Alan Grayson Tossed Out A Hardball

Now we're talking:

Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Fla., today introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) which would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The “Public Option Act,” also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.

http://grayson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175363#main

Ding ding ding ding.

If you're going to mandate that everyone have health insurance, then you have to provide a public option.

That is the only way you're going to keep people from being raped.

I still don't think this is Constitutional, by the way, but this much is clear: Medicare's premiums haven't been going up at 20, 30 or 40% a year.

Depending on the premium, I'm interested, and would likely dump my private insurance (which I have to pay for in cash) immediately were this to become law.

If we can't have the sort of four-point plan I've put forward in the past, this is the next best option.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2075-Alan-Grayson-Tossed-Out-A-Hardball.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If certain people think he has more love than a certain President, than they will start to throw daggers.

Almost what a way to go. :P

that we have. Most of the rest are just corporate whores and spine free wimps.

Honestly, Karl isn't what I'd call a liberal and even he thinks this is a better idea than the President/Reid/Pelosi plan.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Karl isn't exactly what I'd call a liberal democrat, and even he sees the wisdom in this idea. He rants about the budget deficit...quite a lot actually.

lots of college kids and lots of working age people. The retirees are on the coasts.

If Grayson plans on going anywhere beyond a Congressional seat, he must look beyond his district to those coasts.

Has the influx of Puerto Ricans, Haitians and other groups "liberalized" the Orlando area much over the last 30-40 years?

speaks volumes, as in he's all in favor of the ruling.

On the day of the ruling, he refrained from taking a position nearly all day while his readers' waited in suspenseful anticipation for his response. His silence was peculiar, since he usually responds quickly & prolifically. Anyhoo, it wasn't until Limbaugh, et al. broadcasted their rightwing spin did Karl publish his "position" (RW talking points). I listened to as many RW radio shows as possible that day to hear firsthand the BS spin on the case, so it was pretty clear where this blogger got his "opinion".

Take a looksie here for Denninger's "official" view regarding Citizens United v FEC:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1888-Freedom-Of-Speech-How-Quaint.html

Here's his forum members' reaction to his SC ruling opinion:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=125556

Oh yeah, forgot to mention he's also one of two 2009 recipients of the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC) Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

As for Denninger's support for Grayson's bill - good on him!

But, just know what kind a person we're dealing with here. Perhaps, he's finally getting a clue or maybe he's just trying to regain credibility after his SCOTUS epic fail. Who knows.

 

mandate begins.

That does NOT mean it has to be part of the current (Senate) bill to be passed by the House this coming week along with the Reconciliation fix.

I like this MUCH more then the previous PO options. Easier to understand, quicker and cheaper to implement because the system is already in place.

completely legally as well and perfectly within the Senate rules...this is just an expansion of an existing federal program.

Bill but it could easily make it into the system before the exchanges, mandates, etc. kick in.

I wish it was but I'm just being realistic.

They were so diluted down that they were hardly worth the fight.

What are they going to do about that?

should be passed after the current pile of dung masquerading as health care reform is signed into law. This is separate. It is the public option that Obama allowed to be bargained away for NOTHING!

The original news story here on DU about this had a link to Rep Grayson's amendment. I can't find it, but I'm sure its on his website. It's four pages long and easily understandable by non-lawyers and non-congresspeople.

There is a section of about two paragraphs which explains how rates would be set. Basically, people would be separated into six groups, referred to in the amendment as "cohorts," determined by age (birth through 18, 19 through 25, 26 through 35, 36 through 45, 46 through 55, 56 through 64, and 65 and older.}

The monthly actuarial rate for each cohort would be computed and applied based upon average medical costs incurred by people within that cohort. Right now the rate for 65 and above is used for all Medicare beneficiaries. The Secretary of DHHS will determine these new rates.

Medicare's cost to administer, its overhead, is about 2%. I seem to recall reading a few months back that the big insurance companies are mostly in the 20% range, and are aiming higher. Premium payers not required to pay all that overhead would save vast amounts of money.

In 2010 the Part A (which pays for hospitals) premium is $461.00 per month, although it is free for retired and disabled beneficiaries who paid medicare taxes while they were working. The Part B (which pays doctors and supplemental medical costs) premium $96.40 per month. (Remember, these are the actuarial amounts for age 65 and up. Younger people may have lower amounts, because on average, they're healthier.)

I don't know how Part D (which partially covers prescriptions) works, still being nine years away from Medicare. I do know that it is administered through private health insurance companies, so there would be premiums and the so called "donut hole" which is supposed to be fixed by the above mentioned pile of dung.

Compare the Medicare premiums to what the big insurance companies charge - quite often near or over $1000.00 per month, with huge increases coming along for many states. Here in California Anthem Blue Shield intends to increase its rates 39% in May. The health care bill that is in congress now does provide for subsidies for those people who cannot afford to pay for health insurance. I am sure that subsidies would apply to Medicare For All.

Also, in many states, Medicare beneficiaries who are also on Medicaid have their premiums paid for them by the state Medicaid agency, presumably because they believe it is cheaper to pay premiums and shift the actual medical costs to Medicare.

By the way, Grayson's amendment is revenue neutral. It does not add to the budget deficit. If the Secretary of DHHS does a good job, premiums coming in and payments going out would be roughly equivalent.

Way to go, Congressman Grayson. If I ever get a chance to vote for you out here in California, I will do so.

For anyone who cares, I worked for the Social Security Administration for over 20 years. I had to deal with many Medicare issues that arose with Social Security beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients. My impression of Medicare was that it was a well run and efficient program, and remains so.

Congressman Grayson is absolutely right to want to allow anyone who wishes to enroll in it to do so. I suggest that those who argue against this should have their motives and their "contributions" (I like to call them "bribes") from big insurance closely examined.

If this is the best they can do, I'd rather opt-out.

In the last 20 years (18-38) I've accrued a total of $6,400 in health costs, because I don't go to doctors for every sniffle, broken rib, sprained muscle, etc...

That works out to be $26.66 dollars a month.

But young, healthy people would still tend to opt out. That's why this proposal works only in conjunction with a universal mandate that would be in place when the Senate bill + reconciliation fix is in place.

for my car insurance for several years, but I would hate to need it and not have it so I'm willing to pay the premiums. What do you intend doing if you have a catastrophic illness? Go to the ER?

and that doesn't include copays.

Until your luck runs out.

I had been reasonably healthy for 54 years. I had never been hospitalized. I did see a doctor a couple of times per year for hypertension and took medication which kept this well under control.

In late June, 2008, I became sick and began running a high fever, mostly at night. It sometimes got as high as 105. I resisted seeking help. "It's just a virus," I told myself and my wife. After being sick for about two weeks, I lost the ability to stand up or walk. I was too weak. I could only crawl. My wife had had enough. She called the paramedics and they took me to the hospital. Why didn't my wife drive me, you might ask, and save the cost of an ambulance? She has had multiple sclerosis for over 30 years and cannot drive.

I don't remember July, 2008 very well. I spent a period of time in ICU where they quickly determined that I had a systemic bacterial infection. After a day or two they knew what I had. It is a bacteria called MRSA (Methacillin-Resistant Staphlococcus Aureus.) This is a variety of staph that is resistant to most antibiotics. The infectious disease doctors tried various different combinations of antibiotics to try and knock it out.

By the time I had gotten to the hospital, the MRSA had already infected my heart, causing a heart attack and virtually destroying the aortic valve. I needed open heart surgery, but they couldn't do this as long as there was live MRSA in my body. The surgery was done on August 1. They replaced the valve, but were unable to do anything about the heart attack. The bottom of my left ventricle was, and remains, useless scar tissue instead of muscle.

The hospitalization continued until mid October when I was finally released. I had also suffered damage to my lungs, kidneys, liver, and bone marrow, all of which has yet to recover fully. I had a second surgery to install a defibrillator/pacemaker, because the right half and left half of my heart were beating separately, out of rhythm. That little piece of medical equipment cost about $25,000.00.

I can walk now, sort of, but I have to use a walker, and I can only go short distances. My left ventricle, which pushes blood through the body, is operating at about 60% efficiency compared to people who have healthy hearts. That won't change because scar tissue doesn't go back to whatever healthy it was before.

The hospital charged about $1,500,000 for room an board and medical supplies they furnished. My insurance company negotiated this down by about a third and paid that. I saw many doctors and had many tests during the sixteen weeks I was there. They all billed and were paid negotiated amounts by my insurance. The total of all this was in the multiple $10,000.00 range, perhaps as much as $100.000.00.

My point is this. I was reasonably healthy until I somehow got exposed to MRSA and became infected with it. None of the doctors I asked had any idea where I was exposed and how it got into my body. Just bad luck. My health isn't so good now. I require two (or sometimes three) doctors. I require frequent echocardiograms. I take about ten different medications for various things. And my insurance pays for most of it.

I get from your post you don't go to the doctor much. There are many diseases which are silent, symptom free, until they are well established. Hypertension, diabetes, atherosclerosis, beginning kidney failure, multiple sclerosis, cancer; these come readily to mind. And there are many others. You are approaching 40. Can you say for sure that one of these conditions isn't already taking hold of you? Eventually you will get seriously ill. No one escapes it. Unless you are wealthy, you will be driven into bankruptcy, unless you have some sort of health coverage. Just hope that the government comes up with something decent, and you aren't left to the tender mercies of the health insurance industry. That would truly be bad luck.

for my needs that I have to go with a broker to help me find the prescription coverage or end up PHUCKED :scared:.

My monthly meds are expensive and cannot be mailed (a couple can). I qualified for medicaid leading up to this and think I will till my 6yr old is 18 - as I understand - Medicaid picks up the 'donut hole'. However, I'm not 100% on that nor how that works.

How anyone, let alone seniors manage this mine-field, huge give-away to insurance companies plus the donut hole is boggling. It's somewhere around 4800 a year for part D (for which premiums are paid) then you're on your own for the rest of the year if you spend that much, like I easily can as just 1 of my prescriptions monthly is nearly 1 grand JUST ONE (been fighting Medicaid to receive it and dearly hope I wont have to fight so much with the right part D plan) I have been taking a much cheaper but much less effective med in it's place but it causes more fatigue & I deal with enough of that as it is. (it's one of the many reasons for me being on SSDI)

Many cancer patients and others in chronic pain use this medication too. Again, no clue how the avg SSDI/SS recipient with cancer or other ailment navigates through this mess. There is also a FULL BAN (with expensive exceptions) through medicare for Xanax. It's not expensive in it's generic form (about 33 dollars cash for script of 70 that's a 30 day supply) so why the ban?

Glad I'm not living alone or I would be really screwed trying to make ends meet on my monthly $780 plus co-pays, premiums (est between 30-50 a month for part D) and then the dreaded donut hole. With 2 children still at home (16 & 6) No wonder people go without medication even WITH insurance.

The Thugs gave us Part D to CUT medicare by over 6 billion (or 60B need to look it up again) annually and the dirty TEA-baggers supported that but are afraid to have money taken out of medicare by Dems? Where the hell were they when they gave us part D to begin with - oh that's right - they were on the sidelines with Pom-Poms all for it. And the douche Senator (cant remember his name) that forced that down OUR throats - well the ink wasn't even dry from Bush signing it into law when he ran off to work with Pharma (it was like 2-3 weeks). That sort of behaviour should be illegal.

I support Grayson's plan tho but wish Medicare was easier to navigate (I received my card 1 1/2 months ago now) and hope with a larger pool everyone who signs on would receive better options than there are now as it looks like it was seriously raped under * and other 'thugs.

/rant off
Cheers
Sandy

but I think the Medicare buy in is something that the average person can understand.

It will be much harder for Fox, Sarah Palin and others to demonize this idea, especially since Grayson wants to have the people buying in to pay the actual cost, rather than have the government subsidize the people who buy in. Grayson is just cutting out the profit that private insurers make, so the cost has to be less for Medicare buy in than it would be for private insurance.

And that is not just because of profit taking by PFP insurers.

WTF?

who generally trashes both parties for something, let it go.

Karl or "Genesis" is a proud two time Bush supporter. He's also one of two 2009 recipients of the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC) Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

Independent? Um, yeah, not.

That being said, good for him for his support of the Grayson bill.

Constitutional. Much as Republicans love the idea, it has never been done before. As soon as it passes, it will be challenged by people from across the political spectrum.

