Grayson rapidly picking up cosponsors for Medicare buy-in

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 15:58


Representative Alan Grayson has introduced a four-page bill that would allow all Americans under the age of 65 purchase Medicare for a fee.  It is a great solution for health insurance in this country that would give everyone a choice of a robust public option.

The bill currently has ten co-sponsors. Notably, I have learned that these co-sponsors were gathered in only 15 minutes, making one co-sponsor for every 90 seconds of effort.  That is a pretty good pace.

Grayson is resuming his efforts, so expect quite a few more members of Congress to sign on today.

The Medicare buy-in proposal has, it would appear, significantly more support than a new, stand along public option.  In December, only two members of the Senate sort of opposed to it--Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.  Lieberman, however, had publicly supported the idea as recently as September, and only changed his mind to stick a fork in the eyes of progressives.  Nelson didn't even declare his outright opposition, just indicated that he was worried about it.  Every other member of the Democratic Senate caucus appeared to reach an agreement on a Medicare buy-in.

This is an effort with a lot of potential support in Congress, so much that it could potentially be passed as a stand alone bill.  You can support it over at WeWantMedicare.com.

Chris Bowers :: Grayson rapidly picking up cosponsors for Medicare buy-in

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Grayson rapidly picking up cosponsors for Medicare buy-in | 41 comments
awesome! (4.00 / 3)
freakin' awesome!
Wasn't the Medicare Buy-in (4.00 / 2)
provision discussed in the Senate only available to those over 54??
Yes (4.00 / 2)
that might change the equation of support.  We will see...
[ Parent ]
I think it will, a lot (0.00 / 0)
A number of rural state Senators oppose Medicare-based plans because reimbursements are low in rural areas. It's a legitimate concern. They might be willing to swallow over 54, but a full Medicare-based public option was unacceptable to the majority in both the House and Senate and since that's effectively Grayson's proposal I expect the same now.

However, it's a good negotiating position. And positions change - who knows?

[ Parent ]
You could just as easily add a rural exemption (4.00 / 2)
or adjust the reimbursement rates for rural people.  

There are compromises that would still end with a buy-in availible.  

[ Parent ]
Offer the adjustment in EXCHANGE for their vote (4.00 / 4)
No more of this premature compromise bullshit.
[ Parent ]
It stikes me as that medicare buy in (4.00 / 5)
is so vastly superior to the "public option" that it is a wonder we didn't start with medicare buy-in from the very beginning.  Half the people I talk to don't know what the public option means.  Everybody knows what is meant by "medicare buy-in".

It is a classic case of liberals being too wonkish in their politics.

[ Parent ]
Reconciliation (4.00 / 2)
I think this has to be in reconciliation to get a real chance of becoming a law; this year at least.  Can that be pulled off?
What Republican is going to vote for this, even in scaled-back form? (0.00 / 0)
It would NOT clear the senate as a standalone bill. At a minimum 41 Republicans + Lieberman + Nelson would vote no. It has to go through reconciliation and that means Obama and the leadership have to fight for it, which they won't. I appreciate Grayson drawing attention to this idea however.
[ Parent ]
re: reconcilliation (0.00 / 0)
It has to go through reconciliation and that means Obama and the leadership have to fight for it

we need one brave soul to offer it as an amendment
[ Parent ]
I believe the idea (0.00 / 0)
Is that it would be part of the reconciliation, perhaps a large part of the "2nd bill" that will follow the passage of the 1st?  I have to say, I would fully support the legislation if this was included and not weakened down too much.  It's a win/win for Democrats of most stripes.
[ Parent ]
Feeling hopeful (4.00 / 2)
There's been a decent amount of good news today! I almost feel hopeful that we're not headed for a cyberpunk/spaghetti-western dystopia.
At this rate (4.00 / 4)
in a day he will have over 960 cosponsors!
Assuming it was really available to everyone, (4.00 / 3)
would the cost of premiums increase with age like it does with private insurance? The idea seems like a winner if the details make sense, because people are already paying for Medicare -- in a sense the difference would be that they'd get immediate benefit from those payments instead of waiting 'til they were 65. I've always thought this made better social-policy and political sense than the public option.

What I don't understand is whether such a thing could be passed through reconciliation. If not, it might make a potent campaign point for Dems -- put more and better Dems in Congress so we can let you buy into Medicare if you want to.

Please please please.... (4.00 / 2)
make a potent campaign point for Dems -- put more and better Dems in Congress so we can let you buy into Medicare if you want to.

From your lips to the ..
well..
what ever works.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
premiums by age yes, reconciliation probably not (0.00 / 0)
i took a stab at calculating possible premiums here.

reconciliation is supposedly only for things that affect the federal budget. we call it 'reconciliation' but it's really 'budget reconciliation'. since grayson is proposing that people have to pay the full premiums themselves, without any help from the govt, then there are no excess govt expenditures or revenues from this bill.

of course, the senate can change their rules any time they like, and the parliamentarian gets to decide if a bill 'affects the budget' so it's always possible that some workaround could be found to put it through reconciliation.

[ Parent ]
If the Medicare buy-in is placed on the insurance exchange (0.00 / 0)
and eligible for subsidies, that solves the problem.

Not to mention, that's exactly what we've wanted all along.  Which is why it's probably not going to happen.

[ Parent ]
I think (4.00 / 2)
if you attach a provision providing a subsidy for the Medicare Buy-in so that it isn't revenue neutral, I think you can use reconciliation.
[ Parent ]
that would probably do it (4.00 / 1)
and there would probably be a lot of people who wouldn't be able to buy into medicare without a subsidy.
[ Parent ]
Even if we can't do it through reconciliation (4.00 / 5)
and have to go on a stand-alone, I think we can get a lot of traction by forcing conservatives to run against Medicare.
[ Parent ]
potential problem with the idea (4.00 / 5)
If the disparity in Medicare reimbursement rates isn't fixed, a lot of Democrats from rural and Midwestern areas won't support it, and a lot of doctors won't want to take Medicare patients.

Other than that, I love the Medicare buy-in (makes a lot more sense than separate public option).

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

That can be fixed alot easier than that pile (4.00 / 5)
Obama is out there hustling.  Medicare for all is the only thing that makes sense.  Public option?  Why reinvent the wheel when it's already in production.  
[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
This would be in addition to the current bill, not instead of.  This instead of the current bill would do very little for the country... proposed medicare premiums are not exactly low... with most business subsidies, employer based would be cheaper and we still have all the other bullshit that is so wrong with the current system.   This would be great in addition... as part of the exchange offerings.  Not by itself... not without the fixes and subsidies.
[ Parent ]
deals (0.00 / 0)
I'm certainly willing to make deals to get something like this, but from what I've read the rural Medicare problem isn't real.  It will all change with the new bill, anyway, (though which way, I cannot say) since it alters how Medicare payments are decided.
[ Parent ]
Exaggerated (4.00 / 3)
but real. Medicare plays less in rural areas roughly based on the lower cost of living. However, doctors make good money, and don't need cheap housing and food, so the reduced options and travel hassles of rural living push them away. Medicare also doesn't account for how the low density of rural areas reduces market sizes and so increase variability of usage, which also hurts the finances of medical providers there.

My understanding of the changes to Medicare payment was that they were partly intended to address the rural/urban disparity so I'd expect them to help but I haven't looked at any details.

[ Parent ]
Kirsten Gillibrand proposed universal Medicare buy-in in 2006 (4.00 / 2)
...when running for Congress.

Whether or not it was on her public platform (I don't have time to check), I distinctly remember her advocating MC buy-in in a candidate interview.

So she may be a good prospect for sponsoring buy-in legislation in the Senate.  Obviously, reconciliation is the only way to proceed with this.

It would likely get the votes of all supporters of public option via reconciliation, and might also appeal to single payer supporters in the House.



There is no such thing as a free market.

Grayson for Majority Leader! (4.00 / 4)
...Or at least leader of the Progressive Caucus.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
Well, co-chair, anyway. (4.00 / 1)
He'd be great up there with Grijalva.
[ Parent ]
Woolsey on Countdown tonight (4.00 / 2)
Another very unimpressive performance. We really deserve better leadership...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
that woman is a trainwreck (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
That woman is our leader in Congress (4.00 / 1)
...And is completely unanswerable to the netroots progressive communities working to expand the numbers and power of the Progressive Caucus. I'm not with Jihad Jane on the reasoning, but Woolsey does indeed need to step aside or be removed.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
jane hamsher? that woman is a hero (4.00 / 1)
that woman is the face of courage

I don't understand, when was the decision made that you aren't supposed to have any principles and just cave to the corporations?

did jane ever said that the health system shouldn't be made better? did jane ever stop from trying to make it better?

she's trying to make things better and she is mocked. and we're the left. it makes me wonder what chance do we really have to make things better?

[ Parent ]
I don't doubt... (0.00 / 0)
...that Jane's heart is in the right place or that she wants largely the same progressive principles we're all working for. I respect her passion and drive -- she's a tireless fighter.

My problem with Jane is at critical moments she has a propensity to spin off on counter-productive jihads instead of staying focused on the goal at hand. Let's take down Lieberman's wife. Let's get Rahm fired. And now, in particular, 'I didn't get my pony so let's crucify anyone who supports HCR without it.' There are plenty of reasons to call for Woolsey to resign, including some Jane enumerated. Her support for HCR w/o a PO now isn't one of them. By that standard we should purge 83% of Move-on members.

Jane's a fierce warrior. She's a terrible General.

As an aside and I'm chastising myself here too -- the use of the phrase "that woman" has been grating at me. Maybe I'm just being to PC, but it feels sexist and condescending.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
I mostly agree with the 'don't take your eyes off the target' criticism (0.00 / 0)
like liberman's wife

I disagree with the 'didn't get my pony' criticism

I don't think a public option or a medicare buy-in is a pony, when you require people buy insurance and their only option is the ahip sharks

[ Parent ]
This comes back to... (0.00 / 0)
...the discussion we had a few days ago. It's not that a PO isn't desirable and I'm all for getting fair, up-or-down votes on it. But assuming it doesn't happen, the real world choices are the Senate HCR w/Rec fixes that will give coverage to millions who don't have it or nothing. If those are the choices, then PO = Pony. And Jane has made clear that if those are the choices she's going actively crusade against people who vote for HCR because it doesn't have her pony.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
re: pony (0.00 / 0)
I think it comes down to how much you trust the insurance cartel

here's the key part of your post:

the Senate HCR w/Rec fixes that will give coverage to millions who don't have it

if I had your confidence that "the Senate HCR w/Rec fixes...will give coverage to millions who don't have it" I'd be support it. honestly. I mean the money that would be spend, if not spend on health-care it'd be spent on some some other corporate outlet like a military program, tax-break or farm subsidy. I don't give a damn about those.

but I don't think the insurance cartel will do what you say. look at the current situation. the insurance companies' mission is to make the most money possible. they don't care if that means letting people die. now, would their mission change in your scenario? no. would they become not-for profit companies? no. so, why do you trust them that they will give people health-care? isn't it naive?

[ Parent ]
Medicare for Everybody (4.00 / 5)
is what health care reform should have been all along.  This would have been an easy sell to the public and the best performing solution.

The WH will work their a$$es off to kill it.

well, they started over (4.00 / 1)
so it's not only a good idea, but bipartisan too ;)
I would support this 100% (4.00 / 5)
either as part of the 2nd bill in reconciliation or as a new stand alone project if the current train wreck bill goes down in flames.  It's a win/win if Democrats have the balls to put it through.  

I would even agree with Chris Bowers if he liked it too ;)

:) (0.00 / 0)
:)
Is medicare affordable? (0.00 / 0)
Medicare goes up every year, and you have to buy supplementary insurance, which also goes up every year. So as a medicare enrollee, who goes to doctor once a year and takes no drugs (costing medicare nothing), I will probably drop Medicare as I get older, just when I need to start using our health care system.

Plus, Medicare is individual only, so how will it help families? Surely it would be too expensive to enroll everyone in a family on an individual basis.

Grayson rapidly picking up cosponsors for Medicare buy-in | 41 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox