Topic: START: Russia-U.S. nuclear talks
Russian parliament drafts five amendments to new arms pact
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Boehner: We’re uprooting the whole culture of our Congress
By Lindsey Hilty, Staff Writer3:57 PM Thursday, January 6, 2011
WASHINGTON D.C. — Plans of change, namely to repeal “Obamacare,” were announced during Speaker John Boehner’s first press conference since he was sworn in Wednesday.
It was less than an hour after his entourage of supporters from Ohio left for home, and Boehner, R-West Chester Twp., had already hit the ground running.
Changes in the House, he said, were underway, and one of the first orders of business was reading the Constitution of the United States on the House floor for the first time in history.
“Gone are the days when the Constitution is ignored,” he said.
Boehner highlighted problems in Congress, like pushing bills directly from the speaker’s office to the floor, and said he would have those bills online for three days for review before taking a vote. He also said he would be cutting spending back to where it was in 2008, and would meet this commitment in this calendar year.
“In fact, we’re uprooting the whole culture of our Congress,” he said. “...In short, we believe to fix our economy, we need to fix our Congress. We’re going to make tough choices instead of avoiding them.”
He handed out a 19-page report titled, “Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law.” He said “Obamacare” already is destroying jobs in America and “will ruin the best healthcare system in the world. It will bankrupt our economy.”
“The American people have said there’s too much spending. I would hope our friends at the Senate and at the White House have heard the message.”
His speech was followed by a brief statement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va. before taking just a handful of questions.
The nearly 50 members of the press grilled Boehner on his plans, and after defending his stance, he cut off further questions and briskly left the room.
Russian parliament drafts five amendments to new arms pact
Related News
Putin hails Medvedev over New START treaty- Russia's upper house may ratify New START treaty on Jan. 26
- New START: The U.S.-Russian reset gets a booster shot?
- Russian lawmakers split over New START ratification
- Russia's State Duma approves first reading of new joint U.S. START ratification
Multimedia
- START I treaty: Basic facts
- Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)
- Russia and U.S. must ratify the new START treaty simultaneously - Medvedev
The lower house of the Russian parliament has prepared five amendments and two draft
statements on a new strategic arms reduction treaty with the United States, a senior lawmaker said on Thursday.
Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the State Duma International Affairs Committee, said the amendments set conditions for the treaty's ratification, specify the prerogatives of Russia's executive and legislative branches of government and spell out conditions that could compel Russia to withdraw from the treaty.
He did not elaborate.
The amendments also provide for further negotiations on other types of weapons.
They will be submitted for the second reading of the bill, which could take place in mid-January, he said.
The United States Senate ratified the new arms deal with Russia on December 22. The agreement will come into force after ratification by both houses of the Russian parliament.
The Duma approved the agreement in its first reading on December 24.
The new treaty replacing the START 1 that expired in December 2009 was signed in Prague in April by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama.
The document slashes the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.
MOSCOW, January 6 (RIA Novosti)
Taliban Singles Out Sen. Lindsey Graham Over Comment on U.S. Bases in Afghanistan
Published January 06, 2011
| FoxNews.com
AP
FILE: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
A U.S. senator who suggested placing permanent bases in Afghanistan has caught the eye of the Taliban, which issued a statement this week saying South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham has proven the U.S. is trying to colonize the Near East nation.
"The Taliban Voice of Jihad Online" is described by the U.S. intelligence community's Open Source Center as an anti-Western, anti-Afghan organization representing the interests of Taliban leader Mullah Omar under the umbrella The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
In a statement issued Tuesday demonstrating its increasing sophistication, the group responded to comments made by Graham during an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Graham said putting U.S. air bases in Afghanistan -- on Afghan request -- would be "enormously beneficial to the region."
"We have had air bases all over the world. A couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity. It would be a signal to Pakistan, the Taliban are never going to come back in Afghanistan that it could change their behavior," he said. "It would be a signal to the whole region that Afghanistan is going to be a new and different place."
In a strongly worded, propaganda-style statement in which it called out Graham by name, the Taliban group responded that the senator's remarks "reveal the colonialist intentions of America" under the guise of a War on Terror.
"Such remarks by a well-known official of invading America clearly shows that the war on terrorism has been a drama, produced by Washington," the Voice of Jihad said of Graham's comments.
