Grayson adds another 14 co-sponsors to Medicare buy-in bill

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:25


There are now 64 sponosor's to Alan Grayson's Medicare buy-in bill.  That's 14 more since yesterday.  Here is the complete list:

64 CURRENT COSPONSORS:  Representatives Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, Rush Holt, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Tammy Baldwin, Mike Doyle, Diana DeGette, Steve Cohen, Bennie Thompson, Andre Carson, Yvette Clarke, Steve Israel, James Moran, Emanuel Clever, Judy Chu, Donald Payne, and John Garamendi.

In all likelihood, the public option is going to have to come in this sort of stand alone bill.  No matter the odds, Democracy for America, the PCCC, and CREDO Action are still fighting for it in the current health reform process.  they continue to fight the good fight, and deserve a lot of praise.

Since this is a stand alone bill, it is worth asking: are there 216 votes for a Medicare buy-in?  Are there 51?  Even if there are, will those votes still be around next year?

When the buy-in is limited to 55-64, or even 50-64, I believe that there are, and that there will be enough votes.  When everyone is allow to buy-in, I don't know.  However, it's best to start seeing how many votes there are for the big enchilada, and then decide where to go from there.

Here is a cool pic of the ongoing process:


Have a good weekend. I am going to try and chill out before the six days of insanity start on Monday.

Chris Bowers :: Grayson adds another 14 co-sponsors to Medicare buy-in bill

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Grayson adds another 14 co-sponsors to Medicare buy-in bill | 28 comments
Grayson's bill is nowhere near enough.... (0.00 / 0)
As well-intended as it is, it doesn't come close to replacing a public option:

THIS IS NOT A P.O REPLACEMENT. Here's why:

The bill as it's currently written ONLY covers Medicare Part A. So, even if you were admitted to the hospital, you would be covered ONLY for a very expensive hotel with horrible food.

Here are examples of what would NOT be covered, and what you would be billed for:

a) All physician fees. Even for a hospital stay, you would be billed for (and not covered for): The doc who sees you in the E.R., the hospitalist who sees you daily and coordinates your care, the radiologist who reads your x-rays, the surgeon who operates on you, etc.

b) All treatment given in an outpatient setting. That includes not only physician fees, but all medications, such as chemotherapy or expensive biologics.

c) All prescription medications. (That's Medicare Part D.)

d) Nursing home care.

And it's important to mention that Medicare only covers 80% of these charges. So, even for what is covered, you pay 20% unless Medigap policies were offered to people who bought into this new program.

But remember: most care, even very expensive care, for most people, is NOT covered under Medicare Part A.

I don't understand why Rep. Grayson's bill was not written to apply to all parts of Medicare, at least as options for those who wanted to buy in. The same buy-in principles could apply. If someone wanted hospital care only, then great. But most people would want the same kind of coverage they get now, if they are insured. Otherwise, people would be stuck buying both Medicare AND expensive separate policies, which would likely NOT be paid by employers, to cover the rest. The result could be as bad, or worse, than what we have now.

But as written, this bill is NOT --- NOT --- a replacement for the public option. Sorry; I really wish it were.

Rep. Grayson (or staff) -- a response to this would be tremendously appreciated.

"But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

by flitedocnm at The Daily Kos

link: http://www.dailykos.com/commen...

They only call it class war when we fight back.

Every individual who is eligible for Part A is eligible for Part B. (4.00 / 3)
Social Security Act Sec. 1836
[ Parent ]
and same with Part D (0.00 / 0)


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Pic Doesn't Show For Me (0.00 / 0)
Dunno if it's my computer/browser or if it's on your end.
Sestak? (4.00 / 2)
Any word on where Sestak stands on this?  This would be the kind of thing he should jump on, hint hint.
If Obama doesn't want the public option now, why the hell he would support it later? (4.00 / 4)
In December there were 56-57
votes at the least for Reid to have put it in his original bill

The dynamic is the key... It's like when they put Stupak's amendment up in November.  He threatened with anywhere from 12 to 20 votes.  But once it got
to the floor it got 64 votes...62 men and 2 women,

That 's the difference. Only Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman and Nelson would vote against it.  None of the other Democrats would want to be on record VOTING against the public option.  Remember they have never had to actually
vote for it or against it before.

