The NY Times had an interesting piece about the Senate earmarks they found snuck into the Manager's Amendment. The most surprising one was that Max Baucus came out for expanding Medicare-- to the residents of Libby MT.
^SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MONT., chairman of the Finance Committee and a key architect of the legislation, put in a provision to help the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., many of whom have asbestos-related illnesses from a now-defunct mineral mine. Under Baucus' provision, which never mentions Libby by name, sickened residents could sign up for Medicare benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
That is nice for the folks in Libby, after all, who could deny that these folks deserve universal, single payer health coverage? But perhaps Senator Baucus should have widened his gazed a bit and considered that maybe there are sick people who need affordable coverage even outside the fine state of Montana.
I have more details about the bill (and a suggestion for the House Democrats) after the fold. Just added a poll to ask who's heard of Tommy Douglas (father of Canadian Medicare and grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland).
It starts on page 193 of the Manager's Amendment
SEC. 10323. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.
http://www.politico.com/...
For those who meet the geographic and medical conditions, enrollment eligibility would start immediately, no waiting till 2014. I should clarify, this isn't a "Medicare buy-in" plan (as was proposed a couple of weeks ago for those 55 to 64) that leaves 100% of the premium costs on the recipient. Instead, this is the real deal Medicare with no Part A premiums and the standard 25% cost share of Part B premiums that senior citizens pay now.
If the House Democrats really cared about expanding health coverage (or winning elections) before 2014, they'd walk into Conference with the opening position that they're fine with accepting the Senate bill in its entirety--- as long as the Montanacare clause is edited (literally. No words have to be added) to cover everybody: 1. define "public health emergency" without specifying CERCLA, the entire country is currently under a swine flu public health emergency and 2. drop the medical diagnosis requirements. Since this section specifically exempts itself from the revenue-neutral requirements, its just like a defense bill, there's none of that paygo business (or CBO scoring) to worry about.
You know, that Max Baucus can be pretty clever when he applies himself. In case you're wondering how Baucus amends the Medicare law to make the residents of Libby (who we'd all agree deserve assistance) eligible for coverage--- he legislatively declares them all 65 and over! This is now my single-payer plan of choice :o)
Here's current law--
ENTITLEMENT TO HOSPITAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 226. [42 U.S.C. 426]
(a) Every individual who—
(1) has attained age 65, and (
(2)(A) is entitled to monthly insurance benefits under section 202, would be entitled to those benefits except that he has not filed an application therefor (or application has not been made for a benefit the entitlement to which for any individual is a condition of entitlement therefor), or would be entitled to such benefits but for the failure of another individual, who meets all the criteria of entitlement to monthly insurance benefits, to meet such criteria throughout a month, and, in conformity with regulations of the Secretary, files an application for hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII,
(B) is a qualified railroad retirement beneficiary, or
(C)(i) would meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) upon filing application for the monthly insurance benefits involved if medicare qualified government employment (as defined in section 210(p)) were treated as employment (as defined in section 210(a)) for purposes of this title, and (ii) files an application, in conformity with regulations of the Secretary, for hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII,
shall be entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII for each month for which he meets the condition specified in paragraph (2), beginning with the first month after June 1966 for which he meets the conditions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
And here's what Baucus's Montanacare says about that---
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of eligibility for benefits under this title, an individual determined under subsection (c) to be an environmental exposure affected individual described in subsection (e)(2) shall be deemed to meet the conditions specified in section 226(a).