The Taliban Voice of Jihad Online also claimed the U.S. wants to "loot" the nation of its raw materials in order to capitalize on the shift in industrial development from Western nations to Asia and called attacks on Afghan civilian sites like markets and mosques "conspiracies by the invading America."
"They only carry out raids on people's homes like thieves during the night and martyr innocent Afghans," the statement says in a plea for cash and moral support from sympathizers.
The U.S. military and NATO allies "have lost the ability to confront the mujahedeen in broad daylight," it added.
Graham, who recently visited the country, responded that the terror group is grasping at straws as the Afghan people realize they are better off than under "Taliban domination" and can work with the U.S.
"The overwhelming majority of Afghans have no desire to return to Taliban control. Taliban control represented one of the darkest periods in Afghan history," Graham told Fox News. "It is my desire to have an enduring relationship with the Afghan people that would be mutually beneficial to both countries."
House Oversight Committee Heads To YouTube
Thursday, January 6, 2011
By Doug Caverly
When watchdog groups and oversight committees are formed, the semi-paranoid question "who watches the watchers?" sometimes comes up. Now, with respect to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the answer can be anybody (or everybody) with access to YouTube.
A post on the YouTube Blog announced, "Just after Representative John Boehner was sworn in as the 61st Speaker of the House earlier today, he and new House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa made an early move to make the activities of the House of Representatives more accessible to citizens via YouTube. Starting in this 112th Congress, all committee hearings of the House Oversight committee will be available on YouTube, on a new channel called HouseResourceOrg."
A post on the YouTube Blog announced, "Just after Representative John Boehner was sworn in as the 61st Speaker of the House earlier today, he and new House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa made an early move to make the activities of the House of Representatives more accessible to citizens via YouTube. Starting in this 112th Congress, all committee hearings of the House Oversight committee will be available on YouTube, on a new channel called HouseResourceOrg."
We'll grant that not a lot of people are likely to watch the channel. Politicians aren't half as interesting as most of the other subjects of YouTube clips, and hearing about government waste is bound to be depressing. But this isn't in any sense a minor development.
The YouTube Blog post explained, "This is the first congressional committee to ever put all of its hearings online, and the new Speaker hopes it's the first step towards getting all House committee hearings available to all citizens on the web.
Meanwhile, transcripts and archived videos of old House Oversight committee meetings will be uploaded if anyone's interested in older discussions.
The YouTube Blog post explained, "This is the first congressional committee to ever put all of its hearings online, and the new Speaker hopes it's the first step towards getting all House committee hearings available to all citizens on the web.
Meanwhile, transcripts and archived videos of old House Oversight committee meetings will be uploaded if anyone's interested in older discussions.
Senator Menendez Advocates for Immediate Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment
Senator Robert Menendez attends a press conference with Rep. Carolyn Maloney to advocate for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment
Gillibrand wants more ‘Mr. Smith,’ less rules abuse
Posted on
After being sworn in to her first elective term in the U.S. Senate — albeit just a two-year stint — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand laid out her priorities for the months ahead in a conference call. She began by listing her accomplishments since taking office less than two years ago — from her work on the elimination of drop-side cribs and the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the last-minute passage of the Zadroga Health Care bill — before turning to the work ahead.
In brief: rules reform now, jobs jobs jobs in the weeks and months ahead. “We’re only getting started,” she said, noting that the high unemployment rate among returning vets as a special area of interest.
“Washington is broken, and partisan gridlock is obstructing the progress on these and other issues,” Gillibrand said.
She went on to detail three main areas of reform:
Filibuster reform: “We have to change the way the filibuster can be used,” she said, noting that while past years included two or three filibusters a year; in the last Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid had to file cloture to end filibusters 84 times — more than the 1950s and ’60s combined, she said.
“Today, the filibuster has been transformed into a political weapon often used for purely political aims to paralyze the federal government, to shut down business,” she said (deftly despite what sounds like a mighty nasty cold).
Gillibrand wants to see the return of the filibuster more familiar from “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (see below), where you actually have to be on the floor yammering away if you want to hold up a bill. “It doesn’t work that way any more — but it should,” she said.
