Skip to main content

Okay, I didn't tell anybody this either here or on my blog, but my optimistic self had predicted a 6-3 decision in support of the individual mandate, with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberal members of the Court. Kennedy's siding with the three off-their-rockers in dissenting AND saying they would have thrown the entire thing out, well, I could never have predicted. But Roberts voting to allow the mandate -- and on tax grounds -- I did hope for. Kudos to Talking Points Memo and reporter Brian Beutler for suggesting this outcome (I had noticed it during oral arguments but had forgotten it until I read Beutler's piece, which was quite prescient).

My pessimistic side had assumed we were doomed. We may yet be, but not today. Today we rejoice and enjoy watching the Republicans and Mitt Romney twist themselves into pretzels. As Paul Krugman says, today is "double scotch time." Make mine wine, but I will toast come happy hour.

As for pretzel time, Rand Paul and Jim Inhofe declared fuck the Supreme Court, we're going to refuse to follow the law anyway. Mitt Romney says -- in spite of the fact that his healthcare achievement in Massachusetts relied on an individual mandate -- he will repeal the ACA on day one. All the other conservative talking heads, and some liberal ones as well, are harping on the "lie" that Obama said the ACA wasn't a tax. A little digging reveals that Obama didn't say it wasn't a tax, he said it "wasn't a tax increase." Check it out.

All those referring to Obama's saying that it was not a tax, are referring to that ABC interview. In it, Obama declares that the ACA is not a tax increase. Now, I get that part of his argument is that regardless of whether or not you elect to buy insurance or pay a penalty -- collected by the IRS -- the overall impact of the ACA is that your costs for health care will go down, while coverage for the American citizenry is broadened. And I essentially agree with him.

There's a simple way to dismiss this tax argument: no responsible adult needs to pay the penalty; all they need to do is obtain healthcare coverage. End of story. And the 85% of Americans already covered by health insurance don't even enter into the uninsured penalty zone anyway.

But to argue sensibly with the conservatives is a waste of time, unless you enjoy pretzel watching.

I prefer to move on to what the SCOTUS decision made me consider. Now that the law will come into effect by 2014, how can savvy state politicians take advantage of the situation for their home states by preparing early for the law?

The answer hit me like a brick, and I hope that it stands up upon closer examination. Here's what I recommend to, say, Jerry Brown, my California governor:

1. As required by the ACA, each state in the nation needs to set up health insurance exchanges, which are to be the marketplace where the uninsured, as of 2014, can acquire affordable health insurance.

2. A smart way to make a state's health insurance exchange truly affordable is for it to be based on an already functioning and affordable system. Most states already have such an exchange available to its public sector employees, where they can choose from a variety of healthcare packages. (I participate in such an exchange. I did, first, as a public-school teacher, and do so now, as a retired teacher who isn't yet of Medicare age. I'm 63.)

3. So, as soon as is practicable, Jerry Brown -- in my example -- should find a way, either through legislation or state agency policy, to declare that all state employees are now de facto participants in the health insurance exchanges.

4. All local government agencies, whether towns, cities, or counties, should be invited to join in the state exchange, in order to create an even larger negotiating pool, placing participants at a better competitive advantage with the health insurance providers.

5. Next, all private-sector businesses should be invited to join.

6. Lastly, all uninsured private citizens should also be allowed a mechanism for participation.

There you have it: a series of steps for creating a state health insurance exchange, in stages, that will bring down costs as slowly or quickly as a state might decide, as long as it is fully in place by 2014.

I would further recommend that the state require a small fee, say $10, to participate in the exchange, with a $20 reinstatement fee if someone leaves the pool or allows his participation to expire (to discourage flightiness). This fee would have little impact on individuals but would easily finance the bureaucracy needed to run the exchange.

Everything I know about economics says that the sooner a state or public entity participates in such an exchange, the sooner the state's healthcare costs go down. This allows states, municipalities, counties, businesses, and even individuals to make their healthcare costs affordable. Seems to me states could radically reduce their budget shortfalls.

What am I missing here? Seems like a no-brainer.

The American Human

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary J
  •  Please explain (0+ / 0-)
    Now, I get that part of his argument is that regardless of whether or not you elect to buy insurance or pay a penalty -- collected by the IRS -- the overall impact of the ACA is that your costs for health care will go down, while coverage for the American citizenry is broadened. And I essentially agree with him.
    How will my costs go down? This year my boyfriend and I were uninsured and had essentially no healthcare costs. Next year our insurance, together, will probably cost $20K, only part of which may be subsidized if subsidies are funded. I can't think of any way my costs will go down, and considering how much I will likely have to pay, I probably won't be able to afford health care if I do get sick.
    •  Read the law. (0+ / 0-)

      It doesn't even take effect until 2014. Even then, if you choose to not get minimal insurance -- which won't cost you anything like $20K -- you and your boyfriend will have to pay a penalty of $95 each, for the year.

      It takes several years to rise to $695 in penalties. So, please, don't act like you're paying astronomical amounts.

      Now, if you want to make the argument that you don't want to participate in a system where we all share the burden so that all are always protected, then admit it. But don't do so by saying the ACA will bankrupt us. It won't, and if you look around, you'll realize that the current system allows thousands and thousands to be not only bankrupted but also suffer and die with no insurance.

      I hope, seriously, that you are lucky enough not to be one of them.

      Study what's really going on. It'll do you, and our society, a lot of good.

      •  I'm not sure how you come up with that figure (0+ / 0-)

        I priced it out. My own insurance would be $13K because I am over 55, and they can charge 3 times as much. His will be less as he is younger.

        The ACA has no provision for preventing medical bankruptcy. Medical bankruptcies will continue unabated, or they may even increase as individual Americans' share of the cost of healthcare increases.

        And saying that I said the ACA will bankrupt all Americans is a lie. I never said that. Nor did I say that I don't want to participate in a system where all share the burden so all are always protected. I would love to participate in a system where all share the burden so all are always protected.

        But the fact is that this isn't it. Twenty plus million will still be uninsured, and even having insurance does not mean getting health care if you don't have the money to pay your deductible out of your own pocket.

        The wealthy are paying their "share"? Get serious. The more money people have, the smaller their "share".

        What you said, that my costs will go down no matter what, is just untrue. And there is nothing in your response that addresses that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site