Video Summary
Bill Statistics
The Middle Class Position
How They Voted
Grades
The House receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.
219 Representatives voted for the middle-class position; 215 voted against.
Share This Report Card
On passage of major health care legislation designed to provide coverage for all Americans, to expand the coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs
- Consumers
- Corporate Accountability
- Health Care
- HMOs and insurance companies
- Hospitals
- Medicaid
- Medical research
- Medicare
- Prescription drugs
- Public health
- SCHIP
- Tax Fairness
- Universal health care
10.29.2009 [House]
[-]
Much of the focus of the current congressional session had been on the development of major health care legislation. The legislation had a number of goals. The primary ones were to provide coverage for all Americans, to improve the actual coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs. It was projected that the legislation would cost $1.1 trillion-dollars over 10 years, which supporters said would be paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office had verified this cost, and estimated it would be less than the amount the federal government would otherwise have to pay for health care under then-existing law.
Among the specific provisions of the legislation was a requirement that all medium and large businesses provide health insurance to their employees or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. It also required that all that those who would still not be covered by their employers purchase individual health insurance. Provisions were included for federal subsidies to low- and middle-income families to help them purchase that insurance. The cost of these subsidies was to be paid for through tax increases on those making more than $500,000 annually, as well by as new fees on medical providers.
The bill prohibited insurance companies from dropping or denying coverage based on pre-existing health conditions or the cost of care of those covered. It also significantly expanded Medicaid services. It prohibited any benefits from going to illegal aliens. In addition, it established a new insurance market where policies meeting certain specified minimum standards could be purchased. One of the insurance plans that the bill would make available on this exchange would be operated by the federal government. It came to be called the “public option”. The final version of the bill included language added during the debate that prevented insurance companies from participating in the new insurance market if their policies covered the costs of an abortion.
The bill was very controversial. Supporters argued that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the legislation would guarantee that they get that coverage. They also claimed that the measure would extend coverage to 36 million people, end insurance company practices such as not covering pre-existing conditions, and improve the economy over the long-term by bringing health care costs under control.
Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Many of these opponents claimed that this undue federal intrusion would create committees they called "death panels", which would have unrelated parties making life and death decisions for elderly patients. They also opposed the bill because it did not include any tort reform, which they claimed was needed if future costs were to be controlled.
The creation of the public option plan had become the most controversial element in the legislation. Its proponents argued that, as a government-run insurance plan, it would not have to make a profit and would limit future price increased in insurance. Its opponents claimed that it would be too costly, too much of an intrusion of the federal government into the private sector, and could damage private insurance companies because it could unfairly underprice them.
A number of major organizations supported the bill, including AARP, the American Medical Association and the AFL-CIO. Several conservative groups opposed it. Among them was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which focused its opposition on the provisions that mandated most employers to provide insurance and that established “a public option.”
The legislation passed by a vote of 220-215. Two hundred and nineteen Democrats, including all of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted “aye”. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans and thirty-nine Democrats voted “nay”. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate major health care legislation.
Middle Class Supports. Skyrocketing health care costs have created a vicious and destabilizing trap for middle-class Americans in which employer-sponsored coverage is offered less frequently and private coverage is increasingly unaffordable. Meanwhile, successful public programs that effectively cover children (SCHIP), the poor (Medicaid), and the elderly (Medicare) are unavailable to middle-class adults. Almost 46 million nonelderly Americans lack health insurance, the majority of whom are low- and middle-income, and the rate of the uninsured has grown significantly since 2000. At the same time, the average worker’s health care premium has increased 128% (to $3,515) since 1999. One study has even found that just shy of two thirds of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses even though the vast majority of these bankruptcies involve families who have health insurance. Because employers, too, have had to absorb similar premium increases, employer-sponsored insurance – the type of insurance most middle-class Americans obtain – has declined significantly in each of the last eight years. The economic downturn has exacerbated this situation and experts estimate that each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate results in substantial increases in the number of uninsured Americans. Given the high costs of obtaining insurance in the private, non-group market, which is nearly impossible without steady employment, many Americans have simply given up coverage over the last several years. In short, a perfect storm of increasing health care costs and a down economy has undermined the financial stability and endangered the wellbeing of the middle class and the aspiring middle class.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act would do much to relieve the financial stress placed on these households by high health insurance costs while also extending health coverage to millions of Americans. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured to 18 million, leaving just 4 percent of the population without health coverage. Expanding Medicaid to cover low-income adults is one of the most effective and cost-efficient means of covering more aspiring middle-class Americans. The expansion would enroll about 15 million individuals in Medicaid, providing an important public backstop for low-income families. Indeed, public programs have successfully kept millions of children from becoming uninsured, while the lack of such programs for low-income childless adults has led to increased numbers of the uninsured among this population. Similarly, coverage in the Health Insurance Exchange would reduce health care costs for tens of millions of households: the savings range from more than $9,000 for a low-income household of four which receives payment assistance to $1,260 for a higher-income family making more than $90,000 that does not receive such assistance. Such savings are targeted at the very groups that need the most help. The inclusion of a public option in the Exchange, in which a relatively meager 6 million individuals are expected to enroll, will create competition with the Exchange’s private insurance plans driving costs even lower.