Gillibrand is aware of the concerns of many senior members of the Democratic conference — those who have served in minorities before — but asserted that the rules changes she’s backing are ones she’d be satisfied to live under if the parties flipped.
Ending anonymous holds whereby a single senator can block a bill without putting his name on the blockage. “They don’t tell their states, they don’t tell their colleagues,” she said of the “nameless obstructionists.”
Earmark database: Gillibrand has been pushing for a searchable national database of “every earmark, every federal investment that every lawmaker requests.” Gillibrand and GOP Sen. Tom Coburn have framed a bill to create such a database.
Gillibrand noted that she posts her earmarks as well as her meeting schedule online.
Ending automatic Congressional pay raises: “This is just a question of fairness,” she said. “Hard-working middle-class New Yorkers are never guaranteed an annual pay raise, and neither should their leaders in Congress.” She said over the past two decades, Congress raised its own pay 15 times, for a cumulative boost of $75,600.
Ending automatic Congressional pay raises: “This is just a question of fairness,” she said. “Hard-working middle-class New Yorkers are never guaranteed an annual pay raise, and neither should their leaders in Congress.” She said over the past two decades, Congress raised its own pay 15 times, for a cumulative boost of $75,600.
Asked for her reaction to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State, Gillibrand called it “extraordinarily strong.”
Here’s her news release, zapped out just as the conference call was getting started:
After earning 63 percent of the vote and being sworn in for a new two year term in the United States Senate this week, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today announced a new strategy to promote transparency and accountability in the new Congress. With a mandate from New Yorkers for action to create jobs and foster economic growth, Senator Gillibrand is planning an aggressive legislative agenda to change the way business is done in Washington by reforming the filibuster, bringing new transparency to the earmark process, banning anonymous holds, and ending automatic pay raises for Members of Congress.“This election was not a mandate for any one party, but a mandate for action that creates jobs. All New Yorkers and all Americans want this Congress to get to work right away on real solutions that will create good-paying jobs and get our economy growing,” Senator Gillibrand said. “We can’t afford more of the same partisan fighting that wastes taxpayer time, slows our economic recovery and costs us jobs. It’s time now to get serious about fixing our economy for the long term and getting New Yorkers back to work, and it starts by bringing real transparency and accountability to the legislative process to ensure our government is focused on the people’s business, not partisan politics.”Senator Gillibrand announced the following legislative priorities to start the new Congress:1. Reforming the Filibuster
The filibuster has transformed from a rarely used tool to ensure thoughtful debate to a highly abused political weapon that paralyzes the legislative process. When Lyndon B. Johnson served as Senate Majority Leader, he had to file for cloture to end a filibuster just once in 6 years. In the 111th Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid was forced to file cloture to end a filibuster 84 times. The filibuster was used more in 2009 alone than in the 1950s and 60s combined.To continue our economic recovery and create jobs, we can’t afford any more gridlock and political obstruction. Senator Gillibrand plans to work with her colleagues on filibuster reforms that will require senators who object to specific legislation to come to the Senate floor and explain to their colleagues and the American people why they are choosing to obstruct.2. Earmark Transparency
To ensure greater accountability and effectiveness of the earmark process, Senator Gillibrand will work to pass bipartisan legislation that makes the federal earmark process fully transparent and easy for citizens to access.Senator Gillibrand introduced the Earmark Transparency Act last year with Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) to create an easily searchable online database of all federal earmarks and plans to work this year to pass this legislation.The database would include the following information about each federal funding request:· Amount of initial request made by requestor;· Amount approved by the Committee of jurisdiction;· Amount approved in final legislation (if approved);· Type of organization receiving the request (public, private non-profit, or private for-profit entity);· Project name, description and estimated completion date;· Justification explaining how Congressionally directed spending item would benefit taxpayers;· Description, if applicable, of all non-federal sources of funding for the Congressionally directed spending item;· Requests and supplemental documents submitted to a committee of Congress.The database would include information on all bills that pass either chamber beginning the day the bill is signed into law.Senator Gillibrand was the first Member of Congress to post her own earmark requests on her website, along with her official daily meetings and her personal financial disclosure report. Senator Gillibrand’s Sunlight Report is available here .3. Ending Anonymous Holds
Anonymous holds kept hundreds of pieces of legislation from moving forward last Congress, bringing the legislative process to a halt with no way to hold obstructionists accountable. With 67 of her colleagues, Senator Gillibrand last year wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), calling to end the practice of Senators putting anonymous holds on legislation. Senator Gillibrand is again calling on Senate leaders to ban anonymous holds for good to help ensure the Senate can move forward without political obstructionism.4. Ending Automatic Congressional Pay Raises
From 1991 to 2009, the Senate raised its own pay 13 times, raising its annual salary by more than $70,000, according to the Congressional Research Service. Senator Gillibrand has always opposed Congressional pay raises. She has cosponsored legislation to permanently end the automatic pay raise for Members of Congress and will again work to pass this legislation in the new Congress.
