Despite a strong warning from Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, the Baucus health-care plan passed the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday, on a 14-9 vote. Each of the committee’s Democrats, joined by Sen. Olympia Snowe, a "moderate" Republican from Maine, voted in favor of the legislation.

Before the vote, Roberts cautioned his fellow committee members that the “so-called moderate” Baucus plan would become “radically” different once it was voted out of the committee.

Roberts warned that provisions that would have likely caused the Baucus plan to fail in committee, such as a public option, would be added in once it was passed out.

“It will contain all of the policies that many, some…of you who may vote for this bill today, say you oppose,” Roberts said.

Roberts said he believed the Baucus plan would morph into a health-care bill that would include a government-run insurance plan, higher taxes for families and small businesses, as well as “robust tools for the government to ration your health care.”

“We should have placed a big sign at the back of our hearing room that says, ‘Do no harm.’ We should have had it as a flashing light,” Roberts said. “With this ever-changing bill, unfortunately, we have failed that test.”

The Baucus plan will now be reconciled with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions plan, a plan which is much more liberal. The HELP plan was passed in July and includes a public insurance option. Instead of a public option, the Baucus plan offers not-for-profit health insurance providing co-ops.

The plan, championed by Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Mont, does allow for citizens to make choices. However, State Rep. Brenda Landwehr pointed out they are taxed or fined if their choices are not aligned with the government’s plans. Landwehr is chair of the Kansas House Health and Human Services Committee.

“If everything in this plan is so great, then why do you have to penalize someone to get them to follow it?” Landwehr, R-Wichita, said.

Landwehr said she was unsure how the government would make certain that every person follows the mandates, and pointed out the lack of enforcement with existing car insurance mandates.

The Baucus plan would require that every resident be covered by some type of health insurance, and if they refuse to gain coverage, they would face fines and taxes from the government, and could be sentenced for up to a year in jail.

Also, businesses with more than 50 employees would be required to provide some type of health insurance for its employees, or face penalties.

If those with insurance plans that the government has deemed excessive, or have so-called “Cadillac” coverage, decide to maintain their level of insurance, they would be taxed by the government. The Baucus plan has a price tag of about $830 billion over the next 10 years, and would result in steep cuts in Medicare, while leading to an expansion of Medicaid.

A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report estimates the bill would result in an increase in the cost of insurance of $4,000 to families, and $1,500 and up for individuals. The report estimated that premiums would increase because of cost-shifting from Medicare cuts and taxes on health care sectors.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also estimated that the Baucus bill would result in an increase of premium costs for employers and individuals who privately purchase insurance.

The CBO estimated the reform would decrease Medicare funding by hundreds of billions of dollars within the next decade.

Medicare is the government-run insurance program for those 65 and older. Medicaid is a government-run insurance program for the disabled and the poor.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Kansas had 416,167 Medicare beneficiaries in 2008, and 39,191 Kansans enrolled in the Medicare Advantage Plan in 2009.

Landwehr, who also serves as the vice chair of the Joint Committee on Health Policy Oversight, said the Baucus plan would result in the elimination of Kansans’ Medicare Advantage claims as well as a decrease in reimbursement rates in Medicare.

“This will make it harder for seniors to find doctors,” Landwehr told Kansas Liberty.

According to a Heritage Foundation report, the CBO director told the Senate Finance Committee that the Baucus plan’s changes to Medicare Advantage would result in a decrease in seniors’ benefits. Medicare Advantage is an enhanced version of Medicare for seniors, and also is a greater cost to the government.

Seniors being bumped off the Medicare Advantage would then recieve regular Medicare coverage, and thus less benefits.

Landwehr said she couldn’t see anything positive with the Baucus plan, saying it failed to address the true problems of health care in the United States.

“It is disingenuous to say a reform is occurring, because it is not,” Landwehr told Kansas Liberty.

Peter Hancock, spokesperson for the Kansas Health Policy Authority, said the Baucus bill would result in an expansion of Medicaid coverage in Kansas. The bill would increase the eligibility of Medicaid benefits up to 133 percent below the federal poverty level.

Working Kansans with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty level could either receive insurance through their employers, through Medicaid or through private insurance. Those opting for private insurance would receive some type of government subsidy or tax credit.

Like many other states, Kansas currently does not provide Medicaid coverage for childless adults, so the Baucus plan would result in Medicaid being available to these adults.

Hancock estimated that 70,000 Kansans could receive Medicaid coverage through the Baucus bill, and the government would cover 95 percent of the costs.

“As the bill stands now, states would have a large role to play in implementing certain provisions. But the net fiscal impact on the state would probably be small,” Hancock told Kansas Liberty. “It's hard to estimate right now because so much depends on the final language of the bill, and certain policy choices the state will have to make.”

Hancock said the KHPA is continuing to stay “very neutral” on the issue of reform.

While the federal government would cover 95 percent of the costs, the Baucus plan only stipulates that the federal assistance lasts five years. State budgets would then have to substantially increase in size to absorb the additional benefits mandated by the federal government, which Landwehr said would cripple Kansas' economy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that states' budgets would need to grow by $37 billion to cover the additional Medicaid benefits.

"This is an example of the feds dumping their responsibility on us for something they created,” Landwehr said. “This would result in massive tax increases. This is not something we can afford. We are trying to make ends meet as it is."

Local Republican lawmakers and candidates have reacted to the passage of the bill negatively. U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback said he had “serious concerns” with the bill’s passage and said he planned to engage in a lengthy debate once the final reform product gets to the Senate floor.

“This hugely expensive bill will not lower costs and will not cover all uninsured,” Brownback said in a statement. “There is an outcry from my constituents in Kansas against this trillion dollar bill that amounts to a government takeover of health care and will take money from Medicare to do it while leaving 25 million people uninsured.”

Third Congressional District candidate Patricia Lightner said she was concerned with the bill’s focus of passing government mandates, regulation and higher taxes.

“We need representatives in Washington who will stand up for basic core principles, which are limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty,” Lightner, a Republican, said.

Resources

Brownback release on passage of bill
http://brownback.senate.gov/public/press/record.cfm?id=318904

Robert’s statement on Baucus bill
http://roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases

Patricia Lightner for Congress
http://www.patricialightner.com/

Amended version of Baucus plan
http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf

PriceWaterhouseCoopers report
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html

Heritage Foundation report
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2641.cfm

The Week in Review