Will the Senate follow?
provided by John H. Foard III
A narrow victory for the President in one branch of Congress. The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) passed 220-215 in the House of Representatives on the night of November 7, with 39 Democrats voting no and a lone Republican (Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana) voting yes.1 While President Obama lauded passage of the House version of the bill as “historic” and “courageous”, it is still questionable whether any consensus reform bill will land on the President’s desk by the end of 2009.
A tough fight ahead in another. Right now, the Democratic caucus has the 60 votes needed in the Senate to get past a Republican filibuster. However, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) says he will readily break away and join the Republican filibuster if the Senate version of the bill includes a public option. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says it will.1
“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” in the opinion of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). In early November, Sen. Reid hinted that the Senate may take until 2010 to resolve the debate over the public option.2
What the House approved. H.R. 3692 includes the public option in its effort to revamp and extend health care to more Americans. Under the bill, most Americans would need to have insurance coverage; subsidies would help the poor insure themselves. Medicaid would expand: for example, individuals with incomes of $16,245 or less and a family of four earning $33,075 or less would qualify. About 15 million more Americans would be eligible for Medicaid coverage. Big businesses would have to provide health insurance to their workers; small businesses would get federal subsidies to help them absorb the cost.3
H.R. 3692 would create a new nationwide insurance market with private insurers competing with the federal government (the private insurers would be selling coverage that meets federally required benefit levels).3 Insurance companies have decried the public option, saying there is no way they could compete with Uncle Sam.
A key concession. Before H.R. 3692 was approved in the house, a controversial amendment to the bill was passed 238-194. Introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and other Democrats, the amendment would prohibit the use of federal monies for abortion services if the planned health reforms become law, except in cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger.1
Pro-choice voices are outraged, arguing that the amendment would virtually prohibit private insurance companies entering the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) pointed out to MSNBC that even if someone wants to purchase an insurance policy covering abortion after the proposed reforms, few if any private insurers might offer one. Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, hailed the amendment “the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade.”4,5
Little publicized, but notable. One of the provisions of the just-passed House bill would change the IRS treatment of healthcare benefits for same-sex couples. Essentially, these benefits are treated as taxable income today; if the health care reforms envisioned and approved by the House were to become law, those benefits would be provided to gay and lesbian couples tax-free. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) proposed this change to “correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code, and help make health care coverage more affordable for more Americans.” In another unpublicized wrinkle, anyone who owns or operates 20 or more vending machines would have to provide nutritional labels on said machines, and any chain restaurant with more than 20 locations in America would have to provide menu calorie counts.6
Progress, or a morass? The House bill certainly faced stiff opposition, and many Capitol Hill watchers are wondering if the legislation will make it through the Senate. A consensus version of the bill might not emerge for weeks or months.
John H. Foard III is a Registered Representative with, and securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC.
This was prepared by Peter Montoya Inc., not the named Representative nor Broker/Dealer, and should not be construed as investment advice. Neither the named Representative nor Broker/Dealer gives tax or legal advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. Please consult your Financial Advisor for further information.
Citations.
1 cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/09/health.care/ [11/9/09]
2 msnbc.msn.com/id/33789865/ns/politics-health_care_reform/ [11/9/09]
3 freep.com/article/20091030/NEWS07/910300331/1001/news/House-bill-would-extend-health-care [10/30/09]
4 latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/does-the-house-health-care-bill-outlaw-abortion.html [11/9/09]
5 christiannewswire.com/news/5152212093.html [11/8/09]
6 nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08benefits.html?_r=1&ref=policy&pagewanted=print [11/8/09]
Securities and financial planning services offered through LPL Financial, a Registered Investment Advisor. Member FINRA/SIPC
The LPL Financial Representatives associated with this site may only discuss and/or transact securities business with residents of the following states: NC, SC, MA