So much for the public option?
AP is reporting that, in exchange for dropping the public option from health-care legislation, liberal Senate Democrats are seeking an expansion of Medicare -- extending Medicare coverage to those as young as 55. (For most people Medicare eligibility starts at 65.) It'll be interesting to see how the Congressional Budget Office scores that. Of course it depends on what the premiums are for the under-65 enrollees, and what's covered. But there is a risk this will inflate the pricetag. Under the public option, the new folks covered under a taxpayer-sponsored plan would have been of a wide range of ages. Under this deal, they'll be concentrated in the late-middle-age/early geezer segment, and therefore subject to more illness and more medical expense.
The new deal would also reportedly have private, nonprofit plans selling insurance nationwide, something that should have been facilitated a long time ago. Now health insurance is chopped up pretty much according to state, which limits competition.
UPDATE: AP's latest story focuses more on the idea of national, private plans filling the "public option" role and downplays the idea of expanding Medicare to younger enrollees.
Comments
half stepping half measures by half wits half in the bag.
(the bag belongs to the ins co lobbyists)
There are other reports about how the "polls" don't ask the followup questions. Most of the objection to the "reform plans" are from folks (like myself) who say it doesn't go far enough. And then they go and fold another hand.
Do any of the Dem's expect to ever be re-elected? for anything?
Posted by: MrRational | December 7, 2009 11:04 PM
Chopping up insurance sales by state limits competition, but it does mean we don't have to have insurance regulated by whichever state has the most pliant insurance commission, like we do with banks.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2009 8:59 AM
The four trillion dollar question is, "Can the Democrats put Humpty Dumpty back together again?" If not and Americans are not satisfied with their health care options all the blame will rest on the Democrats' heads. Is this what they want?
Makes no sense to me but then I'm not a liberal.
Posted by: Dan | December 8, 2009 12:25 PM
A shocking reversal by the faint of heart Democrats. The American people have shown a real interest in public run insurance. They know Medicare works and they are sick of the insurance industry. But I am through with the Dems. They give us such a load of talk and no action. I want real single payer government insurance (i.e. Britain) or a private system heavily regulated with price controls (i.e. Japan). But the Dems want their buddies on Wall Street to get all of the spoils. In the rest of the developed world people live longer and pay less for healthcare because they get the government involved. We get Wall Street Care (i.e. Obamacare). When will there be a Tea Party movement for liberals like me? Can we "Scozzafava" Obama in 2012?
Posted by: Rich | December 9, 2009 11:40 AM