When It Comes to the Penny, Washington Makes No Sense
It costs more to make pennies than they're worth, so why bother?
By David Morris
Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
December 29, 2010
If you ran a business that sells a product for less than it costs to make, you’d soon be broke.
So why is the U.S. government still in the business of making pennies? Each one of those tiny tributes to Abraham Lincoln costs 1.62 cents to manufacture. In other words, if you had the proper equipment to melt pennies, the raw materials would bring a 62% return on your investment, minus costs -- and ignoring the pesky little fact that melting legal tender is illegal.
The nickel is in the same boat. According to the U.S. Mint, it cost Uncle Sam 5.79¢ to make each 5¢ piece in 2009. Dimes, quarters and dollars are much better bargains, costing much less to produce than their face value.
The cost fluctuates from year to year, based on the price of the metals used in each coin. The costs of producing pennies (2.5% copper, 97.5% zinc) and nickels (75% copper, 25% nickel) have exceeded face value since 2006. The worst year so far was 2007, when a penny cost 1.67¢ to produce and a nickel cost nearly a dime -- a whopping 9.5¢.
So with all the talk about the deficit and efforts to cut government costs, wouldn’t it seem logical to phase out the coins at the low end of the face-value spectrum? Or at least change their composition to more affordable metallic mixtures? Logical to you and me, perhaps, but not to most members of Congress. Occasional efforts to do away with the penny are about as popular as suggestions that lawmakers take a pay cut.
In July, the director of the Mint added his two cents to the coin cost debate, urging lawmakers to designate the task of deciding the metal mixes in coins to the Treasury secretary. Congress, defying the woe-is-us forecasts of election year gridlock, moved quickly to send a message to the Mint’s main man -- not so fast, Buster.
The Coin Modernization, Oversight and Continuity Act was introduced Sept. 22 by Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., and was approved by the House just one week later. The Senate added its approval at the end of November, and President Obama signed the bill Dec. 14.
The law requires biennial reports to Congress by the Treasury secretary about the cost of producing and circulating coins. It also allows the Treasury boss to recommend changes in metal content or in the amount of coins produced. But the measure makes clear that only Congress can make such fateful decisions.
Anyone old enough to qualify for AARP membership remembers when a penny could actually buy something. Indeed, the best value of my childhood was two Red Hot Dollars -- a gummy candy -- for a penny. But that was many years and lots of dental procedures ago. (My nickel packs of baseball cards, which contained countless Mickey Mantles, would have been an even better value. Those cards of the New York Yankees slugger would be worth thousands today if Mom hadn’t tossed them when I “grew up,” but that’s another story.)
Speaking of long ago, when was the last time you saw a vending machine that accepted pennies? If there’s one out there somewhere, it should be packed up and shipped to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.
Do people even pick up a stray penny anymore? Why bother if you’re just going to toss it aside when you get home?
In a recent report, we forecast the declining use of cash over the next decade. Congress can get out in front of this parade by abolishing the penny. It has outlived its usefulness as anything other than a collector’s item or something to help fill empty jars.
Sure, losing those Abes -- doesn’t have quite the same ring as Benjamins, does it? -- would take some getting used to. It would cost you a bit more to make a wish at a fountain, but what doesn’t cost more these days?
We’d have to inflate some common sayings, too, but that shouldn’t be too difficult.
A nickel for your thoughts?
The Hopper: First in Line
By Stacey Skotzko
The 112th Congress brings a new House majority, new faces and … new bill numbers.
Though it would be easy to assume that there would be a rush to nab a coveted bill number — HR 1 or S 1 — the process isn’t that simple.
