Feinstein Insurance Reform Kicked Out Of Health Care Bill

[laughingliberal]

The Senate parliamentarian told Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday afternoon that her proposal to create a National Insurance Rate Authority runs afoul of reconciliation rules, Feinstein told HuffPost after the conversation.

"I'm crushed it's out," she said. But she added that she would bring it up with him one more time to try to make the case that it would be a legitimate use of reconciliation. "I'm going to make one last effort with the parliamentarian," she said.

It'll be a difficult effort. Reconciliation rules require that legislation must have a direct and substantial effect on the budget to qualify for the majority-vote procedure. Merely an incidental budget effect is not enough. Feinstein's rate authority would save the government money by reducing private insurance premiums, which would then reduce the amount of subsidies needed -- but such an effect is apparently too indirect for the parliamentarian to give it the thumbs-up.

Including the Feinstein's rate authority would be a risky move for Democrats. If Senate Republicans are able to alter the package in any way through parliamentary points of order, then it must go back to the House for yet another vote -- the last thing Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants. If the Senate passes the House version unchanged, it goes directly to the president for his signature.<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/feinstein-insurance-refor_n_503225.html

Worried we'll see more ideas meeting this fate.

[global1]

1. I Thought Biden Can Over-rule The Parlimentarian?......nt

[laughingliberal]

2. I do not know if that's true. Anyone have that?

If true, will be interesting to see if he does. This is a provision the insurance industry would rather not have. May not stop them but I know they'd rather not deal with it.

[robinblue]

8. It was a device for them to find and use loopholes.

[thotzRthingz]

15. The parliamentarian only can advise... it is the vice president who rules -- source:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/01/2215134.aspx

[True_Blue]

3. You mean to tell me that there's nothing in this bill to stop premiums from rising?

Uh Oh! :scared:

[kenny blankenship]

6. Good will? The very best of intentions? Barack Obama's say-so?

A double pinky swear from AHIP not to raise premiums? My GOD! What will it take to satisfy you ?

[slipslidingaway]

4. knr - Vaunted Health Insurance Rate Review Authority Kicked Out of Reconciliation Bill

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/17/vaunted-health-insurance-rate-review-authority-kicked-out-of-reconciliation-bill/

"In a completely obvious maneuver, the Senate parliamentarian has kicked out the Health Insurance Rate Authority from the reconciliation set of fixes. The national rate reviewer would have had the ability to cancel premium increases across the country, in association with state regulators. But it has no primary budgetary impact, so out it goes..."

[Bluebear]

5. "I'm crushed it's out," she said. Hahahaha

[Marr]

7. Of course. The whole point of a cartel is to set prices.

Oh- I mean "Insurance Exchange"...

[laughingliberal]

10. +1 nt

[slipslidingaway]

9. kick - this was touted as a big plus when the President announced this

although some though it would never be in the bill.

Obama’s New Health Insurance Rate Authority: New Policy or Just More Cynical Politics?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7770000&mesg_id=7770000

"...After extensive study of the matter, I find it very likely that this new Health Insurance Rate Authority would be ruled in violation of the Byrd rule.

If Joe Biden is unwilling to play hardball, the Byrd rule can still be waived to protect the new agency by a vote of 60 senators. I doubt any Republican will vote to waive the Byrd rule for this new agency, and suspect even a few Democrats, like Ben Nelson, would also vote against it. As a result, the prospects of this Health Insurance Rate Authority becoming law seems remote. It would likely get stripped from the bill at the last moment. Although it would provide Democrats with an good talking point to attack Republicans who took a standalone vote against this one provision.

Personally, I’m upset about the potentially cynical politics of this move. There are several things that could likely be passed through reconciliation that might hold the insurance companies honest. Things like a public option, Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare buy-in, possibly tougher minimum medical loss ratios, and/or maybe even a national exchange. That fact the Obama’s health care proposal contains none of these potentially Byrd rule-proof ideas to “hold the insurance companies honest,” but instead contains a new agency unlikely to become law, is highly disappointing.

It sounds like a classic Rahm Emanuel idea of a win-win. Republicans are forced to take a difficult vote. Democrats get to pretend they supported something popular, but, in the end, Democrats don’t need to worry about hurting a potential donor because the insurance companies also win when Republicans kill the idea. Of course, in the end, regular people are the big losers because they are forced by the government to buy a poorly regulated product from private insurance companies."

[karynnj]

11. This might be popular enough that it could pass in a later stand alone

bill after the bill/reconciliation is passed and signed into law,

[laughingliberal]

12. Here's the thing about that ruling

It would seem to me the authority to rein in premium prices when the government will be picking up a substantial chunk of the bill through the subsidies does have a direct effect on the budget. I mean if the government is paying a large percentage of people's premiums and the premiums are going up 40% would that not produce a direct and substantial impact on the budget.

[amborin]

13. K&R

[freddie mertz]

14. This is a very bad sign of things to come.

I share your concerns regarding other provisions.