In fact, I know individuals who intend to do that, who refuse to ordered by the government to buy from a private business. Especially one that has paid Congress to force the public to do so.

Grayson is a lawyer, he knows his Constitution. He was right about Congress ant-Constitutional vote to defund ACORN being a Bill of Attainder and has now been backed up in a Federal Court.

I certainly won't be buying any premiums from the corrupt Private Insurance industry, never have. If I ever need medical I will go to Europe.

What a shame that Americans have to go, like refugees, to foreign countries to buy their medications and to get healthcare. When we all know that this country could easily afford a National Healthcare System, especially if the got rid of the corrupt and costly middlemen who have hi-jacked the U.S. Healthcare system. And of course, end the illegal and brutal wars for profit.

It's a shame that a Democratic President and Congress is about to push through Congress a bill that Republicans would never have had the support for, certainly not from Democrats. That is why the job went to Dems. The PTBs knows the psychology of the masses. Far too many only care that their team wins, and that is why we have wars and the worst Medical Care system in the civilized world.

I heard Hillary bring it up in the Primaries.

What is your argument on this?

I can understand that mandating purchase of a product or service from a private company could be unconstitutional, but I don't think that permitting a buy-into Social Security would be since the cost could be imposed as a tax and the expenditure would bud allocated as are other government budget items.

Please explain. I am interested in your ideas on this.

you'll get a cut and pasted article that doesn't relate to the question, if anything.

He's great, isn't he? And, I might add, kicking butt in his conservative district. So much for those Blue Dogs having to sell us out cause of the districts they are in.

Extremely doubtful.

:patriot:

They went after the Senate bill for being more than 2,000 pages so I'm sure they will attack this bill for being too small and lacking substantive details?

:kick:

None of them will vote for it and it forces the dems to vote on it exposing those who really never supported a PO but claimed they did. For those who took insurance money and take people's votes by pretending they are a man/woman of the people, it would force them to choose a side. It would expose who they really are. The republicants will just sit back and watch the fools shoot themselves in the foot.

James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to dock Michigan and Florida half of their delegates and award 4 of the delegates Clinton won in Michigan to Obama, as well as all of the uncommitted delegates, is the CEO of a health insurance company – Tufts Healthcare. Okay? Got that? The guy who made sure that Obama had the necessary to delegates to win the nomination – even to the point of assigning delegates another candidate won to him arbitrarily – is the CEO of a health insurance firm.
And what Roosevelt wants in a health insurance reform, is a reform that relies entirely upon private insurers. He does not want a public option. He wants a plan like Massachusetts has: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/09/healthcare_lets_build_on_what_we_know/

oh and ps...I was a former "elected " delegate in the State of Florida..you are blowing smoke with the wrong person!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


do some googling..you will find lots on James Roosevelt, Jr. and the DNC Ways and Means committee on the delegate decisions in Michigan and Florida..
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?q=James+Roosevelt%2C+w...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.tuftshealthplan.com/visitors/visitors.php?se...

Senior Management Group
Our mission is to set the standard for outstanding quality health care, service, and value. Our dedication to excellence makes us one of the leading health plans in the nation. Meet our senior management group.

James Roosevelt, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer


James Roosevelt, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Roosevelt joined Tufts Health Plan in 1999 as senior vice president and general counsel and held that position until June 2005, when he became president and chief executive officer. As the general counsel, he presided over the legal department and the company's compliance, privacy and government relations functions.

Before joining Tufts Health Plan, Mr. Roosevelt was the associate commissioner for Retirement Policy for the Social Security Administration in Washington, D.C. He has also served as chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Democratic Party and as co-chair of the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee, for which he currently serves on the Change Commission. Mr. Roosevelt spent 10 years as partner at Choate, Hall and Stewart in Boston. He is past chairman of the board of trustees for the Massachusetts Hospital Association, past president of the American Health Lawyers Association and past chairman of the board of trustees for Mount Auburn Hospital. Currently, Mr. Roosevelt serves as chairman of the board of directors for Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, and as a member of the board of directors and co-chair of the policy committee at America’s Health Insurance Plans. He is a member of the Massachusetts Heath Care Quality and Cost Council and the board of directors for the Rhode Island Quality Institute. Mr. Roosevelt is also a board member at Emmanuel College and the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center, and is co-chair of the board of directors for the Tufts Health Care Institute. In November 2008, President-elect Barack Obama appointed Mr. Roosevelt to his transition team to co-chair a review of the Social Security Administration.