So if it gets to the floor, it wins.

The crux of the matter though is KEEPING IT OFF THE FLOOR.  If it's not allowed to be voted on. Then they don't have to be put in the postion of voting NO.

Despite the promises Obama made to progressive caucus leaders - when they finally had a meeting with him only because Grijalva threatened to vote against the bill - HE DOES NOT MEAN IT.

If hes not for it now,why the hell would he be for it later?  The only political impediments are ones of his own making.  He has never once lobbied one House or Senate member to VOTE FOR the public option.  He lobbied Senators to kill drug importation.  They have decided they will ignore Stupak and WHIP the votes. It is not that he doesn't have the power to bend the caucus to his will.  the problem is he doesn't want to do it for the public option.

Right now public option votes don;t require whipping by the WH to pass.  To achive their purpose i actually requires active negligence and winks and nods to let everyone know he wants the public option out, not only in  this bill BUT OUT OF HEALTHCARE.

He's not ditching it to save his bill.  The public option wins if it gets to be voted on...so what's he afraid of?  

He's afraid of it passing..He made a deal with the hospitals. He's working to keep that deal.  Why wouldn't he consider himself bound by that deal after the bill passes?

But if WH doesn't want it now, why should anyone expect  his commitment to it to blossom full throated  later?.  The problem for for us is the who care about htis is that the public hosptials won;t want it any more later than they want it now.  Barack Obama made a deal and it seems deals with industry players are the ones he holds to.

So whip away for Medicare buy in or public option, it is just spinning your wheels. You are being lured to abandon it now when you have the leverage to make them do it now in exchange  for a chimera that will always magically fall short because the president will not lift a finger to make it happen.  And behind the scenes they will subtly indicate that once again that  public option or Medicare buy in or any public insurance is a bridge too far.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Plus, a lot of sold-out corporate dems (4.00 / 2)
are just voting for this bill because of the individual mandate and could flip to no on a standalone Medicare buy-in. Regardless, I'd like to see a vote and like you said it comes down to hopey changey in the end.
[ Parent ]
You only have one source of leverage (4.00 / 1)
That is your vote.  I hope when you go to the polls in November you remember how you felt while you wrote this comment.  The Democrats are counting on you being as stupid as a teabagger and that you'll vote for those who are really stabbing you in the back.  You are right, the PO is dead.  It has been for months.  So we take what ever we can kick, scream, and coerce out of them.  But hopefully you'll remember in November who they were really representing.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
Ohh yes I get it now.. I hate the bill too. (0.00 / 0)
I do I really do.
Grrrr.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
" If Obama doesn't want the public option now, why the hell he would support it later?" (4.00 / 3)
because he responds to political power. if you build it, he will come...
[ Parent ]
Does he? Why hasn't he yet responded? (4.00 / 2)
Field of Dreams was a fantasy

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Because he doesn't feel threatened yet (0.00 / 0)
that could change.  No matter what the dude says, he wants a 2nd term.
[ Parent ]
because progressives don't spend enough time actually mounting political power (4.00 / 1)
and in between elections mounting social power.

or rather, they are, but not enough yet.  but they need to do more.

why did the white house do anything it did, from abandoning the public option to cutting deals with for profit hospitals to cutting deals with labor unions?  it didn't matter what the ideology was - they just wanted to get a deal done.  and if progressives mount more pressure, the white house will respond.

just don't expect him to lead.  we were voting for someone we could fight with, not someone who's a progressive - and that's what we got.

but he's the only one fighting :)

[ Parent ]
btw, the time frame i'm talking about is probably past the expiry date of the health care bill (0.00 / 0)
but we can at least try...write your congressperson about the grayson bill.  it feels, to me, like the best and most sincere effort to actually force the administration and congressional leaders to continue to take the public option as a serious threat.

which they have - otherwise it would have been treated like single payer - ruled out to begin with.

[ Parent ]
Yes, he responds to political pressure (4.00 / 1)
but the political pressure that he now cares about is money and no grassroots movement will ever have the big money that corporations have.


Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
well that's an argument for changing public financing of elections (4.00 / 1)
this is why, even though american voters may not care about abstractions like election processes and senate rules, it's important for progressives to focus on them.  they're about to pass a relatively $hit piece of legislation, and they're barely able to pass it.  if progressives don't mount actual power instead of expecting politicians who are, after all, politicians to do their work for them, nothing will ever get done.

it's daunting, but structural problems are a big factor in addition to thew hims of politicians like obama and stupak.  

[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
Can this be accomplished through budget reconciliation? Or is it subject to Senate filibuster?  

"Righties have no idea what we lefties think, because they never listen to us. They listen to the straw lefties that live in their own heads, and then they explain to each other what we think."  - Barbara O'Brien

Yes (0.00 / 0)
As an existing government program, modifications to Medicare affect the budget and consequently may be passed through reconciliation.  Whether or not Dems agree it's "fair" or "sporting" is another question.
[ Parent ]
Reconcilation can only be done once (0.00 / 0)
 Not sure if it's a Congress or a budget year.

We already have one reconicilation bill. And the leglislation has to authorize it when it's passed in the House which is what they did with the HCR bill

It will expire in a about a month.

Not sure if it can be done again in the next budget

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
"When the buy-in is limited to 55-64, or even 50-64" (4.00 / 1)

Man, the fight hasn't even started . . . .
"When the buy-in is limited to 55-64, or even 50-64" (4.00 / 1)

Man, the fight hasn't even started . . . .
People Insurance Companies Don't Want (4.00 / 1)
That should be the first round focus of any Medicare buyin. Fifty plus and their dependants under 25 (e.g. college kids). Self-employed. Small businesses with 5 (or 10) employees or less. Perhaps the unemployed or include them later. But start with the millions of people who don't appeal to private insurers. That's a much better argument and place to start.
Just make it everyone who wants it (4.00 / 1)
It is so much simpler and easier to sell to the public at large.  Once you start slicing up who can join and who cannot, you're handing the Glen Becks and the Karl Rove a giant drum of ammo to kill your bill.  

Think big, start big, comprise to medium or small if you have to.  

[ Parent ]
Here's the problem (4.00 / 1)
Private insurers have shown they will kill any bill that threatens their business. Full blown Medicare buyin is a direct threat to their business model. Buyin for the self-employed and very small businesses is no threat because there are no economies of scale as there are with large group plans. In theory that means little or no opposition from private insurers. Indeed they might welcome a new market for Medigap insurance.

My concern is how do we do public health insurance without triggering a full blown assault by health insurers? We need a beach head. Also, Medicare and Medicaid have a long history of being there for groups private insurers don't want. Let's expand the definition to include groups insurers don't want beyond chronically ill people.

[ Parent ]
There is nothing to that will prevent the rain of feces (4.00 / 1)
that the right is preparing now. There is no appeasement the right will accept. The Party of defeat Obama is the same party of Impeach Clinton. There is no way to slow or avoid the oncoming ire of the Insurance companies.

We must, like the famous FDR quote, "welcome the hatred of the economic royalists" know that we are saving not just families, and isn't that a phrase to freeze your gaze, but a nation. Letting people buy into Medicare is the sanest thing we ahve as a nation in fifty years. Helping families, saving Seniors and funding their Medicare, saving the nation's finances and preventing the bankruptcy of the worlds most powerful democracy. This, this my friends is Democrats in power generations. A progressive future emerging.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Insurers are actually the weakest player in the health sector. (4.00 / 1)
Doctors, hospitals, and pharma are the big boys. I guarantee you it was them who killed the over 55 Medicare buy-in. Insurers basically aren't interested in that market. Their business model is healthy people. So yes, you could probably get an over 55 Medicare buy-in past the insurers, but this big boys will stop you. What you need is something the insurers don't want but the big boys do. I don't know what that is.
[ Parent ]
It would be of greater use to push the state single payer effort (4.00 / 2)

Why are we focusing on shiny objects (0.00 / 0)
that will never pass the Senate without reconciliation and which Congress has no intention of putting into this reconciliation bill?

Grayson adds another 14 co-sponsors to Medicare buy-in bill | 28 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