I remain skeptical of the new Medicare expansion “compromise” on both political and policy grounds. Politically, I will remain doubtful that the idea has traction until I start hearing statements of actual support from the more conservative Democrats. On the policy front, so far, all I know is that there is a vague idea to give some people below 65 access to Medicare by possibly “buying in.” While the idea does sound nice depending how it is structured it could be a big progressive victory or purely a fig leaf that helps almost no one.
Done Right
Early Medicare expansion done “right” in a progressive sense would be to simply change the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to a lower number like 50. That would give 50-year-olds the exact same access Medicare that we currently give to 65 year olds. This would give millions of Americans access to our great Medicare program. I would consider this to be a win for progressives, and it should be their goal.
My understanding is that the proposal currently being debated is nowhere near as progressive an idea or victory. It would only expand Medicare to a small segment of older Americans just below 65. The best upper end of the talks seems to be the option of giving access to Medicare to people 50 and above who are currently uninsured, self insured, have small business insurance, or in early retirement programs as soon the bill is signed. This group would be treated just like people above 65, and would pay the same premiums. This would still help a few million Americans in need.
Done Bad
From this point there are many restrictions which rapidly make the idea less progressive and less helpful for working class Americans. For starters, the opening of access to Medicare could be pushed back from right away to 2014 when the exchanges and tax credits start. The people eligible for this Medicare expansion could also be made to pay higher premiums (up to the full actuarial cost of Medicare insurance). This would make the program a true Medicare buy in. Politico reports a full actuarial buy in would be roughly $600 a month. That amount is high and could easily put Medicare buy in out of reach for a large majority of the already small segment of Americans the program is intended to help. Providing some sliding scale of subsidies or allowing people who would qualify for affordability tax credits on the new exchange to use them to help pay for Medicare buy-in would provide some help, depending on how generous they are.
Very tight restrictions could be placed on who is eligible for the program. If it were limited to only people without insurance or self-insured individuals, that would be a very small group. Setting the age at only 60 would further restrict its access. Finally, creating the program as only a temporary stopgap between now and 2014 would make the program meaningless long term.
The worst case scenario would be a “Medicare buy-in” in name only. For example, it could be a stopgap program restricted to Americans who are 60-64, have been uninsured for more than six months, and who must pay full actuarial value premiums. That makes for a Medicare expansion program so thoroughly hamstrung, it probably would not even help 20,000 people nationwide over the life of the program.
The general idea of Medicare expansion or early Medicare buy-in should appeal to progressives, but those are just meaningless names without the details. Simply dropping the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 50 would help tens of millions of Americans, and be a win for progressives. Conversely, I can imagine a convoluted set of restrictions that would prevent the proposal from helping basically anybody. Currently, it sounds like the negotiations are much closer to the latter than the former. (MSNBC is reporting that it is likely to only be an expensive temporary stopgap measure that helps basically no one and is simply a fig leaf to trick progressives.) Remember the three most important things in health care policy? Details, details, and more details. Unfortunately, that is what gives the health care lobbyist so much power to win huge victories quietly with seemingly minute changes.




5 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
The only way this can be called progressive is if every person 55 or over is eligible, full stop, regardless of employment status. This would lead to businesses pushing their employers into Medicare because it’s such a better deal, and before long business would be lobbying to drop the age threshold. That would be a better trojan horse than the original public option. But of course that’s not being considered AFAIK.
someday I’ll write my diary on the relatively affluent professional /managerial Dems who continually support the sell out classes of tip oneils and dukakises and gores and kerrys and cantwells and clintons and … obama… and schumers and and … the rest of the f’ks who ALWAYS have a reason for that 2 shitty votes outta 5, and, by the way, when they’re on the good side of shitty votes the OTHER sell outs are on the bad side -
in 2008 money income, there were about 160,000,000/211,000,000 with money income of 50k a year or less, there were about 24,000,000/211,000,000 OVER 75000.
TOO many of THOSE PEOPLE in that upper group:
- work jobs where deadlines are in months and quarters of years, NOT hours, and some ‘benefit’ only a few years away … big deal, right?
- have the $$300 or $3000 sitting around to fix that problem with the car/transportation, the housing, the kid’s teeth, the law / grad school application process
- have the TENS of thousands available to move or start back to school or sit outta work for 6 months
THOSE people can compromise away – STUPIDLY – cuz the can afford it.
oh, and on the other side … fascists who view the slums of mumbai, mexico city and nairobi as a suitable living area for their serfs, doormats, and boot lickers.
rmm.
Howard Dean “has to happen immediately”
Well, I’ll throw out some ideas.
Overall tactic: House Dems should trade Afghan war funding for a strong jobs bill and a strong health care bill. However, like Chris Bowers, I doubt that the so called Progressive Blok has the will or stamina to do this. The Progressive Blok is a punt on second down and throw down my royal flush kind of crew.
Some good: It always made more sense just to expand medicare and medicaid and not come up with a new whole program, no matter how popular it is thanks to our work out at the internets. Congresscritter idjits….
The Very Bad: If we lose or give up on the public option and I’m looking at you Chris Bowers, it makes us look weak. What this means is that in every other debate we’ll get beat. “Remember how those prog blok pussies punted on second down and threw down that royal flush…? They’ll do it again when I limit Medicare and Medicaid to three people,” cackled the Leiberman Grinch…Keep in mind that the purpose of the conservadem menace is to insure insurance company profits and if the public option is replaced with medicare/medicaid expansion then, guess what? They’ll work tirelessly to weaken Medicare/Medicaid expansion…
Couple wild tactical Hail Marys:
1. Keep the weakened public option in but have the progressives write the trigger. This is only if some of the good Medicare and Medicaid expansions get in.
2. Start thinking about starting a private public option that’s open to everybody. Nobody is stopping you. Yes, I need to write more about that. The Key is the Andrew Tobias book “The Invisible Bankers” where he talks about state run insurance plans. Remember, we wouldn’t have to make a big profit. We would just want to break even. Run it as a not for profit. You could also run it as a bank that could invest back into the community. People like Jane Hamsher and Mike Moore need to find 300 of their richest friends in order for a 300 million dollar investment. Offer a flat rate of 100 dollars a month for everybody making up to 12000 grand and no more than 5 percent of salary above. Make it progressive, 6 percent if you make 21000 grand, 7 percent if you make 30 grand and so on.
Best thing about creating your own public option insurance company?
NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU…except money. It would help if you had rich Hollywood fatcats backing you if someone around here knows such rich Hollywood fatcats. Both the Microsoft and the Google foundation could back back this as well if they were so inclined…just something to think about…
Philip Shropshire
http://tiny.cc/VWkg4
http://tiny.cc/e80N1
whoops! forget to end a graph:
Very Bad:….Keep in mind that the purpose of the conservadem menace is to insure insurance company profits and if the public option is replaced with medicare/medicaid expansion then, guess what? They’ll work tirelessly to weaken Medicare/Medicaid expansion…