House Passes Bill Changing Medicare Fee Formula and Extending Children’s Insurance

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
94,288
Reputation
3,927
Daps
167,938
Reppin
Brooklyn
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ROBERT PEARMARCH 26, 2015

Photo
27health-web-master675.jpg

The House speaker, John A. Boehner, at a news conference on Thursday in Washington. The House approved sweeping changes to Medicare on Thursday by passing a bill negotiated by Mr. Boehner and the House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. CreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
  • Medicaresystem on Thursday, in the most significant bipartisan policy legislation to pass through that chamber since the Republicans regained a majority in 2011.

    The measure, which would establish a new formula for paying doctors and end a problem that has bedeviled the nation’s health care system for more than a decade, has already been blessed by President Obama, and awaits a vote in the Senate. The bill would also increase premiums for some higher income beneficiaries and extend a popular health insurance program for children.

    The legislation, which passed on a 392-to-37 vote, embodies a rare andsignificant agreement negotiated by Speaker John A. Boehner and the House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, two leaders who are so often at odds with each other.

    Mr. Boehner’s strategy of working out a significant legislative compromise with Ms. Pelosi is a break from his previous attempts to mollify his most conservative members in the House.

    The speaker made an unusual appearance during a floor debate Thursday morning to praise the bill as benefiting Medicare patients, children and taxpayers. “Normally we’d be here to admit we are going to kick the can down the road one more time,” he said. “But today, because of what we are doing, we are going to save money 20, 30, 40 years down the road.” Then he added, ”This is what we can accomplish when we’re focused on finding common ground.”

    Ms. Pelosi again demonstrated that even as the leader of a minority party that is at times restless for fresh leadership, she has the ability to simultaneously win policy fights for Democrats while persuading them to accept hard losses.

    The bill puts in place “the first real structural entitlement reform in nearly two decades” Mr. Boehner said this week, and ends “one of Washington’s most infamous budget gimmicks.”

    “Don’t look now but we are actually governing,” said Representative Renee Ellmers, Republican of North Carolina.

    Continue reading the main story

    On the House floor Thursday morning, Democrats and Republicans both praised the bills and the process, sounding strikingly similar in their comity.

    “It’s not a perfect bill,” said Representative Ami Bera, Democrat of California, who is a physician. “But I came to Congress to put people first. I came to Congress to work across the aisle in a bipartisan way to put our country first.”

    Representative Dan Benishek, a Republican from Michigan who is also a physician, said, “Today’s legislation may not be perfect,” but “I urge all my colleagues to support this common sense, overdue fix.”

    Senate Democrats have been resistant to provisions in the bill that preserve restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion services and extend a children’s health program for only two years, but they are expected to eventually work with Senate Republicans to pass the measure.

    The timing was uncertain and the final vote could be put off until after a two-week recess scheduled to start Friday.

    Doctors face a 21 percent cut in Medicare fees on April 1 unless Congress takes action. Medicare officials could stretch the deadline and delay the cuts for about two weeks.

    Since 2003, Congress has passed 17 short-term bills to block cuts in Medicare doctors’ fees, which are calculated under a formula that defines a “sustainable growth rate” linked to growth of the overall economy. The Boehner-Pelosi bill repeals that formula.

    Under the bill, Medicare would pay doctors based on their performance, rewarding them for high-quality work rather than the volume of services. The Children’s Health Insurance Program would be extended for two years, rather than the four years sought by Democrats. More money also would be appropriated for community health centers, with a restriction for abortion services.

    To help offset the costs, some higher-income Medicare beneficiaries would be required to pay more expensive premiums for coverage of doctors’ services and prescription drugs. But about two-thirds of the costs would be added to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would add $141 billion to federal budget deficits in the coming decade, compared with existing law.

    “From beginning to end, this bill is about access,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas. “Access for our seniors, access for those who use our nation’s 9,000 community health centers and more than eight million children who receive their care at some point during the year through the Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/u..._id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
94,288
Reputation
3,927
Daps
167,938
Reppin
Brooklyn
More positive news from the House


The Senate's Surprising Support for Paid Sick Leave and Gay Marriage
An all-night 'vote-a-rama' on the Republican budget revealed bipartisan backing for giving new benefits to same-sex spouses and American workers.
RUSSELL BERMANMAR 27 2015, 2:11 PM ET

lead.jpg

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
The Senate on Thursday night returned to one of its odder occasional traditions: a round-the-clock session in which a legislative body full of lawmakers in their 60s and 70s stays up all night to vote on budget amendments. The end result was that shortly before 3:30 a.m. Friday, the Republican majority passed, by a vote of 52-46, a budget resolution that party leaders will try to reconcile with the more conservative measure the House approved last week.


What on Earth Is a Vote-a-Rama?


The underlying resolution doesn't have the force of law, but in a chamber known more for endless talking than for actually voting, the aptly-named vote-a-rama can be surprisingly revealing about where senators stand on major issues at the moment. Members of both parties use the opportunity to force their colleagues to take a stand on controversial topics, knowing that their votes could wind up in campaign ads down the road. (My colleague David Graham explained how it worked during the Senate's last budget all-nighter in 2013.) While many of the more than 40 votes this year fell predictably along party lines, a filibuster-proof majority of 61 senators supported paid sick leave, a simple majority backed federal benefits for legally-married gay couples, and the Senate stood unanimously for increased sanctions on Iran.