And, at this point, no specific texts of bills hold these first slots, despite the fact that 225 pieces of legislation were introduced on Congress’s first day.
Via the rules resolution adopted by the House, the majority and minority parties reserved certain bill numbers.
In this Congress, the first 10 numbers (HR 1 through HR 10) are reserved for use by the Republicans, and the second 10 (HR 11 through HR 20) are for use by the Democrats.
Parties traditionally use the top bill numbers for a specific emphasis — for example, in the 111th Congress, HR 1 was used for the economic stimulus legislation.
In the 112th Congress, the bill titled the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” is probably the hottest piece of legislation — it nabbed HR 2 as its number.
At this time, there are no other bills designated with the first 20 bill numbers in the House.
HR 21, which would repeal the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, is the next bill in line. (In total, 210 bills and resolutions were introduced on Wednesday in the House.)
The Senate has a similar process, in that the first 10 bill assignments are, via an informal agreement, reserved for the majority party, and the next 10 for the minority.
The 112th Congress, though, has one variation — according to an unanimous consent agreement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the first day for bills and joint resolutions in the chamber will be Tuesday, Jan. 25. But resolutions were introduced and agreed to during Wednesday’s session.
Looking beyond bills, here are the resolutions that nabbed number one seats:
S Con Res 1 is a concurrent resolution providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the chambers. It was swiftly introduced and then agreed to in both chambers on Wednesday.
H Res 1 and S Res 1 are routine resolutions. H Res 1 would elect officers to the House, whereas S Res 1 would inform the president that a quorum of each chamber was assembled. Both were agreed to on Wednesday.
H J Res 1 and H J Res 2 hold more interest — both are joint resolutions from Rep. Robert W. Goodlattte (R-Va.) that would propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which is a noteworthy topic for Republicans in the 112th.
Stacey Skotzko covers legislation for Congress.org.
Reid: Senate Democrats Remain Laser-Focused on the Middle Class
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today emphasized the stark contrast between Democrats and Republicans' legislative approaches to the 112th Congress. "I do get concerned when I hear my Republican colleagues say they want to focus on running about the deficit while taking things away from the middle class," said Reid. "Were focused, as Democrats, in creating jobs by investing in education so our kids can compete in this new international economy we have. And we want to move off oil which is approaching $100 a barrel."
HealthCare Reform Stories
Guest Opinion
Blame insurers for big rate hikes, writer answers column by Brian Bresnahan
In the last nine months, thousands of Nebraskans have already benefited from the Affordable Care Act.
More children can stay on the family’s health insurance; Medicare recipients pay less for prescriptions; and small businesses are receiving tax credits worth up to 35 percent of their costs for providing insurance to employees.
Some insurance companies are blaming the Affordable Care Act for big rate increases, when the increases are largely padding their own profit margins. Those same insurers have been increasing premiums at exorbitant rates for years unchecked — long before the new law passed. Now they are pulling a fast one on people like Brian Bresnahan, whose Dec. 29, 2010 column (in the York News-Times) blamed the wrong people for his health insurance increases.
Even Governor Heineman’s director of insurance, Bruce Ramge, said in a Nov. 14, 2010 Omaha World-Herald story the law isn’t the main reason premiums are rising.
Fortunately, new transparency regulations will show Nebraskans how much every insurance company is spending on medical care and how much they keep for administrative costs and profits. Rather than simply taking the insurance company’s word on why rates are increasing, Nebraskans can judge for ourselves — and we have the Affordable Care Act to thank for that.
And starting in 2014, middle class Nebraskans who have been unable to afford adequate health coverage will receive tax credits to cover a portion of the premium for decent coverage.
More children can stay on the family’s health insurance; Medicare recipients pay less for prescriptions; and small businesses are receiving tax credits worth up to 35 percent of their costs for providing insurance to employees.
Some insurance companies are blaming the Affordable Care Act for big rate increases, when the increases are largely padding their own profit margins. Those same insurers have been increasing premiums at exorbitant rates for years unchecked — long before the new law passed. Now they are pulling a fast one on people like Brian Bresnahan, whose Dec. 29, 2010 column (in the York News-Times) blamed the wrong people for his health insurance increases.
Even Governor Heineman’s director of insurance, Bruce Ramge, said in a Nov. 14, 2010 Omaha World-Herald story the law isn’t the main reason premiums are rising.