At the same time as it helps reduce health care costs for middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans, the Affordable Health Care for America Act greatly improves health coverage by enacting strict requirements for the type of insurance that is offered. The bill prevents the nightmare scenarios of being denied coverage just because you have become sick or being forced to pay higher premiums because of a preexisting condition (in many policies, being a woman is effectively considered a preexisting condition). Eventually, it will define minimum benefits and cost limits that must be included in all health insurance plans, not just ones offered by the Health Insurance Exchange. And it will ensure that health insurers do not use premiums to pay for administrative costs and profits, instead of medical care. In this way, affordable and adequate health insurance that protects individuals and their families during both normal medical events and extraordinary medical hardship will be available to all aspiring middle-class and middle-class households.
Finally, the Act contains cost-cutting strategies to reduce the impact of health care costs on the budget deficit and additional measures to reorient health care delivery to quality, preventive care and away from costly and unnecessary overtreatment. Eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage, the ill-advised, Bush-era privatization of a chunk of Medicare, and empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare drug prices are effective ways to cut costs without weakening coverage. The tax surcharge on the wealthiest Americans, who benefited most from the economic growth of the 2000s and who are weathering the current economic downturn best, is a sensible method of increasing access to and the affordability of health insurance coverage in a fiscally responsible manner.
“Health care is a consumer crisis with its crippling costs, its unreliability, and lack of access for too many Americans. By creating a more secure, affordable health care system, the House bill goes a long way towards solving the crisis.”
–Jim Guest, President, Consumers Union (November 2, 2009)
“I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans need real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children…I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight [for the Affordable Health Care for America Act] was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.”
–Representative Anh “Joseph” Cao, Republican of Louisiana (November 7, 2009)
“On balance, H.R. 3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act, is consistent with our principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of physician practice and universal access. It will significantly expand health insurance coverage to Americans to empower patient and physician decision making; institute meaningful insurance market reforms; make substantial investments in quality; institute prevention and wellness initiatives; provide incentives to states that adopt certificate of merit and/or early offer liability reforms, and reduce administrative burdens.”
–J. James Rohack, President, American Medical Association (November 5, 2009)
"[The Affordable Health Care for America Act] protects Medicare and ensures that it will be there for today's seniors and for the future generations. The bill makes prescription drugs more affordable for people in Medicare by closing the program's dangerous gap in drug coverage and allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. It adds cost-free preventive services like cancer screenings and cracks down on waste and fraud to protect and strengthen traditional Medicare benefits…For all Americans, especially those age 50 to 64 who often struggle to find affordable insurance, this plan strictly limits how much more insurance companies can charge based on age, and stops insurers from denying coverage based on a person's health history or gender. For those who still cannot find affordable coverage on their own, this bill offers help so they can purchase insurance."
–A. Barry Rand, CEO, AARP (November 7, 2009)
The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a momentous step forward in a complex debate about how best to expand and improve health care coverage in the United States. While the reforms included in the legislation are robust, future versions of the legislation should quicken the pace of implementation – many of the provisions, including the expansion of Medicaid and the opening of the Health Insurance Exchange do not occur for several years – and work to expand access to the Exchange for as many Americans as possible. Similarly, the public option can achieve even greater savings for Americans by pegging its reimbursement rates to Medicare instead of forcing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate rates. This would help the public option compete more effectively with the Exchange’s private plans which, for actuarial reasons, will be able to offer plans with cheaper premiums. As it stands, a relatively meager 6 million Americans are likely to enroll in the public plan.
Ensuring that everyone who wants access to plans in the Health Insurance Exchange has access should be a goal of future versions, rather than imposing strict limits on eligibility. The articulation of a robust minimum benefits plan in the Exchange and close vigilance of the health insurance plans offered outside the Exchange are critical components of the legislation’s success. Without effective implementation, the Affordable Health Care for America Act will not accomplish its twin goals of expanding coverage and increasing affordability, but will also fall short of its lofty objective of cutting health care costs.
A last-minute amendment to the bill regarding health coverage is wrongheaded, retrograde, and without economic justification. The amendment effectively prevents most low-income and middle-class women from obtaining health coverage for abortion, while preserving the ability of the wealthy to get the care they need. The amendment stands in stark contrast to most of the bill, which is designed to expand access to health services to all.