Here's a look at some of the more notable votes:

Paid Sick Leave

Democrats have made ensuring that workers have paid sick leave a priority in recent months, yet it was assumed this issue would stall under Republicans who oppose subjecting businesses to new regulation. Not necessarily. An amendment offered by Senator Patty Murray of Washington state earned the votes of 14 GOP senators, giving it enough to overcome a filibuster and make it into the final budget resolution. Does this mean the Senate will pass it into law anytime soon? No. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed the amendment and could prevent it from coming up in the form of legislation, and even if it did, senators wouldn't be held to their non-binding budget vote. But the strong support shown on Thursday indicated an unexpected consensus in the Senate, giving the push for mandatory paid sick leave new momentum.

Same-Sex Marriage

The Senate didn't hold a direct vote on whether gay marriage should be allowed,but Democrat Brian Schatz of Hawaii asked his colleagues whether legally-married, same-sex spouses should have "equal access to the Social Security and veterans benefits they have earned and receive equal treatment under the law pursuant to the Constitution of the United States." Fifty-seven senators voted that they should, including all 46 Democrats and 11 Republicans. With the Supreme Court set to rule on same-sex marriage later this year, federal recognition and benefits for gay spouses could become a fait accompli. But the clear majority support in a Republican-controlled Senate—unthinkable during the last GOP majority a decade ago—is yet another indication of how rapidly public opinion has shifted on the issue in recent years.

Social Security

Nowhere was the Senate more divided than on the issue of Social Security. A group of Democrats including Elizabeth Warren, the liberal favorite, and Joe Manchin, a West Virginia moderate, put forward an amendment calling for an expansion of Social Security, so long as it didn't add to the deficit. Every Republican and two Democrats opposed it, but the near-unanimous backing from Democrats on an issue popular with the progressive movement was significant. After years in which the White House and many congressional Democrats were entertaining the idea of trimming entitlement programs as part of a fiscal grand bargain, the party is now rallying around a proposal that would expand benefits.

Iran Sanctions

One of the few unanimous votes of the night centered on Iran sanctions, which is a delicate topic given the Obama administration's opposition to separate legislation that, it argues, would undermine its negotiations for a nuclear agreement. The budget amendment from Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois didn't address the wisdom of a deal with Iran, but it called for reimposing sanctions if the Iranians violated any agreement that is reached. An amendment from freshman Tom Cotton voicing support for Israel also drew no opposition.

Defense Spending

The size of the Pentagon's budget divided Republicans in the House, and it caused a similar fissure in the Senate. But the votes on Thursday were more notable for the way they reflected jockeying for position in the presidential campaign. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who plans to launch his White House bid next month, proposed a change that would add $190 billion in defense spending while offsetting the boost with cuts to domestic programs. All but four Republicans rejected the proposal. Another likely 2016 contender, Marco Rubio of Florida, offered a competing amendment to increase the Pentagon spending without paying for it elsewhere. That change failed, too, but it earned far more GOP support. The Senate Republican who has already announced his presidential candidacy, Ted Cruz, "appeared torn over how to vote on Rubio’s measure," Politico reported, "standing at the well of the chamber and staring at the text of the legislation before voting yes." The 2016 hopefuls also split on the final budget vote: Rubio and Senator Lindsey Graham supported the Republican plan, while Paul and Cruz were the only two GOP lawmakers to oppose it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...eave-and-gay-marriage/388892/?utm_source=SFFB
 

Marl0 Stanfield

Yeshua Ben YHWH
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
1,108
Reputation
-325
Daps
1,303
Reppin
Ojala
So they legalized gay marriage by federally recognizing it and brought the economy closer to disaster by inching closer towards giving everyone goddamned mandated paid sick leave- a feat that the GOP would only agree to with huge tax cuts.

Let's see if a GOP strategy of taxing the fck out of fruits to cover huge future tax cuts to corporations with a massive expansion of Soshall Sekurritty and D-Fence spending won't cripple the fukk out of this wasteland of strip clubs and crack houses.
 

Marl0 Stanfield

Yeshua Ben YHWH
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
1,108
Reputation
-325
Daps
1,303
Reppin
Ojala
Defense Spending

The size of the Pentagon's budget divided Republicans in the House, and it caused a similar fissure in the Senate. But the votes on Thursday were more notable for the way they reflected jockeying for position in the presidential campaign. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who plans to launch his White House bid next month, proposed a change that would add $190 billion in defense spending while offsetting the boost with cuts to domestic programs. All but four Republicans rejected the proposal. Another likely 2016 contender, Marco Rubio of Florida, offered a competing amendment to increase the Pentagon spending without paying for it elsewhere. That change failed, too, but it earned far more GOP support. The Senate Republican who has already announced his presidential candidacy, Ted Cruz, "appeared torn over how to vote on Rubio’s measure," Politico reported, "standing at the well of the chamber and staring at the text of the legislation before voting yes." The 2016 hopefuls also split on the final budget vote: Rubio and Senator Lindsey Graham supported the Republican plan, while Paul and Cruz were the only two GOP lawmakers to oppose it.

JFC:mjlol::snoop:
 
Top