Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Former Senate Leaders Weigh In on Reform

By Ceci Connolly

Bipartisanship hasn't died quite yet. It only took a year, but a bipartisan band of former Senate majority leaders -- Democrat Tom Daschle (S.D.) and Republicans Bob Dole (Kan.) and Howard Baker (Tenn.) -- say they've come up with a health-reform plan they all can live with.

Today, the triumvirate releases a comprehensive proposal for covering every American without putting the federal government deeper in debt.

To achieve that goal, the three advocate a mix of tax increases, spending cuts and new mandates guaranteed to annoy virtually every major player in the health-care debate. The proposal, which is being studied by Senate Finance Committee leaders, calls for the majority of individuals and businesses to contribute to health insurance costs and would for the first time tax some benefits provided through the workplace.

“We came up with common ground on all of these issues,” said Daschle, who was President Obama’s first choice to lead this year’s health-reform effort. “We stayed at the table until we found agrmeement as painful as it was.”

Maine Democrat George Mitchell was the fourth member of the Bipartisan Policy Center when it was formed in March 2007, but he stepped aside when he joined the Obama administration as an envoy to the Middle East.

The proposal carries weight on Capitol Hill, because of the men’s personal relationships in Congress and their appreciation for the political crosscurrents that could easily imperil Obama’s top domestic priority.

“Both sides conceded positions that they feel strongly about, but did so recognizing that negotiations often require making tough choices,” wrote the group.

With the help of policy experts Chris Jennings, a Democrat who served in the Clinton White House, and Mark McClellan, a Republican who worked for President Bush, the group devised a package that would cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. They raise about half of the money through changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs and half from new taxes on employer-sponsored health insurance worth more than the standard plan provided to federal workers including members of Congress.

Daschle acknowledged that many in his party, including Obama, are unenthusiastic about placing a cap on tax-free health benefits.

“It’s almost been a sacred matter for a lot of people who count on these benefits,” he said. “We understand the emotion attached to it.”

The former Senate leaders also endorse a requirement that everyone purchase coverage, with sharply reduced fees for low-income workers. Businesses would also be required to contribute to the cost. In a fresh twist, the bipartisan proposal would calibrate the employer mandate to the company’s payroll, rather than the number of workers. Firms with an annual payroll below $1 million a year would be exempt from the mandate; others would be charged on a sliding scale.

On the difficult question of whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with provide firms, the group devised a somewhat different approach from others being considered on Capitol Hill. They recommend giving states the option of setting up public plans, with the fallback that if the nation is not making significant progress in providing affordable care to all Americans within five years the president can then create a federally-sponsored public program.

The three are expected to appear today at noon at Union Station to outline their proposal.

“This is a constructive, bipartisan proposal and I commend the work of my former colleagues. The proposal not only helps identify areas of clear agreement, it addresses critical reforms, such as tackling cost concerns and ensuring quality coverage while holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), whose Senate Finance Committee is expected to release its reform bill later this week. "And perhaps most importantly, the plan shows us a bipartisan consensus is within reach as we move toward our end goal of ensuring affordable, accessible care for every American.”

By Paul Volpe  |  June 17, 2009; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Daily Dose , Health Reform , Proposals  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Urges Nationwide Health-Care Campaign
Next: CBO Offers Reality Check on Health Spending

Comments

Perhaps we could have all former members of the House and the Senate vote on the proposal and have rose garden ceremony and have former Presidents of the USA sign it into non-law?

Posted by: cautious | June 17, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Good ideas and evidence that, indeed, bi-partisanship can work. What I really like about this is that everyone pays something (exempting perhaps the most truly needy). This may be through mandatory insurance (brilliant) or some supression of weage increases as a result of employer contributions.

The only really troubling part of this bill is the automatic ability to enact a national provider system in 5 years. This is sort of like an aneurism -- a loaded gun at the head of the country. A more sensible approach might have been to enable revisiting the debate in 5 years. (The single-payer system is daschel's, I think -- so all in the name of compromise I guess)

This plan should get more play -- these are three really respected leaders.

Posted by: DOps | June 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Giving states the option of whether to offer health insurance to the needy is the stupidest idea I've heard yet and solves absolutely nothing!

Given that many states are on the verge of bankruptcy, I don't think there would be many states that would do it. My state of Kentucky, for example, contains so many ignorant, stupid, and conservative people that they wouldn't know a good idea if it jumped up and bit them in the behind.

California has already asked for federal aid, and most of the poor, southern states would certainly not participate.

A national public option is THE ONLY WAY TO GO, SECOND TO SINGLE-PAYER, which we all know has the corrupt, greedy people who own the insurance companies running scared.

We have to REMEMBER THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE OWNED BY PEOPLE - VERY, VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE THEIR LIVING BY DENYING MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND INSURANCE TO THE SICK, AND INSURE ONLY THE HEALTHY.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE RICH PEOPLE GET RICHER, WHILE THE UNINSURED SUFFER AND DIE?

NOT ME. I hope Obama doesn't listen to this half-baked plan to appease the stupid and serves to line the wealthy business owners' pockets, once again.

Posted by: kentuckywoman | June 17, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

What is Tom Dashle doing in this debate? Dashle has been hired to manage General Electric's Healthmagination company that is set to get a no-bid $138BB contract from Obama to manage his centralized health care. This is an Obama PAYOFF to GE for devoting its news services NBC and MSNBC to electing Obama, and for supporting him on TV.

Having Dashle weighing in on legislation is a major conflict of interest.

Of course, Dashle is no stranger to conflicts of interest.

Posted by: mike85 | June 17, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if "The proposal carries weight on Capitol Hill, because of the men’s personal relationships in Congress and their appreciation for the political crosscurrents" includes Daschle's having spent the last few years lobbying for big medicine?

He no doubt feels this gives him more "insight" than anyone, about the taxpayer's interests. Of course, he doesn't actually pay taxes himself.

As they say, you couldn't make this stuff up folks.

Sheesh!

Posted by: artyanimal | June 17, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company