Put a strong public option in there and ram that sh#t through reconciliation

[democrat0986]

Can I get a K&R?

[KonaKane]

1. Kay und Ar

[Cant trust em]

2. Never gonna happen. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. At this point it might not get 50% in both houses

Depends how scared people are

[kenny blankenship]

6. I think we have seen a convincing demonstration of what will happen if they pass Senate's bill

They ought to be scared of that.

[regnaD kciN]

18. Not if they pass a corrective bill simultaneously...

...as is being advised.

[regnaD kciN]

17. We never had 50% in either chamber for a strong public option...

..."strong," in this case, being what people call "robust" (tied to Medicare rates + 5%). Indeed, we could only get one chamber to adopt a "weak" public option (with negotiated rates, which would make premiums considerably higher) by a 220-215 margin, with one of those "yea" votes now gone due to the representative stepping down.

If we pass the Senate bill through the House first, and then have the House immediately introduce a bill to amend it, we might get a weak public option included in the House bill, by about the same margin. If that happened, it could probably get the 50% (+ Biden) it would need under reconciliation in the Senate. But I think anything stronger than that effectively died earlier in the process, when House Dems, with a substantial majority, couldn't find the 218 votes needed for such a stronger option.

[Skink]

4. A Kay Bailey Hutichensen if you want some militarty spendin

[Eric J in MN]

5. kick and r

kick

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Here's one!

K&R! :thumbsup: :kick:

[Tutankhamun]

8. If the Dems actually WANTED real health care reform, they could've done this long ago.

They could have even rammed through (gasp!) single payer! OMG no! Health care for all? Cheap? Benefitting the economy? Benefitting actual American citizens? Just like every other f@cking industrialized country on the planet?

:sarcasm:

(for the sarcasm impaired)

[EmeraldCityGrl]

9. K&R,R,R,R,R,

[frustrated_lefty]

10. k&r

[Missy Vixen]

11. Can I get an amen?

Let's see how dedicated our elected officials are to making sure Americans have the health care they need.

Public option through reconciliation!

:woohoo:

[LooseWilly]

12. Reconciliation only works for expanding existing programs... as a budgetary measure.

Which means that something like a public option can not be passed by means of reconciliation.

On the other hand, as Howard Dean has pointed out, budget changes to Medicare allowing more citizens access according to... some budgetary method... would be doable by means of reconciliation. Which, of course, translates into Single Payer being, ironically, easier to enact through a reconciliation expansion of Medicare than the "compromise" public option by means of the regular legislative process in the face of 0 Republican votes and a promise of a filibuster.


And all of that, of course, amounts to a long winded kick... :+

[regnaD kciN]

13. Yes and no...

Reconciliation only works with budgetary matters, but doesn't require that it be a modification to an existing program. Anyway, even if that were the case, don't you think a careful legal mind could figure out a way to frame a brand-new public option program as an "expansion" of Medicare or Medicai, even if it had nothing to do with them?

But the big problem with that scenario, as I've posted at least half-a-dozen times in the past day, is that, without the regulatory measures banning adverse selection, insurers would simply respond to this by dropping/refusing to cover anyone they thought likely to need expensive medical care in the next year or two (based on their medical record and general demographics). Those people would have no alternative except to go on the public option, leading eventually to a scenario where the public option would effectively become the "high-risk pool" and inevitably wind up with higher premium costs than private insurers.

The only way you can avoid that is by passing the regulatory measures at the same time or before. But those measures, not being budgetary, cannot be passed through regulation. There are only two ways to get those regulatory elements passed:

1) As some have recommended, have the House pass the existing Senate bill as-is, but, at the same time, draft its own legislation to amend the Senate bill in a more progressive direction, and covering only budgetary matters, so that it can be passed by reconciliation, or

2) Throw out the existing bill and start anew. Be informed, however, that the regulatory portions would not be subject to reconciliation, and would thus have to be introduced as a separate bill, whose supporters would then have to figure out some way to get the 60 votes required for cloture -- in a Senate suddenly with only 59 non-Republican members. :-(

[andym]

14. Dupe. deleted. nt.

[andym]

15. One can only be dropped from individual but not from group insurance policies

So the problem of adverse selection is at least limited to only some of the population. It is a problem, unless enough healthy people also choose Medicare, which I think could happen due to its superior "care" and value/cost.

Here is this answer from a site about Multiple Sclerosis:
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/living-with-multiple-sclerosis/insurance-and-money-matters/health-insurance/faqs-health-insurance/index.aspx#excluded

Can I be excluded or dropped from my group health plan due to my MS?

No. If you, your spouse and/or dependent(s) are eligible for group health benefits from an employer, a federal law known as HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) guarantees that no individual can be singled out and excluded from the group health plan due to their health status or history. The same law also guarantees that an individual eligible for group health benefits cannot be charged more in premiums due to a medical condition, or given fewer benefits.

[regnaD kciN]

16. As someone once pointed out on another site...

...that "limit" is itself very limited. In theory, you cannot be dropped from a group insurance policy. However, as described in that other post, here's what happens (and, although a paraphrase, this is what actually happened to the poster):

You come down with cancer, receive treatment, and go into remission. The next year, when the insurance renewal comes to your company's HR department, the premium has been increased by a million dollars. The HR employee calls the insurance company, who informs them that, because your cancer puts you in an ultra-high-risk category, they will have a million-dollar surcharge from now on, every year, as long as you are on the payroll and part of the coverage. Now, it technically is illegal to fire someone because of insurance costs, but, the insurer reminds the HR person, as soon as you are no longer part of the coverage pool, that increase will go bye-bye.

Now, maybe your employer is ethical, and well-heeled enough to put up with shelling out a million dollars a year for your coverage. But, more likely (and especially if it's a small company for which that charge might mean bankruptcy), they'll start searching for failings in your performance that would justify terminating you. Or, if they can't find any, they'll simply transfer you to another position, at which you are ill-suited and have practically no chance of succeeding. Then, after a few months, they "regretfully" decide they have to "let you go." Problem solved! Of course, you can find another job, but the same thing will happen a year later, when their HR person gets that year's insurance renewal. And, after two or three cycles of this, you won't have to worry about the problem anymore, because no one will hire you, since you have an employment record of being fired within a couple of years by every employer for whom you worked. You're now unemployable, and can only opt for individual insurance, should you be able to afford it -- but it won't matter, because then the insurance companies will deny you coverage due to "pre-existing conditions." God help you if your cancer should then come back...because no human on earth will. :-(

[andym]

19. It sounds illegal

as it would violate the non-discrimination intent of the law. Nevertheless, I'm sure it happens, as from your description it looks like it could be a gray area that would have to addressed in court.

[cabluedem]

21. it is illegal. so is age discrimination. Still goes on. I know. nt

[cabluedem]

20. You need to have 20 people or more in a group/company to qualify for HIPPA protections. NT

[cali]

22. no k&r from me. not that I'll unrec either, but I don't

rec for sheer fantasy one liners.

[TicketyBoo]

23. Same here.

100%