home

Health Insurance Premium Assistance Is Not Reform

While starting with the now to be expected insulting Very Serious Person approach, what interested me about this Ron Brownstein post was this:

In his Washington Post op-ed Thursday, Dean wrote: "I know health care reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill." Yet the bill that Dean so casually dismisses would spend, according to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly $200 billion annually once it is fully phased in to help subsidize insurance coverage for over 30 million Americans now without it. That's real money--the most ambitious and generous expansion of the public safety net since the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. And that money, based on the Census results, would flow most into minority and working-class white communities.

(Emphasis supplied.) Certainly expanding health insurance premium assistance for the less well off is a very good thing, but no one can seriously argue it is reform. Oh btw, 200 billion dollars annually? Where'd that number come from? And what Congress is going to approve it? I'd like to hear more about that number. Finally, health insurance premium assistance can be done via reconciliation, as Dean has called for. So the Senate bill is really not critical to what Brownstein is arguing is the key provision of "health care reform." The more they write, the more nonsensical the Very Serious People are becoming.

Speaking for me only

< How The Health Bill Debate Is Like The Iraq War Debate | How Democrats Bargain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Digital Left." I kind of like that. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:12:12 AM PST


    I'm learning a lot (none / 0) (#2)
    by kidneystones on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:12:15 AM PST
    I'm learning that after surviving Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II and countless Dem screw-ups I can still be horrified by the naked thieving and brute greed of vested interests. I actually didn't think I could be shocked anymore. (via Atrios)

    I was wrong.

    I find "..to help subsidize" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:23:57 AM PST
    insurance coverage to be puzzling.  Is the plan to subsidize the  coverage for some fully, as in Medicaid; to assist in meeting the cost of the premiums, or to help to assist meeting the cost of the premiums. And, of course, what is the formula, in the latest round?

    Question (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by hookfan on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:29:02 AM PST
    If premium prices continue to rise (and I think they will), and there is no cola for the subsidies (iirc there is not), and wages remain stagnant (and they will, especially with the downard pressure of so many unemployed), then aren't the vaunted subsidies functioning as marketing mechanisms to ensnare people into a bad situation? What you are going to wind up with very shortly is a host of people just mandated a penalty tax, no real coverage, no actual healthcare, likely to occur prior to full enactment of "reform" in 2014. How dysfunctional will these subsidies be at that time?

    Take a shower (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:40:07 AM PST
    Then read the Brownstein piece, you won't even need a blow dryer.

    I think premium assistance (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:45:56 AM PST
    is a bit of a camel's nose under the tent.

    The model for the Senate bill is that the folks who don't earn as much have their annual premiums capped at a certain percentage of their income, with the balance to be made up through government subsidies.

    In other words, the bill effectively shifts the cost of premium increases from the individual to the government, for anyone whose premiums are already at the cap.

    This is important because we know from our experience with Medicare that the government is unlikely to stand around and allow itself to be gouged for very long.  Sure, the lobbyists will keep pushing for their boondoggles like Medicare Advantage, but experience teaches us that Medicare has done a better job of containing cost increases than the private sector.

    The government has the power to do something about premium increases, but by sticking the government with the bill for those increases, we give it a much greater incentive to do so.

    Yip (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by SOS on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:17:53 AM PST
    Health Insurance Premium Assistance Is Not Reform

    No! Ya don't say!

    You've basically hit the crux (none / 0) (#16)
    by ai002h on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:39:21 AM PST
    of the reason why progressives always lose these battles. This method of negotiating even permeates with progressive stalwarts like Bernie Saunders. They show their cards early by their unwillingness to threaten opposition to the bill. By saying that you're for the bill right away, you immediately weaken your hand against the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the world, who claim unequivocal opposition until all their demands are met, and even then, will still refuse to endorse the bill in case they see something else they don't like.

    Fascinating. Spending money = reform. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Cream City on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54:24 AM PST
    Well, gosh, on that basis, Bush was a heckuva reformer with what he did with the federal budget!

    Really, some of these village bloggers are just village idiots with their stupid statements.