Fortunately, new transparency regulations will show Nebraskans how much every insurance company is spending on medical care and how much they keep for administrative costs and profits. Rather than simply taking the insurance company’s word on why rates are increasing, Nebraskans can judge for ourselves — and we have the Affordable Care Act to thank for that.
And starting in 2014, middle class Nebraskans who have been unable to afford adequate health coverage will receive tax credits to cover a portion of the premium for decent coverage.
Those attacking health reform should ask themselves whether they really want to repeal provisions that help thousands of Nebraskans secure decent health coverage and raise their taxes by eliminating health insurance tax credits.
Chuck Hassebrook
Center for Rural Affairs
chuckh@cfra.org
Chuck Hassebrook
Center for Rural Affairs
chuckh@cfra.org
3.4 million Californians would get coverage through federal reform
Posted By Dan On January 5, 2011 @ 11:00 pm In California Health Report |
By Daniel Weintraub
About 3.4 million Californians who would otherwise be without health insurance will have coverage by 2016 if the federal health reform approved last year is implemented on schedule, according to new research published in the journal Health Affairs.
The boost in coverage would mean that 96 percent of Californians under age 65 who are legal residents in the U.S. would have some form of private or public health insurance, according to the article, by Peter Long, president and chief executive officer of the Blue Shield of California Foundation, and Jonathan Gruber, a health economics expert and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
That would cut the rate of uninsured in the state by more than 50 percent.
The change is expected to mean a major expansion of Medi-Cal, the state’s program for the poor, with 1.7 million additional people enrolling in the program, most of them paid for by the federal government. Another 4 million people are expected to get coverage through a new health exchange that the state will manage as a clearinghouse for private insurance companies offering standardized plans to individuals who can’t get coverage elsewhere.
Another big change anticipated by the authors: employers, especially small employers, will cover fewer people. The paper estimates that about 870,000 fewer people would have their coverage through an employer after the plan is fully implemented. This is the net result of several different factors, including about 1.5 million employees losing their coverage once their employers see that their workers would get a better deal using subsidies to buy insurance through the state-run exchange, while about 900,000 people who had previously turned down coverage from their workplace would now accept it, because of a federal mandate requiring nearly everyone to have insurance.
The authors’ model estimates that about 330,000 Californians who had insurance at the time the law was implemented would lose it, mostly because their employers stopped offering coverage and the individuals could not afford to buy it on their own, even with subsidies from the federal government.
Of those who remain uninsured in 2016, the largest group, about 40 percent, would be undocumented immigrants, who are not eligible for the subsidies under the new law.
Of the rest, about 60 percent would not be subject to the mandate requiring individuals to have coverage, because the costs would exceed 8 percent of their income or their income would be below the threshold triggering a penalty for failure to buy coverage.
Looking at the roll-out of the plan from a regional perspective, Long and Gruber estimated that Los Angeles County would account for about half of the reduction in the number of uninsured in the state. San Diego would see the largest decline in the percentage of its residents without insurance, and would be the only area of the state to see an increase in employer-sponsored coverage.
The authors estimate that the plan would have a $12.6 billion positive impact on California households. This includes $4.8 billion in higher wages that employers would pay instead of health premiums, $4.4 billion in subsidies to people buying coverage through the exchange, and a $3.4 billion increase in state and federal spending on public programs for the poor.
That benefit would be targeted most at low-income households, and in fact, people with very high incomes would see an increase in their costs, according to the paper.
Families with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level would see a benefit averaging about $1,086, thanks to paying lower taxes as part of the law. People with incomes between 133 percent and 199 percent of the federal poverty level would see a gain of about $2,000 per year.
Most middle-income families would see little change in their costs due to the plan. Only families with incomes of 10 times the federal poverty level, or about $220,000 for a family of four, would experience an increase in costs, losing about $3,000 a year because of the higher Medicare payroll tax.
The authors note that $3,000 for a family earning 15 times the poverty level would amount to less than 1 percent of their income, while the $1,086 benefit for a family of four at the poverty level would represent an increase of 5 percent of their annual income.
Note: Access to the full article is restricted on the Health Affairs web site. A link will be provided today through the Blue Shield of California Foundation web site here. [1]
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)