WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid presented an $849 billion health-care overhaul package on Wednesday that would extend coverage to 31 million Americans and reform insurance practices while adding an array of tax increases, including a rise in payroll taxes for high earners.
Democratic leaders were jubilant that early estimates from congressional budget analysts indicated that the Senate bill would cut federal deficits by $127 billion over the next decade. That projection represents the biggest cost savings of any legislation to come before the House or Senate this year, but the measure's effective date also was pushed back by one year, to 2014.
Savings could prove far more significant in the long run, Democrats said, noting estimates that suggest the Senate bill would cut as much as $650 billion from federal deficits over the second 10 years after becoming law.
Those projected reductions could prove critical in winning the support of three wavering moderate Democrats whose votes Reid, D-Nev., must secure to bring the legislation to the floor before the Senate breaks for Thanksgiving. But Reid also stacked the bill with provisions sought by liberals, including a public insurance option, albeit a version with an opt-out clause for states.
The legislation received a positive response from across the Democratic spectrum. "This is the bill that we've been fighting for," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who pressed Reid to revive the public option. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the budget chairman and a leading Democratic fiscal hawk, said after a briefing on the bill, "I was very impressed by what Senator Reid has done."
The Senate measure is similar in scope to legislation the House approved earlier this month. It would require most people to buy insurance, and if their employers did not offer affordable coverage, they would be able to shop for policies on new state-based "exchanges" that would function as marketplaces for individual coverage. Insurance companies would have to abide by broad new rules that would ban practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
But the bills diverge on other key provisions.
The House version would require all but the smallest businesses to offer insurance, while the Senate measure would merely fine companies for not offering affordable coverage. The Senate bill would bar illegal immigrants from buying insurance through the exchanges, while the House would restrict access only to subsidies and federal programs such as Medicaid, which would be vastly expanded under both bills.
Another potential flash point is abortion coverage. The issue sparked a major battle in the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to agree to an amendment that would bar people who receive federal subsidies for insurance coverage from using that money to purchase policies that pay for abortion.
Reid took a different approach that may or may not pass muster with abortion opponents, proposing to establish a "firewall" that would segregate private premiums from federal funding if abortion coverage were offered in the public insurance plan.
"I couldn't be happier," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an abortion rights advocate who was working to forge a compromise on the issue. "For those who want to keep abortion out of this bill, Senator Reid did it the right way."
Like the House bill, Reid's proposal would be financed through billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, as well as new taxes. But while the House would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families, the Senate would rely primarily on a new tax on high-cost insurance policies that has been unpopular among House members.
To blunt opposition, Reid would impose the 40 percent tax on fewer policies, raising the threshold to $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for family coverage. That change...
Reader comments
Click here to view or add comments on this story
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form