summit in Washington, which will be televised.

“Health care reform is too important to be sidelined by partisan motives,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer suggested the use of an iron fist inside a velvet glove: The plan was designed, Pfeiffer said, so it could pass the Senate with a simple majority vote — a process called reconciliation.

“The president wants and believes and our people
deserve an up-or-down vote on health reform,” he said. “This package is
designed to provide us the flexibility to achieve that if the Republican Party decides to filibuster.”

The release of the White House health care plan marks the first time the administration has officially revealed specifics of its plan to remake the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care industry.

The White House bill:

—Costs $950 billion over 10 years, more than the Senate bill, but less than the House. As with those plans, tax increases cover the costs.

—Requires everyone to buy insurance or pay a penalty, but adjusts the penalty for some workers.

—Does not include a public option, as some Democrats wanted.

—Adjusts and, for some, increases tax assistance to buy insurance.

—Does not require companies to provide insurance,
but penalizes those that don’t. Penalties would be adjusted to help
smaller businesses, which also get tax credits to provide insurance.

—Delays taxing “Cadillac” health care plans at work, and raises the threshold before those taxes kick in.

—Raises Medicare taxes and imposes a 2.9 percent levy on income such as dividends and rents for singles making $200,000 and married couples making $250,000.

—Fully closes the “doughnut hole” that can cause a gap in drug coverage under Medicare, but cuts payments for Medicare Advantage.

—Ends the “Cornhusker kickback” that favored Nebraska, but expands Medicaid payments to all states.

—Establishes new federal oversight of insurance company rate increases.

That last provision has angered some insurance
companies, which have said rising health care costs — not profits — are
to blame for rising premiums.

“The cost of health care reflects the consumption of health care,” said Tom Bowser of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. “The thought of having a federal regulatory body sitting on top of state regulations is chilling. I don’t think it’s needed.”

Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., said the same could be said of the administration’s entire proposal.

“This bill is simply more bureaucracy, more taxes
and more mandates,” Graves said. “The American people have already
rejected this approach.”

Democrats said the White House’s compromise plan might be the basis for a final decision in a debate that has occupied Washington for almost a year and divided the nation.

But Marcia Nielsen, former head of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, said the lack of new proposals in the Obama plan suggests the president intends to push the plan through with few, if any, GOP votes.

“As much as the president is saying, ‘I’m interested
in bipartisanship,’ this plan isn’t that,” Nielsen said. “As someone
who has worked on this issue for a long time, I’m pleased to see that
they are standing behind the same proposals they’ve been working on for
a year.”

While Thursday’s planned health care summit is still
on, Republicans say they are increasingly skeptical about its prospects
for success.

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said late last week that he didn’t think the session would lead to a breakthrough in the health care stalemate unless the White House is willing to start over.

“If it’s going to be a real meeting, I’d be willing
to go there,” Blunt said. “If it’s just going to be a theatrical
performance … I don’t want to waste my time.”

Unless the administration can persuade some
Republicans to vote for some version of its plan, prospects for passage
seem difficult at best, political observers said.

The House, for example, passed its version of health
reform in 2009 by just five votes. And the bill only passed after a
strong anti-abortion amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was added to the measure.

The White House plan, however, drops the Stupak language, making it potentially even more difficult to get through the House.

In addition, using the simple-majority reconciliation process in the Senate
is likely to bring howls of protest from Republicans, and perhaps even
from some moderate Democrats. Last week, Senate Republicans released a
list of 18 Democrats who, they said, opposed using reconciliation to
pass health care reform.

Regardless, a vote in the next few weeks seems unlikely. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last week that he expects a final vote in the spring.

—

(c) 2010, The Kansas City Star.

Visit The Star Web edition on the World Wide Web at http://www.kansascity.com.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.