Reconciliation Bill for FY 2010, Section II, Subtitle B

[Clio the Leo]

Also see page 1167



(whole thing is here....
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF )


*I* take this to mean a plan that would provide for the implementation of a PO IF the states wanted to go that route. But what do I know? (See, "shall provide for the offering of...")

[SharonRB]

1. Does this mean there WILL be a public option

as part of the exchange in the reconciliation bill? If so, this is pretty good news, I think.

[FrenchieCat]

2. That's what I'm reading.......

and it will be one of the options offered via the exchange.

[Clio the Leo]

3. I'm not sure .... I think we're all in shock....

... SOMEBODY CALL LARRY O'DONNELL TO INTERPRET THIS FOR US!!! :)

[O is 44]

20. Spot on Clio..what's up w/O'Donnell n/t

[Colobo]

4. Damn! That's some great news right there!

[mzmolly]

5. Great news!

:toast:

[mucifer]

6. there's gotta be a catch. (I'm a pessimist)

[Clio the Leo]

7. lol, I'm thinking the same thing!

This CANNOT be happening! (I mean I'm happy!)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. It seems like it's basically an opt-in plan.

States have to take the initiative, but they can if they want to.

[Clio the Leo]

8. And I was JOKING when I said this....

.... WOW!!! Would LOVE for the JOKE to be on me.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=218785#219120

[mucifer]

9. maybe they did this to appease kucinich? DId I really say that???

[FrenchieCat]

10. He voted against the PO last time, so I'm not sure anyone is holding their breath

for his vote.

[tekisui]

11. Hey CtL, I can't get this PDF to load.

Is there another way to it?

I am interested in seeing what Subtitle B is following. Before I jump up and down for a Public Option in the reconciliation bill (which I will do if it is there), I want to be sure what I am reading. Thanks!

[66 dmhlt]

21. Here's a "Document Drop" site that has the Bill

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/29386922/Health-Care-%E2%80%98%E2%80%98Reconciliation-Act-of-2010-3-15-10

On a Google search of ("Reconciliation Act of 2010" House Bill) it appeared that there were quite a few "Document Drop" sites that had it (but it's huge, so eats up some bandwidth in loading).

[SanchoPanza]

12. A brief once-over.

&BJust as it pertains in the PO (and another issue that immediately caught my eye) because its late and I need to get up early:

1) It uses Medicare A Reimbursement Rates for the first three years, then allows the Secretary of HHS to negotiate rates separately.
2) The Secretary negotiates prescription drug rates separately from the beginning (i.e. not on Part D rates)
3) Medicare Providers are automatically enrolled as PO providers unless they opt out.
4) Waste/Fraud/Abuse statutes that exist (and that will come into being in the initial legislation) will apply to the PO.

In terms of what we've seen before, this resembles the plan Schumer introduced in the Finance Committee as an alternative to Rockefeller's proposal. The key difference was that Rockefeller had Medicare rates apply to the PO in perpetuity, while Shumer limited them to, if I remember correctly, the first three years. In practical terms (i.e. votes), Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Carper, and Bill Nelson votes against Rockefeller's proposal, but Nelson and Carper switched and voted for Schumer's proposal (it still wasn't enough to clear the committee). In terms of how the program exists past those three years, I think it would be safe to assume that those rates would remain relatively close to the first three years. All it does is give the Secretary leeway in correcting disparities in districts that appear demographically to be rural but are sort of in between rural and suburban. Those are the areas that get screwed over by current rates.

The bigger thing in all this is that the act does establish cost-sharing (deductibles and co-pays) subsidies, which I assumed it would. Or hoped it would, really, because that assumption was based on the notion that the Presidents proposal was, in essence, the Senate Bill plus items added in reconciliation.

The original Senate bill only has premium subsidies. That didn't bother me that much, since there were mechanisms in place to make sure that economically vulnerable people weren't automatically shoveled into high deductible plans and those mechanisms are still present. But there's still the possibility that a couple who's premium costs come to $125 for the year after subsidies would end up paying 500-1000 for the year in deductibles and co-pays. I can only think of a few examples, but they still exist nonetheless. This removes that possibility entirely, since their out of pocket costs will be subsidized at the same rate.

Next week is going to be very interesting.

[WonderGrunion]

13. I knew President Obama would come through on a public option

Now let's hear the cries about how it isn't "real" or "strong enough".

[Bolo Boffin]

14. The catch - the reconciliation bill has to start with text as reported out by committees.

This means that though the public option is there right now, it will be removed during the amendment process.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Well, that means 51 senators have to vote to pass that amendment to remove it

Which is a much different ballgame, wouldn't you say?

[rcrush]

15. Hope it stays in there.

[LatteLibertine]

18. If the

Democrats get HCR right and include a public option, then move to meaningful financial sector reform/regulation, I'm going to redouble my support for them.

[SharonRB]

19. I'm really afraid we're jumping the gun on this

If it was so easy to find, how come no one was talking about it this morning on TV and Stephie hasn't mentioned it on her show at all? I would think they'd be all over it.

And Larry O still doesn't think anything is going to pass.