Eat it Up, ObamaGroupies

Obama leaves door open to tax on health benefits

By DAVID ESPO and PHILIP ELLIOTT

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama left the door open to a new tax on health care benefits Wednesday, and officials said top lawmakers and the White House were seeking $150 billion in concessions from the nation's hospitals as they sought support for legislation struggling to emerge in Congress.

"I don't want to prejudge what they're doing," the president said, referring to proposals in the Senate to tax workers who get expensive insurance policies. Obama, who campaigned against the tax when he ran for president, drew a quick rebuff from organized labor.

Obama also fielded a pointed personal question during an ABC News town hall at the White House on Wednesday. The prime-time program was the latest in a string of events designed to build public support for his plan to slow the rise in health care costs and expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist at the New York University Langone Medical Center, challenged Obama: What if the president's wife and daughters got sick? Would Obama promise that they would get only the services allowed under a new government insurance plan he's proposing. Obama wouldn't bite.

If "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care," Obama said.

Earlier in the day, the administration and its allies pushed for a prominent display of progress in the Senate before Congress begins a weeklong vacation on Friday.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., labored in a series of meetings to produce at least an outline of legislation that could command bipartisan support. Of the five House and Senate committees working on health care, Finance is the only one that appears to have a chance at such an agreement.

For their part, key Republicans pressed the White House for assurances that any concessions made now would not merely lead to additional demands at a later date. "We want to know the president is working in good faith along the way as we are," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, after meeting with Nancy-Ann DeParle, the top White House official on the issue.

Baucus appeared especially eager to show progress before the exodus from the Capitol began.

To that end, several officials said he was negotiating with representatives of the nation's hospitals, hoping to conclude an agreement that would build on an $80 billion weekend deal with the pharmaceutical industry.

Hospitals were being asked to accept a reduction of roughly $155 billion over the next decade in fees they are promised under government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to numerous officials.

Officials at the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals said they could not comment on any discussions.

Baucus is seeking similar concessions from nursing homes, insurance companies, medical device makers and possibly others, noting that any legislation would create a huge new pool of customers for industry providers.

At its heart, any legislation is expected to require insurance companies to offer coverage to any applicant, without exclusions or higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions.

Overall, Baucus has said he hopes to hold the size of any legislation to $1 trillion or less, and in private negotiations, there were discussions about further scaling back eligibility for insurance subsidies from the government.

Additionally, Baucus was still searching for ways to cover the cost of his emerging legislation, and numerous officials said he appeared roughly $200 billion shy of achieving that goal. They added that a proposal to make it harder for taxpayers to itemize their medical expenses was drawing renewed interest among key senators as one way to raise revenue.

Current law allows those expenses to be itemized when they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. The proposal under review would raise that to 10 percent, officials said.

At the White House, Obama sidestepped when asked if he was open to taxing health care benefits — a proposal he opposed vigorously in the campaign for the White House.

"I have identified the ways that I think we should finance this. I think Congress should adopt them. I'm going to wait and see what ideas ultimately they come up with," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"I don't want to prejudge what they're doing. We've put forward what we think is best."

Organized labor weighed in quickly.

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the 1.6 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in an interview that union leaders believe Obama is "a person of his word." He was referring to Obama's opposition to taxing those benefits during last year's campaign.

"They're not going to tolerate that," McEntee said of workers' views of that proposal.

It was the latest in a series of signs of presidential flexibility. He has said he could accept a requirement for individuals to buy insurance, a position he opposed in the campaign.

Baucus and many Republicans support taxing health care benefits, and officials have said discussions center on imposing the tax in cases in which premium costs exceed $17,000 combined in payments by the employer and worker. Democrats want to exempt union members covered by contracts, but Republicans are resisting.

The officials who provided specifics on the negotiations in the Senate did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose private talks.

ABC News was the lone network broadcasting Obama's town hall — drawing criticism from Republicans who wanted equal time.

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Charles Babington and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

Quote:"He taxes health care benefits for the first time in history; millions lose the health care they have; millions pay more for the health care they get; drug and insurance companies continue to profit; and middle class families watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes." ---Obama the candidate on McCain's plan

(06-25-2009 09:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Eat it Up, ObamaGroupies

They really don't care.

It's gonna take something horrific to get them out of their stupor. I'm not sure anything can. They're convinced you can get something from nothing.

yeah the Tribe doesn't care, some of the moderates that voted for him in the ebbs and flow of the political game may though and the MSM will not inform them

Quote:Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist at the New York University Langone Medical Center, challenged Obama: What if the president's wife and daughters got sick? Would Obama promise that they would get only the services allowed under a new government insurance plan he's proposing. Obama wouldn't bite.

If "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care," Obama said.

Translation: "No, simple fool, I am the Messiah. I don't have to live by the same rules as you minions. We won't have to deal with rationed care or wait for months for treatment like you will."

Its crystal clear to me what Obama's motives are: He is trying to make it as difficult and expensive as possible to stay in the Private Insurance System so people will FORCED to signup for the Public ObamaCare Plan.

I bet the Healthcare will be subsidized and "tax free" if the employer signs up for the Public Plan.

I read the other day where they have an amendment to some old bill they are about to push through that will force you to Register your gun on your next IRS tax return and pay $50 Tax per gun and includes finger prints. Meant to look for a story on this, they are trying to slip it under the radar

(06-25-2009 09:25 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Quote:Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist at the New York University Langone Medical Center, challenged Obama: What if the president's wife and daughters got sick? Would Obama promise that they would get only the services allowed under a new government insurance plan he's proposing. Obama wouldn't bite.

If "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care," Obama said.

Translation: "No, simple fool, I am the Messiah. I don't have to live by the same rules as you minions. We won't have to deal with rationed care or wait for months for treatment like you will."

How many floors are set aside for Congressmen, Federal Judges and big wigs of the Executive Branch at Walter Reed and Bethesda?

QUESTION: Two of the key players in the insurance industry, America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, sent a letter to the Senate this morning saying that a government health insurance plan would, quote, "dismantle," end quote, private insurers.

Why are they wrong?

And, secondly, this public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health care bill without it?

OBAMA: Well, let's -- let's talk first of all about health care reform more broadly. I think in this debate there's been some notion that if we just stand pat, we're OK. And that's just not true.

You know, there are polls out that show that 70 percent or 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have.

The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages.

The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory. Businesses are having to make very tough decisions about whether we drop coverage or we further restrict coverage.

So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing, and that's OK, that's just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It's burdening families. It's burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?

So -- so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes. What I've said is our top priority has to be to control costs.

And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn't mean just lopping of reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we're trying to fix our budget.

It means that we look at the kinds of incentives that exist, what our delivery system is like, why it is that some communities are spending 30 percent less than other communities, but getting better health care outcomes, and figuring out how can we make sure that everybody is benefiting from lower costs and better quality by improving practices. It means health I.T. It means prevention.

So all of these things are the starting point, I think, for reform. And I've said very clearly, if any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs. It's going to have to be paid for. All right?

So there's been a lot of talk about, well, a trillion-dollar price tag. What I've said is, if we're going to spend that much money, then it's going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system, but aren't being spent well.

If we're spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there's no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that's not a good deal for taxpayers.

And we're going to take that money and we're going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people. So, that's point number one.

Number two, while we are in the process of dealing with the cost issue, I think it's also wise policy and the right thing to do to start providing coverage for people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured, are paying a lot of money for high deductibles.

I get letters, two, three letters a day that I read, of families who don't have health insurance, are going bankrupt, are on the brink of losing their insurance, have deductibles that are so high that, even with insurance, they end up with $50,000, $100,000 worth of debt, are at risk of losing their homes.

And that has to be part of reform, making sure that, even if you've got health insurance now, you are not worried that, when you lose your job or your employer decides to change policies, that somehow you're going to be out of luck.

I think about the woman who was in Wisconsin that I was with, who introduced me up in Green Bay, 36 years old, double mastectomy; breast cancer has now moved to her bones. And she's got two little kids, a husband with a job. They had health insurance, but they're still $50,000 in debt.

And she's thinking, my main legacy, if I don't survive this thing, is going to be leaving $100,000 worth of debt.

So, those are the things that I'm prioritizing.

Now, the public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we've said is, under our proposal, let's have a system, the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where we call it an exchange, but you can call it a marketplace, where, essentially, you've got a whole bunch of different plans.

If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer's providing you good health insurance, terrific. We're not going to mess with it.

But, if you're a small-business person; if the insurance that's being offered is something you can't afford; if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can -- look, OK, this is how much this plan costs; this is how much that plan costs; this is what the coverage is like; this is what fits for my family.

As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

QUESTION: Wouldn't that drive private insurance out of business?

OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If -- if private -- if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

Now, the -- I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.

Thank you for posting his comments. They illustrate perfectly why his plan is illogical, unaffordable and a disaster waiting to happen. It also shows the intellectual dishonesty Obama is willing to engage in to enact it.

.

I was weirdly enough sitting in a Hospital Waiting Room listening to TV when this mess came on.

It talked about how "Obama The Beautiful", did not want to Tax Employee Health Care Benefits, but Messiah had not left it totally off the table.

He talked about how "Hard on him it would be to HAVE to do this" and I just busted out laughing - - the people in room with me thought I was waiting for a Wheelchair to the Psych Unit instead of an MRI ...

I mean knowing Lil' Bro.'s Doublespeak, this means get ready to have your Employee Health Care Benefits Taxed out your Gazoo.

And they just could not get off the Gov. Mark Sanford thing - - I mean I understand this guy screwed up, but WTF is the Big Deal when you Compare it to Barney Frank and others who have Tripped the Stupid Fantastic in the last Decade Alone.

Just look at this Topic - - it has garnered 3 Pages for me the way I have my Viewed Post Counts set up and I am still wondering what the big deal is about this SOS DD Crapolla ???

I mean I have the "Family Values" thingy down, but I am wondering why we place such a High Price on Monogamy and Marital Fidelity being an Issue when we have Hollywood Stars and Bureaucrats of all Flavors, out en mass, street lobbying for Same Sex Marriage and in slobber love with Late Term Abortion or simply Abortion of any kind.

This is why our Country is in the Toilet - - we always Focus on Fringe or almost Cultish Issues that have Nothing to do with the Welfare of our People and Nation, while allowing the Horrid and Heinous to Freely Abound to the Detriment of our Entire Society. Mark Sanford did not Coup the United States with his Extra Marital Affair or Lessen our National Security, but we are amazed with it for some reason.

If we weren't "Aborting" all these Babies every year, we wouldn't be having to depend on Latin American Immigration to keep our "Reproduction Ratio above 2.1% Per Family Per Generation ..... have you ever thought of Abortion In That Way ??? How many Muslims do you think are running in Droves to the Abortion Clinics to flush their Children Down the Toilets ???? Not many with a Reproduction Ratio of 8.1 Per Family Per Generation.

Muslims are having 8.1 Children Per Muslim Family Per Generation while we are depending on Latin American and other Immigration to just barely keep us floating at the Mean Average of 2.1 Children Per Non-Muslim American Family Per Generation. Does this say something about ABORTION to any one ????

Yet we are "Mesmerized" by the Mark Sanford Issue - - weren't we fed enough of that crap with the John Edwards affair ????? .... it truly boggles my mind and with nearly 30 years of marriage under my belt, I have NEVER ONCE Cheated on my Wife - - never even came close to it, yet I am not Hypnotized by the Mark Sanford thing like the rest of the World seems to be.

AHHHH ..... Life Throws me curves all the time in these days of Obamadom .....

.

(06-25-2009 11:58 AM)Tripster Wrote:  .

Yet we are "Mesmerized" by the Mark Sanford Issue - - weren't we fed enough of that crap with the John Edwards affair ????? .... it truly boggles my mind and with nearly 30 years of marriage under my belt, I have NEVER ONCE Cheated on my Wife - - never even came close to it, yet I am not Hypnotized by the Mark Sanford thing like the rest of the World seems to be.

AHHHH ..... Life Throws me curves all the time in these days of Obamadom .....

.

Oral sex is not sex- Bill Clinton