Frustrated Democratic senator may vote against budget deal

A frustrated Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenHillicon Valley — Presented by Philip Morris International — Wyden asks NSA to investigate White House cybersecurity | Commerce withdraws Huawei rule after Pentagon objects | Warren calls on Brazil to drop Greenwald charges Wyden vows push to force release of Khashoggi assessment Wyden calls on NSA to examine White House cybersecurity following Bezos hack MORE (D-Ore.) said he is inclined to vote against a budget deal to keep the government operating because it cuts a healthcare reform provision he authored last year.

The deal between President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidHarry Mason ReidTensions between McConnell and Schumer run high as trial gains momentum The Trumpification of the federal courts Trump to rally evangelicals after critical Christianity Today editorial MORE (D-Nev.) and Speaker John BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerA time for war, a time for peace — and always a time to defend America Esper's chief of staff to depart at end of January Soleimani killing deepens distrust between Trump, Democrats MORE (R-Ohio) would ax a Wyden-sponsored provision allowing people to opt out of employer-provided healthcare plans to buy coverage from public-private insurance exchanges. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“I am not going to support this raw special interest power,” he told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “The president has known personally how strongly I feel about this.
 
“Without this provision more than 300,000 people would be in healthcare no-man’s land,” he said.
 
Wyden said he would wait to hear what White House officials and Democratic leaders have to say about the concession before making a final decision on how to vote.
 
Wyden’s provision would give taxpayer subsidies to employees who must pay between 8 percent and 9.9 percent of their income on health-insurance premiums. They could use the subsidy to buy more affordable plans on exchanges set up by the 2010 healthcare law.
 
Employees who pay 9.9 percent or more of their income are covered even without Wyden’s provision.