Conservative objections over spending are raising doubts over whether the U.S. Senate can quickly approve legislation fixing the Medicare physician payment system, in a possible setback for Republicans keen to show they can get things done.
Some Senate conservatives are threatening to insist that the measure be fully paid for, after the House of Representatives passed a version of the “doc fix” bill two weeks ago that would expand the federal deficit.
Senate procedural rules confer more power on individual lawmakers, meaning their objections could result in considerable delay and amendments to the bill even if they are in a minority.
The House bill was a rare show of bipartisan accord, and had been shaping up to be the 2015-2016 Republican-controlled Congress’ first substantial achievement.
As approved by the House, the $214 billion initiative would replace a 1990s formula that linked Medicare doctors’ reimbursements to economic growth with a new one more focused on quality of care.
Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi leaned across the aisle to get it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives on March 26, just before a spring break. Senate leaders said they would take it up quickly after lawmakers return to Washington on Monday.
But Senate conservatives, such as Republican Jeff Sessions, have labeled the House bill irresponsible because it would add an estimated $141 billion to the U.S. debt over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The CBO also said that the bill could produce small net savings in the second decade, compared to freezing doctors’ reimbursement rates where they are now.
But the conservatives also point to an analysis by an outside budget group — the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — that says the bill would add a whopping half-trillion dollars to the deficit over 20 years.
“I’d like to figure out a way to pay for it,” Republican Senator Mike Lee told Reuters on Friday.
Lee is expected to offer an amendment to require Congress to find a way to pay for the “doc fix” by the end of this year.
The conservative group Heritage Action for America, which opposes the bill, is urging senators to strike an exemption from congressional “pay as you go” rules that was written into the House-passed legislation.
Striking the exemption would require Congress to enact enough savings to cover the bill’s cost by the end of 2015.
One of the government’s largest social safety net programs, Medicare is health insurance that serves 54 million elderly and disabled people.
House Speaker John Boehner on Friday urged lawmakers to see the bill as a conservative gain. The measure requires more means-testing of Medicare beneficiaries so that those with higher incomes pay higher premiums.
“This bill represents the first real entitlement reform in nearly two decades, and CBO and other experts have confirmed that it will save taxpayer dollars over the long term,” Boehner said in an emailed statement.
Any significant delay by the Senate would trigger sharp cuts in reimbursements to doctors who participate in the Medicare program for the elderly. The federal government warned Congress last week that it must act before April 15 or thousands of Medicare doctors nationwide will face a 21 percent pay cut under the old reimbursement formula.
However, Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, said on Thursday that the doctors would be paid in full later at the new rate once the bill passes, because as written the measure is retroactive to April 1.
Senate Democrats may also seek to amend the measure. It includes a two-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for low-income children, but Senate Democrats would prefer this to be four years.
Any Senate change in the bill would also send it back to the House, signaling further delay.
(Reporting by Susan Cornwell; additional reporting by Richard Cowan; editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Stuart Grudgings)
Wall Street Journal drops a truth-bomb on Trump over his market-destroying trade war: ‘Everyone loses’
In yet another blast from the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the editors looked back at Friday's stock market free fall and pointed the finger directly at President Donald Trump and his "trade-war general" Peter Navarro for being the main culprits.
After Friday's disastrous stock market session that took a major downturn due to the escalation of the trade war -- with China and Trump ordering billions of dollars in new tariffs -- the Journal pointed out that there will be no winners.
G7 off to a rough start as Trump aides slam host Macron’s agenda
With President Donald Trump at the latest G7 summit, all eyes are on the interactions between him and French President Emmanuel Macron. The two world leaders started off amicably, exchanging pleasantries, but behind the scenes, things have grown contentious.
According to Politico, Trump officials are railing against Macron, accusing him of trying to "fracture" the summit by steering the negotiations away from trade and into areas like climate change.
This development comes after Trump harshly criticized Macron for enacting a tax on digital services, which could increase costs for American tech companies like Google and Facebook. Trump threatened that if France does not suspend its "unfair" digital tax, "we'll be taxing their wine like they've never seen before." It is a threat that Trump has made repeatedly over the last few weeks whenever he has gotten angry at France.
A likely recession could doom Trump
President Donald Trump is worried that there will be a recession before the 2020 election. For once, he is right about something.
This article first appeared in Salon.
"The Economy is strong and good, whereas the rest of the world is not doing so well. Despite this the Fake News Media, together with their Partner, the Democrat Party, are working overtime to convince people that we are in, or will soon be going into, a Recession," Trump tweeted on Friday in a clear attempt to assuage concerns. "They are willing to lose their wealth, or a big part of it, just for the possibility of winning the Election. But it won’t work because I always find a way to win, especially for the people!"