Skip to main content

View Diary: ACTION ITEM: Help Grayson push HR 4789 to a floor vote! (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Im not a fan of the public option (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    J M F

    but this sounds like a plan I can actually agree with (although I havent actually read the text of the bill).  Assuming no additional subsidies and or taxes are associated with this bill, I think it is a perfectly acceptable option that appeases both sides.  Those on the left who demand a government option get their wish, and those on the right who are worried about higher taxes and increased government expenditures, get their wish as well.

    In order for me to thrown my full support behind this bill however, I would need to see some type of language instituted making premiums increases mandatory (meaning no vote necessary)if the prior years expendetures were more than 5% higher than the premiums recieved.  

    •  The point is people who pick it, pay for it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, J M F

      at the going rate.  No subsidies, no bells and whistles.  You want medicare, pay the subscription rate and be done.  If you don't want it, don't get it.  No mandates.

      Don't think we're not keeping score, brother.

      by 8ackgr0und N015e on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:12:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the point of it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J M F

        and as I said I agree with it in principle.  However there is always the risk that the premiums recieved do not cover the expenditures.  What I am saying is that if that were to occur, I would like to see legislative language madating an increase in premiums the following year.  Without such language, Congress will inevitably pull funds from the general treasury to cover the defecits.  And if funds are coming from the general treasury to pay for shortfalls, that means there ARE subsidies.

    •  Sounds like a reasonable amendment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J M F, James Robinson

      Maybe you can get your rep to offer it when it is voted on by the chamber.

      Don't think we're not keeping score, brother.

      by 8ackgr0und N015e on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:16:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Estimate of monthly premium set by (6+ / 0-)

      Secretary of HHS as determined by actual cost.

      ``(B) the estimate of the monthly actuarial rate under section 1818(d) shall be computed and applied under this paragraph based upon costs incurred for individuals within each age cohort specified in paragraph (2) rather than for all individuals age 65 and older.
      ``(2) AGE COHORTS.--The age cohorts specified in this paragraph are as follows:
      ``(A) Individuals under 19 years of age.
      ``(B) Individuals at least 19 years of age but not more than 25 years of age.
      ``(C) Individuals at least 26 years of age and not more than 35 years of age.
      ``(D) Individuals at least 36 years of age and not more than 45 years of age.
      ``(E) Individuals at least 46 years of age and not more than 55 years of age.
      ``(F) Individuals at least 56 years of age and not more than 64 years of age.

      It would appear HHS would have no excuse for not adjusting for any shortfalls in premium revenue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site