WASHINGTON – Moving toward the final stage of a historic debate, the Senate’s top Democrat prepared to unveil a new health care bill that aims to meet President Barack Obama’s goal of expanding coverage without adding to the federal deficit.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada met Wednesday morning at the Capitol with Vice President Joe Biden to go over the game plan on health care. Crucial to the White House and Reid is winning over a handful of reluctant moderate Democrats.

Reid planned to present the bill to Democratic senators at a closed-door meeting late Wednesday afternoon. His goal was to deliver a formal cost and coverage estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, and put the legislation on track toward a floor debate within days.

Health care allies around Washington were alerted that Reid and top Senate Democrats planned to hold a Capitol Hill rally for the bill at noon Thursday.

The Democratic leader has spent weeks melding separate bills from the Senate health committee and the Finance panel, trying to find compromise on dozens of difficult issues. His roughly $900 billion, 10-year health care remake faces rough going in the Senate, with Republican leaders determined to use every available tactic to delay or derail the bill.

For his part, Reid must hold Democrats together to overcome procedural challenges on the floor that require 60 votes for him to prevail. The debate could drag on for weeks. Reid’s bill would gradually extend health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. Starting in 2013, it would ban insurance company practices such as charging more to those in poor health, or denying them coverage altogether.

All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own. The Medicaid health insurance program for low-income people would be significantly expanded.

The bill would set up new insurance marketplaces – calledexchanges – primarily for those who now have a hard time getting or keeping coverage. Most people buying coverage through the exchanges would get tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums. They would be able to pick private coverage or a new government health insurance plan.

However, the government plan may not be available all across the country. Reid would allow individual states to opt out.

To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don’t take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, Reid’s bill would create a federal fund to help provide affordable coverage for people with medical problems turned down by private insurers in the meantime.

The majority of Americans who now have employer-provided health insurance would not see major changes. Among the exceptions to that rule: Children would be allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until their mid-20s.

RALEIGH, N.C.  – A former state senator said Tuesday he won’t seek the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr next year despite spending months traveling the state and testing out a campaign.

Cal Cunningham, a Lexington attorney and Army reservist who served in Iraq, confirmed he wrote a Facebook message to supporters saying he had “concluded that this is the wrong race at the wrong time for me and my family.”

Cunningham, 36, had been exploring a bid since the spring, making the rounds of Democratic Party rallies and dinners. Time away from home appears to have played a role in his decision.

“I also owe it to my family – before committing us to a hard year – to be a husband and father first,” Cunningham wrote. “Here on the eve of Veterans Day, I am reminded of the over 900 days our family has been separated because of active military service in the last few years. Today, I choose to be home.”

At least three Democrats already have said they’re seeking the nomination, including North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. Another potential Democratic candidate – U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge of Lillington – has been expected to announce a decision for weeks.

Etheridge, a seventh-term congressman who this year joined the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was expected to unveil his decision last weekend. But he delayed it because he couldn’t get home as the House voted on the health care bill, according to Jason Sulham, an Etheridge spokesman.

“He now expects to make a decision by the end of this week,” Sulham wrote.

Cunningham was elected to the state Senate in 2000 but didn’t run two years later because changing legislative boundaries had made his district too Republican for him to win. Kenneth Lewis of Durham and Frank Deaton II of Charlotte also have filed federal campaign documents indicating they’ll run in May’s Democratic primary. Marshall ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate nomination in 2002.

Several other Democrats – Attorney General Roy Cooper and Rep. Heath Shuler among them – considered the race but ultimately declined.

Burr, a former congressman who defeated Democrat Erskine Bowles in 2004 for his current seat, had nearly $3.5 million in his campaign coffers as of Sept. 30.

Lewis reported his campaign had $184,000 on the same date, while Marshall, who announced her bid Sept. 9, reported $164,000, according to federal election filings. Deaton didn’t organize his campaign officially until early October.

WASHINGTON  – Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake – a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

The bill by Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, would make major changes to the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine, and language prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems.

“This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long,” Baucus said.

“The Finance Committee has carefully worked through the details of health care reform to ensure this package works for patients, for health care providers and for our economy.”

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients’ yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama’s aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan – or option – to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member-owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

In other ways though, including its overall cost and payment mechanisms, the bill tracks closely with the priorities Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last week. Baucus is still holding out hope for GOP support when his committee actually votes on the bill, probably as early as next week.

The measure represents the most moderate health care proposal in Congress so far, compared to legislation approved by three committees in the House and the Senate’s health panel. Obama’s top domestic priority is to revamp the health care system to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and to rein in rising costs.

The bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges – reflecting the White House’s newly stringent stance on the issue after a Republican House member interrupted Obama’s speech last week to accuse him of lying about it.

The bill also would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It’s all but certain that the Baucus provisions will not be the last word on either of those volatile issues.

The bill would set up a verification system to make sure people buying insurance in the exchanges are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, using Social Security data and Homeland Security Department files. The bill would impose penalties for fraud and identity theft.

