Senate Health Care Reform Spells Trouble for Nebraska

Senate Health Care Reform Spells Trouble for Nebraska

Nebraska’s interests have become the nation’s interests as the health reform debate reaches a critical stage in Washington, D.C., and U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson is one of a handful of key players who will determine whether the legislation helps or harms the state and the nation.

While some senators, such as Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, have shown they are willing to sell their votes for $100 million or so, others are focusing on the big picture and not on small favors tucked inside the 2,074-page bill.

They know their vote on health reform may well be the most important they cast in their entire political careers. Their vote will impact one-sixth of the economy, the quality of health care for 300 million Americans and the financial health of our nation for dec- ades to come. The stakes could not be higher.

Sen. Nelson voted to allow the debate to proceed, giving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the 60th vote he needed to bring the measure to the floor.

Sen. Nelson’s next crucial vote will be deciding whether to close the debate. That is where the 60th vote counts. If Sen. Nelson votes yes, then President Barack Obama’s sweeping reform plan very likely will become law.

Here are some of the considerations that are crucial to Nebraska — and the nation:

— Health costs: Sen. Nelson says legislation must cut the costs of health care for Nebraskans and all Americans — a top priority for struggling families and businesses.

But the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing the Senate bill fails that test. It says health insurance premiums would continue to rise for people in the individual market. They would pay $2,100 more by 2016 than if no bill were passed.

While some would receive subsidies, Nebraskans would be faced with a barrage of new mandates requiring them to purchase government-designed health poli- cies or pay a tax penalty. Additionally, young people would be forced to pay disproportionately more for their insurance, causing some premiums to almost double in price.

— Cuts in payments to hospitals: Hospitals nationwide face at least $135 billion in cuts over the decade but still would be required to treat millions of uninsured people.

Sen. Mike Johanns, who opposes the Senate bill, reports that cuts to Nebraska hospitals would total $910 million over 10 years, hitting rural hospitals hardest because of their tight operating margins.

The bill would cut an additional $93 million from Nebraska nursing home payments over 10 years. And more than two-thirds of Nebraska’s home health programs would be losing money by 2016 because of $120 million in cuts.

— Unfunded mandate: Nebraska would have to add all citizens to Medicaid who earn up to 133 percent of poverty, about $30,000 for a family of four. While the federal government would pay the added costs for three years, the state could face millions of dollars of added Medicaid costs in the future.

With Nebraska’s Legislature having to make painful cuts in government spending to balance its budget under current obligations, this would surely require new taxes or more cuts to other essential programs.

— Losing your current coverage: About 60 percent of health insurance policies in Nebraska would have to be rewritten because they would not meet federal tests for the generous benefits Washington would require them to cover.

Nearly 9 million senior citizens nationwide would be faced with losing the private health coverage they have through Medicare Advantage as the program faces $118 billion in cuts. This would impact the majority of the 35,000 Nebraska seniors who have chosen these programs.

— Budget gimmickry: Sen. Reid boasts that his bill would cost “only” $848 billion over 10 years, but that is only because the bill would start collecting taxes four years before subsidies begin.

Budget expert James Capretta says actual spending for the first 10 years after implementation would be $2.5 trillion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David S. Broder calls the legislation a “budget buster.” All this for a bill that would increase taxes by $500 billion, cut Medicare by $400 billion and create 118 new programs and government agencies.

Sen. Nelson could well determine whether this huge expansion of government moves forward or whether he forces his colleagues to go back to the drawing board to develop more sensible, affordable reform that works for Nebraska and the nation.


Watch the video related to health care reform bill





5 Comments

  • By Tracy Turnblad, November 17, 2009 @ 3:54 am

    First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
    Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
    Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.

    FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
    FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover.
    FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
    That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

    Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.

  • By TomStar81, November 17, 2009 @ 4:39 am

    Yes you are talking about TORT reform. the Democrats do not want to touch the Lawyers. it seems the Lawyers are in the democrats pocket.*

  • By Short, Fast, and Loud, November 17, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

    Obama does not have a bill. He has only given guidelines to what he wants. His last address made it more specific.

    The bills in congress are not healthcare bills. They are health coverage bills. The government is trying to take control of a large portion of our economy. They are trying to make it so the government is a single payer source (I know i will get thumbs down for this, but follow hr3200 to its logical conclusion).

    The current bills want to cover everybody in the US (Illegals too, there is nothing in these bills to prevent illegals from being covered. Amendments to ensure citizenship were tabled)

    The federal government wants to punish you for not having insurance (they will get your money one way or another)

    The government wants to regulate what care you will get. (When the system becomes overblaoted as any government system does, they will have 2 options increase taxes or ration care)

    I know that there are a lot of people that will disagree with this. If they actually read the bills, and follow to there logical conclusions, in 10 years we will be a whole lot worse of than we are now. So doing nothing would actually be cheaper.

    Reform must actually deal with the underlaying problems. HR 320o does not. Obama gave lip service to 1 of them.

  • By The Conservative Resistance, November 19, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

    Under any Democrat President in history, the same M.O. emerges.

    The Democrats "identify" a "crisis" and whip the people up into a frenzy about it. They proclaim themselves the carriers of the elixir that will heroically save all mankind from this "crisis.'' When Republicans seek to oppose the spending it will take for this elixir, they are automatically called hate mongers and obstructionists.

    Clinton tried it with school lunch menus. He whipped that whole thing into some kind of "crisis." The Democrats wanted to raise the program by 10% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by 7%. That got reported in the media as a 3% CUT by Republicans. Only when a Democrat is President could an INCREASE be reported as a CUT. Just to make Republicans look bad, but too many people buy into the bullshit.

    Al Gore, who wasn't even President, tried it with global warming and it didn't work. Today, it's health care. What'll it be tomorrow? The whole "world is ending in 2012" thing, or what?

  • By skinnyblink7, November 20, 2009 @ 2:31 am

    the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPresss