Schumer: "The Medicare buy-in is something that has broader appeal than just progressives."

[Clio the Leo]

Schumer giving insight this morning as to what they MAY have agreed to tonight.

Talks continued into Monday evening and the state of play remained highly tentative, but Democratic senators from both the centrist and liberal camps hinted that progress was being made.


“The discussions are going in the right direction in moving away from the government-run plan.” Nelson said. “To the extent that they continue to go in that direction, it’s obviously very positive.”


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a liberal public option supporter and member of the Senate Democratic leadership who has been a central player on the issue all year, also described the talks as productive.


“There’s very good feeling in the room. We’re not there yet, but, you know, we’re getting there,” Schumer said. “There’s push and pull and we have to find the right balance that satisfies the party as to how much government involvement there should be and how much private-sector involvement there should be.


“Each side realizes to get something, they’re going to have to give something.”


Schumer confirmed that liberals are looking for concessions of their own, particularly related to the Medicaid program for the low-income and the Medicare program for retirees.


One proposal would allow people between 55 and 65 years old to enroll in Medicare, currently available only to those over 65 or with a disability, by paying the full, unsubsidized cost of the premiums. Another would raise the income limit for Medicaid benefits in the bill from 133 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty.


The Medicare proposal, Schumer said, is not favored only by the liberal wing of the party. “The Medicare buy-in is something that has broader appeal than just progressives,” he said. “I think people like Medicare and would like to see it more available.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71067-two-issues-threaten-to-divide-senate-dems-on-healthcare

[neshanic still]

1. Can you smell what's cooking? "paying the full, unsubsidized cost of the premiums"

Here we go. There of course will be another set of rules for this type of "plan"

[sandnsea]

3. Which will go straight to Medicare Advantage and Part D

and serve to prop up the ailing Medicare without having to raise taxes or cut doctor pay.

Isn't it funny that they support a Medicare buy-in for some people, but not Medicare For ALL the people.

Definitely something fishy in that.

But increasing Medicaid to 150% of poverty and using Maria Cantwell's Basic Health for those up to 300% of poverty are both good, so maybe it's worth it to let them have this stupid Medicare deal.

[neshanic still]

4. Yes and negotiate the dougnut hole from full closing to a "deductable"

[levander]

8. Extending Medicare is cutting doctor's pay

and serve to prop up the ailing Medicare without having to raise taxes or cut doctor pay.

You know full well Medicare doesn't pay doctors as much as private insurers do. More Medicare patients = less pay.

But increasing Medicaid to 150% of poverty and using Maria Cantwell's Basic Health for those up to 300% of poverty are both good, so maybe it's worth it to let them have this stupid Medicare deal.

Not for most Americans. My insurance premiums are going to have to pay for the additional services given out to the poor and elderly. And, I can barely afford my insurance premiums now! I'm not in an employer sponsored plan like everything I hear seems about this health reform bill seems to favor. I've started my own business and work for myself. And, so am one of the ~15 million people who's insurance premiums are set to go up! But, just so long as most Americans health care premiums will stay about the same, I guess Obama isn't worried about the people who have the courage to go out on their own and be their own boss.

Isn't it funny that they support a Medicare buy-in for some people, but not Medicare For ALL the people.

Definitely something fishy in that.

Amen.

[sandnsea]

9. They will have to pay the full premium

The 55-65 people will get no subsidy at all. They will be putting money into the system, more than they take out. They'll make sure of that.

The increase in Medicaid and the Basic Health plan are being funded through the plan, various taxes on people making over $250,000 or somewhere in that neighborhood.

Since you are self-employed, you will be able to access the exchange and take advantage of group rates; plus get a subsidy for yourself and tax incentives to help you cover your employees.

This Medicare at 55 is crap, but most of the rest of the bill will be good for 95% of the country and the other 5% doesn't need any help and never will.

[Oregone]

5. Why would the private "Exchange" be subsidized, but the buy-in to Medicare not?

No one knows the details. It would seem intuitive that they would apply a sliding scale subsidy here too. Regardless, it should be cheaper than the private alternative, so all the better anyway for that population segment.

[Clio the Leo]

2. And the Wonk Room is saying Snowe is a "Maybe" to a medicare buy-in....

http://twitter.com/wonkroom

(let me repeat, Lieberman was NOT in the Gang of 10 meeting tonight.)

[jefferson_dem]

6. If this goes through, it will be hilarious watching Repugs twist themselves in knots...

trying to explain a filibuster of Medicare for 55+ year olds (an uber-critical voting bloc).

[jenmito]

7. K&R. This is VERY good news despite the Debbie Downers. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

11. That's sexist.

Collectively, they are the Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Downer, et ux Debbie.

[impik]

10. The PO was weak to begin with. This package is much better

But i wouldn't expect "progressives" to actually stop for a second and think, not to mention see the historic context. This might hurt their purism.

[jeanpalmer]

12. How the new Medicare will work

People now on Medicare have the highest healthcare costs. Let's say they cost $11,000 per capita. The 55-64 age group has high healthcare costs, but lower than the 65 and over group. Let's say the 55-64 group costs $9,000 per capita. Assuming that there are an equal number of people in each group, the per capita cost of the combined group is $10,000. If this works like any other insurance program, the 55-64's will then be billed $10,000 in premiums -- the average per person cost. And the result will be that the government will still collect $11,000 per person through Medicare payroll taxes for those 65 and older, and $10,000 per person from those 55-64, for an average of $10,500 per person. Thus the government will collect $10,500 per person for a program that only costs $10,000 per person, netting out a $500 per person gain. And the 55-64 people will pay $1,000 more than they actually cost the system.

The selling point to the 55-64 group will be that the government will pay providers Medicare rates, which will keep the per person cost lower than what would be paid for private insurance. But will that be true cnsidering they will be paying that extra $1,000? Of course the extra cost could be avoided if the 55-64 group were treated as a separate group and billed only what they cost.

Looks like a win-win for the government. They can claim to provide "Medicare" while making a profit. And it gets around the issue of the government having to subsidize coverage. What's there not to like about that, if you're a politician.