While only legal residents would be able to buy coverage through the exchanges, illegal immigrant parents would be able to get insurance for their U.S. born children.

The bill would prohibit abortion from being included in any minimum benefits package. However, plans in the exchange could offer unrestricted coverage for abortions, provided that no funds from government subsidies are used to pay for them. Women who want coverage for abortions would have to pay for it with their own money.

Wednesday’s bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the “Gang of Six” – Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Enzi said he couldn’t support the Baucus bill and preferred an incremental approach. “Let’s start by focusing on the issues where we already have broad, bipartisan agreement,” he said.

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn’t ready to commit her support Tuesday night. “Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement,” she said.

The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders.

“This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy.”

Many liberals also have concerns. Some wanted Baucus to include a public option, while others fear that, in his effort to hold down the price of his bill, Baucus didn’t do enough to make health coverage affordable to working-class Americans. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a member of the Finance Committee, said Tuesday that he couldn’t support the bill in its current form.

Baucus’ plan, released as a detailed 223-page summary, aims to make health insurance more affordable for self-employed people and those working for small companies, who now have the biggest problems in getting and keeping coverage.

People insured through large employers would not see major changes, but some of their health care benefits would be nicked to help pay for the cost of the plan. The Baucus proposal would limit to $2,000 a year the amount people can contribute to flexible spending accounts, which are used to cover copayments and deductibles not paid by their employers. That provision would raise $16.5 billion over 10 years.

Everyone covered through an employer would learn the full costs of their health benefits, which starting next year would be reported on employees’ W-2 tax forms. Although family coverage averages about $13,000 a year most workers don’t know how much their employer is paying.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can’t afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

The plan proposes a $6 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which would recoup some of the profits the companies expect to make from millions of new taxpayer-subsidized customers.

Unlike the health care bill written by majority Democrats in the House, which permanently rolls back scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, the Baucus plan only suspends the reductions for one year. That trims more than $100 billion from the cost of the bill, but has already led to criticism from the American Medical Association.

The legislation makes no changes in medical malpractice laws. It does incorporate Obama’s call for federal funds for state experiments on alternatives to malpractice lawsuits. Democratic leaders are aiming for votes in the full House and Senate this fall.

BOSTON  – Attorney General Martha Coakley announced Thursday she will run as a Democratic candidate in the special election to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

The 20-year prosecutor said she can continue to be “an effective voice for the people of Massachusetts.”

Kennedy died last week of brain cancer at age 77.

Coakley said at a news conference the state has had a “crisis of confidence” following Kennedy’s death and she wants to pick up his mantle.

“We’ve depended on him here in the Commonwealth and in Washington, and we will miss his strength and leadership and his sense of humor. As some have noted, no one can fill his shoes, but we must strive to follow in his footsteps,” she told supporters at a downtown Boston hotel.

Coakley sidestepped a question from reporters whether she favored the changing state law to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator, as Kennedy had requested in a letter before his death. Legislators hold a hearing on the matter next week.

“For me, personally, I am fully focused on the race,” she said, adding she trusted legislators “will make the right decision.”

The 56-year-old Coakley becomes the most prominent candidate to officially declare. Several others are waiting for Kennedy’s nephew, former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, to decide if he will run.

Coakley said in response to a question she decided to commit to the race without waiting to see if a Kennedy family member would run because of the senator’s had declared, in his letter seeking an interim appointment, the state needs strong and effective representation in Washington.

In a follow-up interview with The Associated Press, she said:
- Growing up in the Vietnam era has made her wary of President Barack Obama getting dragged into a protracted military engagement in Afghanistan, but “I trust him for now.”

- She has focused on health care cost containment as attorney general, since Massachusetts has the nation’s first universal health insurance law, and is in favor of it being included any overhaul law the president signs. She also said a so-called “public option” for providing government-sponsored insurance should be considered.

- She dismissed as “frivolous” a Massachusetts Republican Party complaint that she used $24,000 in state campaign money to pay Washington-based consultants as she considered a federal campaign. She said all her actions have been in compliance with state and federal ethics laws.

Coakley told her supporters she decided to run “because government should work well and it has to work for everyone,” adding that the performance of government “has been in some ways disheartening and discouraging.”

“I believe now is the time to move beyond the idea of, well, `It’s good enough for government work,’ and demand a new standard of excellence. And I know that I need to prove to voters across the commonwealth that I am the best candidate and that I would be the best new senator from Massachusetts,” Coakley said.

Coakley described her humble roots in western Massachusetts and her career as a prosecutor, both as Middlesex District Attorney in a large district that includes populous suburbs of Boston, and since, 2007, as the state’s attorney general.

“Now, with your help, I hope to bring my experience to Washington,” she said.

She did not overtly highlight her status as the state’s top female elected official.

Other potential Democratic candidates include U.S. Reps. Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch. Potential Republican candidates include former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and state Sen. Scott Brown.

Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is considering an independent campaign.

Coakley said his candidacy “would be fascinating” and she supports anyone entering the race.

