Yet again, Senator Max Baucus wonders, “What would Aetna do?”
The much anticipated (though not by me) Max Baucus (D-Montana) health care reform bill was released by the Senate Finance Committee today, and as expected, it is terrible. And not only is it terrible, but no Republican seems willing to support it. This all begs the question, what was the point of writing this dogshit bill in the first place?
If the point was to garner Republican support, well, that’s just ridiculous. Even a hayseed such as Baucus had to know that the GOP would attempt to kill any Democratic-led effort to reform health care. As far as congressional Republicans are concerned, this debate is not about health care; it’s about handing President Obama an early defeat for his administration. At this juncture, the GOP has much to gain by killing reform so that in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, they can say that they stopped Obamacare and staved off a nonexistent socialist threat. In fact, the Republicans are at a point of no return. For many Republicans in Congress, to suddenly support the opposition’s plan could be tantamount to committing political suicide because their constituents are out for Democratic blood. As we saw with Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project this weekend, the GOP base has been worked into a frenzy thanks to the massive amounts of red meat tossed to them by the Republican leadership and right-wing media types. This is a very impressive operation. It’s not easy to take the aimless and irrational prejudices of millions of people in middle and lower classes, and harness them so that the result is a mass rebuke of proposals that would actually benefit them.
Let’s make one thing clear: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Democrats to adopt the Baucus bill as the bill to go with to reform health care. This bill is god awful, and does nothing to address runaway premium costs. Apparently the other proposed reform bills and their government-run public options are too radical for Milquetoast Max. From the New York Times, the following is a list of ways in which the Baucus bill differs from these others:
¶Instead of creating a new government health plan, Mr. Baucus would set up nonprofit insurance cooperatives in every state. The Congressional Budget Office said the co-ops “seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.” This finding provides ammunition to liberals who say the co-ops could not compete effectively with big insurance companies.
¶The Baucus plan, like the other bills, offers subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance. But eligibility is more limited, and the subsidies appear to be less generous than in the other proposals, causing some Democrats to suggest that many people could still find insurance unaffordable.
¶Unlike the other bills, the Baucus plan would impose a new excise tax on insurance companies that sell high-end policies costing more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. Mr. Baucus hopes the tax would put downward pressure on health costs. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees denounced the tax, saying it would hit “health plans that provide benefits for many middle-class families.”
¶The bill would not require employers to offer coverage. But employers with more than 50 workers would have to reimburse the government for some or all of the cost of subsidies provided to employees who buy insurance on their own.
On top of these, the Baucus bill would force people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. And if it seems like there’s nothing here that benefits you, you’re probably right. If you already have health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, or don’t have access to an insurance cooperative (CO-OP), under this abomination you’re just going to have to deal with annual premium hikes that far outpace your wage increases.
What qualifies a person for Medicaid under the Baucus plan? Well, it’s a simple calculation, but I’ve yet to find the answer anywhere in the press, probably because they’re too embarrassed to actually come out and say it. This bill would expand Medicaid to those making 133% of the federal poverty level, which for 2009 is $10,830. So for example, if this bill were in effect today, that means in order to qualify for Medicaid as a single person, you could not make more than $14,404. I’ve heard of panhandlers making more than this in a year.
As for the CO-OPs, this from NPR:
Robert Laszewski, who heads a Washington, D.C.-area consulting firm, says, “I think they’re the single dumbest idea I've heard in 20 years of being in
Laszewski says there’s no need to promote co-ops. They can already form on their own. As for the nonprofit advantage, he says there are plenty of nonprofit health insurers around, including many of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans. The only difference is that they’re run by board members who are appointed, rather than elected. Laszewski says any kind of new insurer will need a lot of cash on hand to line up doctors and hospitals willing to treat patients, and to set up health IT and billing systems.
Indeed. The bill even states that CO-OPs “must not be sponsored by a state, county, or local government, or any government instrumentality.” (Section 501c of the 223-page bill.) Then why is this even in the bill, if they can form on their own and must not be sponsored by any government entity in order to qualify for federal funds? (I hope to expand on this notion of CO-OPs in a later post if the Baucus plan gains prominence.)
A more important question is, should I even care? Is the awful Baucus plan the one the Democrats are going to go with? I sure hope not, but I cannot underestimate that party’s penchant for self-sabotage. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is at this moment being held hostage by Max Baucus of Mon-fucking-tana. Why? Let’s take a look at who contributes to the Baucus war chest:
What a tool. The health insurance industry lives and votes vicariously through Baucus (and so many others). Why bother with politicians when we can spare ourselves the charade of elections. For the sake of transparency, this country should just get it over with and replace the U.S. Senate with the CEOs of the 100 most powerful corporations in
I leave you with this clip of Wendell Potter, former Communications Vice President for the health insurance giant, Cigna, testifying before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Tuesday. In anticipation of the release of the Baucus bill the following day (as many of its key provisions were already known), Potter gives his assessment as a former industry insider who has since reconnected with his conscience.
- Max
No comments:
Post a Comment