Mr. Roosevelt received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his A.B. with honors in government from Harvard College. He has also completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03.aspx

The DNC weighs in on Michigan
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:40 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats
From NBC's Mark Murray

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee co-chairs Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt issued the following memo to members of the committee:

"We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan."

:kick:



If it's not passed before the cartel's welfare bill, and this bill goes nowhere (which Obama insists is the only possible outcome, as the administration says "the votes aren't there") then co-sponsoring Grayson's bill may be little more than convenient political cover for gutless House Democrats who have caved to pass the Mandate, but want to tell the based "I co-sponsored the Medicare Buy-In bill".


Any politician who is SERIOUS about passing a Medicare Buy-In bill, or ANY public plan for that matter, would make it a PRE-CONDITION to passing HCR, not a symbolic stand alone bill that Obama does not have the integrity to support, when push comes to shove.



:kick:

without election reform any candidate that we are offered will be the same.

Surely you can do better than that.

which is hard for people who dearly love private insurance to argue against.
They can keep doing what they are doing.

And the good thing about this bill is that it doesn't make insurance cos richer.

That may be what ends up making Grayson's proposal (or something similar) possible to pass. Once the Senate bill bites the bullet and creates a near-universal mandate then Grayson's proposal comes across as pure benefit with none of the stigma of the accompanying mandate that is necessary for it to actually work.

...there could only be one piece of legislation about health care a decade brought forward?

:sarcasm:

Ya mean the meme the corporate bootlicking DLCers and their cheerleading section isn't true?




Ahh crap...





...and they almost had me fooled!

NOT.

with regards health care. You have to if you're from Florida. That state has the oldest average age of any state except (I believe) Iowa. This has a big bearing on politics, there and in the nation. Old time culturally conservative (yes, even segregationist) Democrats are aware of populist appeal in Florida. If memory serves me, the last convention site of the old Populist Party was Ocala. You can be assured Grayson will be even more popular in his district (and perhaps the state), even as the bloated, corporate-driven DNC tries to shut him down.

I don't know why you keep harping on the retirement angle. I've lived in Grayson's district for over 20 years and it has similar demographics as the district I grew up in-near OSU campus in Columbus, Ohio. Retirees live on the coasts. Poor retirees live in small towns. Students, yuppies, park and hospitality workers live in Orlando.

is that once a public option is in place it would be much much easier to add subsidies for the working classes than it will be to start from scratch.

two others from my state already did :-)

Who could afford it?

....Cobra premiums.


Cobra premiums are higher because of at least 3 reasons:

1. Out of control and arbitrary pricing for services.

2. High administrative costs

3. Adverse selection - those choosing to Cobra insurance at high rates include a higher risk demographic than those declining Cobra coverage


In order to avoid adverse selection, it is essential that there be OPEN ENROLLMENT and GUARANTEED ISSUE with COMMUNITY RATINGS for both private and public plans.


Under these conditions, private plans would be forced to actually create efficiencies and LOWER COSTS in order to successfully compete with Medicare Buy In. The cost of providing Medicare coverage for younger Americans at a BUDGET NEUTRAL premium would be much lower than Cobra insurance, because of all 3 of the above reasons.

Subsidies would be necessary to achieve universal coverage, but the amount of subsidies needed would be substantially lower, and millions of middle class Americans who are on the verge of being priced out of coverage, and who would among the 43% of Americans ineligible for subsidies would have access to the Medicare system at substantially lower premiums that those they are currently on the verge of finding unaffordable.




:hi:

It opens up Medicare if you can pay the whole unsubsidized premium. The premium would be extremely expensive and price most people out immediately.

This would make no sense once HCR is enacted as you would be able to go to the exchange and find a much more affordable subsidized plan if you qualify.

And just as a side note to your point 3, I think you misunderstand why COBRA coverage is so expensive. It is not high because of adverse selection, it is a continuation of your group coverage entirely at your expense. You pay 100% of the premium, the cost is no longer shared with the employer. The coverage didn't get more expensive, you're just on the hook for the whole bill.