RALEIGH, N.C.  – A vote by the North Carolina Senate on whether attorneys could offer a statistical argument showing that racial prejudice put a killer on death row has been postponed.

Bill sponsor Sen. Floyd McKissick of Durham County rescheduled the vote on what supporters call the Racial Justice Act from Tuesday to Wednesday as he tried to round up votes

The measure would allow judges to consider whether statistical data show race was behind the decision of prosecutors to seek, or jurors to impose, the death penalty.

In May, the Senate approved a version that would help remove obstacles that have effectively blocked executions for two years. That provision was removed by the House.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to send Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination on to the full Senate.

Republicans came to Judge Sotomayor, impressed by her qualifications and experience, but extremely skeptical of whether she’ll be fair on the bench.

The Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 6 with every Republican except South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham against her.

Graham said his vote is based on her record, not her personal views.

“I can no more understand her heart than she can understand mine,” said   Graham.

The remaining Republicans said they have deep concerns.

“Speeches and articles describe a troubling record that hearing testimony did not resolve, said Utah’s Orrin Hatch.

“I’m not convinced she can set aside personal biases and decide cases based on the constitution,” said Iowa’s Charles Grassley.

“I am not able to confirm this nomination,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Sotomayor brings nearly 30 years experience in law.

That’s more than the last three nominees.

But it’s her controversial statements off the bench, saying judges make law or that a wise Latino could reach a better decision than a white man, that put her on the defensive.

Sotomayor’s supporters insist she’s clearly qualified.

“In her 17 years on bench, not one example of her ruling based on bias or sympathy,” said democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

“I certainly don’t see any bias of any kind,” said democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

“I’ll vote for her with enormous pride,” said California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

A full Senate vote is expected next week.

RALEIGH, N.C.  – House and Senate Democrats in North Carolina have signed off on a plan that would raise nearly $1 billion in taxes and help them reach an agreement on the state budget very soon.

House Speaker Joe Hackney said Wednesday fellow Democrats in his chamber are ready to support the deal reached with Senate counterparts. Democrats in both chambers held separate caucus meetings to discuss the $982 million plan.

The deal would raise the sales tax rate by a penny, add an extra 2 percent onto income tax bills and increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by 10 cents. Alcohol taxes also would go up.

Hackney said a family making between $30,000 to $60,000 would see their tax bill go up by $66 a year under the deal.

Gov. Beverly Perdue still isn’t satisfied with the state budget and suggested more money is needed for public schools. She said school starts back in about a month and education leaders still don’t know how much money to expect for their classrooms.

Perdue’s written statement didn’t specifically mention a plan hammered out by House and Senate Democrats to raise nearly $1 billion in new taxes. The governor has said she wants more revenue.

Perdue told legislators to “find a way to protect public schools and the core services of safety and public health, period.”

A look at $982M tax plan agreed to by NC Democrats
A glance at the tax package tentatively agreed to Wednesday by North Carolina House and Senate Democrats that would raise $982 million during the 2009-10 fiscal year, with the amount raised by each provision:

- 1 percentage point increase in sales tax, raising rate most consumers pay to 7.75 percent: $803.5 million.
- 2 percent surcharge on individual income tax bills: $197 million.
- 2 percent surcharge on corporate income tax bills: $15.4 million.
- Applying sales tax to digital items purchased online and
transactions involving other Internet sales: $8.4 million.

- Increasing beer excise tax by about 5 cents per six-pack: $12.6 million.
- Increasing liquor excise tax by 5 percent: $20.1 million.
- Increasing wine excise tax by 4 cents per bottle: $2.9 million.
- Raising cigarette tax by 10 cents per pack to 45 cents: $33.3million.
- Increasing excise tax on cigars, smokeless tobacco and other tobacco products by 2.8 percent: $5 million.

The state will lose $116.3 million as it conforms state revenue law to federal law that exempts the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from state taxes during 2009 as well as other changes.

The same plan would generate $1.32 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

RALEIGH, N.C.  – The state Senate has approved a stopgap spending measure for North Carolina state government if budget negotiations with the House don’t wrap up before July 1.

The Senate agreed Tuesday to approve a so-called “continuing resolution” to allow government to keep operating past the end of June without a final budget in place.

The bill now goes to the House for consideration.

It tells Gov. Beverly Perdue to keep spending levels at no more than 85 percent of what was allocated in the past year’s budget because lawmakers are reducing spending due to declining tax collections.

The temporary spending plan is unusual because there is no expiration date. And the Senate rolled out the “resolution” early – a week before the fiscal year ends.

RALEIGH, N.C.  – The North Carolina Senate has narrowly approved changing the public school curriculum to teach adolescents about the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The bill approved 25-21 on Tuesday added details about what seventh-, eighth- and ninth-grade students should be taught about disease infection rates and the effectiveness of FDA-approved contraceptive methods.

The House now must approve or reject Senate changes.

The House has voted that schools teach two separate tracks – one focused on abstinence and the other on comprehensive sex education.

The Senate bill would teach all students about abstinence, then extend the course to cover contraception for students whose parents consent.