dagblog - Comments for "Republicans' Medicare Blunder"

Nah, that would mean that

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:39:19 +0000

In reply to Genghis, on the point of the

Nah, that would mean that they were fomenting anger against their own policy. They just know that the AARP will never let mess with Medicare.

Genghis, on the point of the

Oxy Mora — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:37:06 +0000

In reply to Republicans' Medicare Blunder

Genghis, on the point of the 55 age dividing line. It seems Republican strategy is to pit worker against worker, age group against age group. Teachers against fire fighters and police. Young against old on Medicare.

Nothing new I suppose, but not working so well this time around.

So blatant that they've given their game away?

Stupidity or hubris?

Whaddaya think?

Maybe they see the more liberal younger demographic on the horizon and they are making a last ditch effort to gain terriitory.

Thanks. Extremely well

Oxy Mora — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:27:41 +0000

In reply to Hi Oxy. There are too many

Thanks. Extremely well reasoned.

Vermont's going to be in the cross hairs. With 500,000 population you'd have to worry about how much integrity the pool would have. Conservatives who screw with this might see this as an opportunity to make sure the Vermont plan fails and if so, there goes single payer idea again.

In any case, Vermont itself is unlikely to see a huge influx of trhe indigent. It has a low housing stock and very cold winters, can't sleep out on the mall benches like they do in Santa Cruz, Ca.

Okey-dokey; thanks, Obey.

we are stardust — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:48:02 +0000

In reply to That HHS waiver is the one

Okey-dokey; thanks, Obey.

That HHS waiver is the one

Obey — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:42:02 +0000

In reply to I forgot to bring the link

That HHS waiver is the one already written into the PPACA bill - which lets states leave the insurance exchange plan in 2017, after already having them run for three years. That's is just designed to sabotage the possibility of any exit. There is no such viable transition from full private coverage to single payer.

Getting an upfront waiver - at inception of the exchanges in 2014 - would require passing the Wyden-Brown bill, which Obama 'supports'. Nice but meaningless.

I forgot to bring the link

we are stardust — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:33:50 +0000

In reply to I had overlooked the fact

I forgot to bring the link here, Oxy; sorry. I left this at Swanson's diary:

"Er…my hair was on fire after reading this, Dave. I calmed down a mite and went a-googling for any recent info on waivers. The Maine one and four other states weren’t applicable; they were all about policies not covering a large enough percentage of health care costs, which in itself might be a boon to the insurance industry, so I dunno on those.

But I finally found this one page that says HHS is proposing a new sort of waiver:

“State Innovation Waivers are designed to allow states to implement policies that differ from those in the PPACA so long as they:

Provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage offered through health insurance exchanges–new competitive, private health insurance marketplaces.
Make coverage at least as affordable as it would have been through the exchanges.

Provide coverage to at least a comparable number of residents as otherwise would have been covered under the PPACA.
Do not increase the federal deficit.”

http://www.cmio.net/index.php?option=com_articles&view=article&id=26705&division=cmio

Now we don’t go to doctors, so I am relatively ignorant on the ACA, and I wouldn’t buy a policy in any event, but is it a possiblility Vermont’s program could get a waiver? Or would they be turned down cuz it’s *too good*, therefore, a bad exapmple. (cynicism inside snark)"

.......................................................................................................................

So it um...peeved Swanson a mite:

David Swanson April 28th, 2011 at 7:14 pm «

Let’s be clear about something.

Obama and his congressional henchmen created or at least radically expanded the need for federal waivers

Obama has now said he would support legislation to let Vermont have such a waiver

The first thing was an action.

The second thing was a statement

Vermont’s right to do this should not have been made subject to the snowball’s chance of Congress legislating it or to the whim of presidents

We should be building a movement to compel Congress to legislate the right for any state to establish single-payer"

I just googled Wyden-Brown's bill; it was introduced in Nov. 2010 (pdf); do you know what it's status is? (Damn; this drives me crazy; I have sooooo stayed outta reach of health insurance reform...)

Hi Oxy. There are too many

Obey — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:57:14 +0000

In reply to Great comments, Obey. Just

Hi Oxy. There are too many moving parts in this for me to see how it's going to play out. It's hard to tell what strategy the loony GOP'ers will opt for in any given case, especially if you're trying to determine it by thinking ... what would be the rational thing to do...? Ha.

Here's my best shot - the GOP has the all-in option of doing nothing legislatively and relying on the Supreme Court to strike down the Insurance Exchanges part of the bill (due to problems with the individual mandate), which would invalidate the coverage provisions that these Republicans find so objectionable. And that isn't necessarily such a bad bet - it all depends on how ornery Anthony Kennedy is feeling on that particular day. But it is a risky bet.

Alternatively they have the option of joining with progressives to pass the Wyden-Brown waiver, probably wringing out some concessions - weakening the coverage provisions so that it starts looking more just like a block grant. Though if they do so, the constitutional objections to the PPACA as a whole fall away, and the States' case before the Supreme Court collapses. It's the more low-risk low-reward option.

In any case, I don't know if that alliance would be a very stable one. Progressives will be loath to turn the law into mere block grants. Especially single-payer states are going to face a moral hazard/adverse selection problem as people from low coverage states will just move there once they get sick.

Personally, I think the Exchanges aren't likely to work very well and premiums on the individual market will spiral out of control - and are already doing so - making that form of coverage expansion unviable. So the coverage provisions are likely to get watered down anyway, making the Progressives more amenable to a weakened waiver bill, in turn making the Waiver option more attractive even to dead-enders in the GOP.

Something like that...

Great comments, Obey. Just

Oxy Mora — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:08:15 +0000

In reply to Well no shit!The whole point

Great comments, Obey. Just trying to get this straight.

In the legislation as it stands, states can "opt out" of exchanges in 2017, but would have to set them up first (how absurd is that?).

The Wyden/Brown bill would allow states to apply for waivers now and then opt out in 2014--without having to set up exchanges first. They would be free to set up all manner of new plans, including single payer, if the minimum federal level of benefits was maintained. States could also handle mandates and employer requirements as they saw fit.

This whole debate is going to be fascinating from a Red State, Blue state perspective. Red states will try to weaken the waiver so as to reduce benefits (this is already being phrased as "give them more room to experiment"). Blue states will just try to get the waivers passed by hook or crook without gutting benefits overall or giving insurance companies new angles they don't already have.

"Unions are bullies, plain

brewmn — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:42:29 +0000

In reply to Atheist, Who said I was

"Unions are bullies, plain and simple. It is all about money and control."

Yeah, not like our enlightened captains of industry.

Oh, and "Union bosses?" You've just outed yourself as a rigthwing talking point bot. Step off, loser.

I had overlooked the fact

Oxy Mora — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:11:54 +0000

In reply to Well...then there's stuff

I had overlooked the fact state waivers, say by 2014, need Congressional approval. Apparently the Wyden Brown Senate bill would achieve that.

Re the 2017 date and the FDL post, Bernie Sanders blames it on CBOE. Maybe he's curryiing favor with Obama.

I have no idea whatsoever of the chances of the Wyden Brown bill passing, or when. I can't see Democrats voting against it and there might be enough Republican governors wanting the waiver for their own state that the bill would pass the Congress. Voting against Wyden/Brown would be voting against states' rights, and I don't think that's a position Republicans want to be in. Also, for what it's worth, Sanders and the Vt. governor look awfully confident.

The Vermont bill received a significant amount of Republican support, particullarly because it is friendly to business, and having some familiarity with Vermont I don't think there is any way this health care plan would not have a favorable economic outcome in the state, assuming reasonable residency requirements are put in place.