"Buy-in" for Medicare prob. start in early 2011 and " not be subsidized."

[waterscalm]

"Buy-in" for Medicare prob. start in early 2011 and " not be subsidized."

I think this answers this post.





Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject So what has happened to the National High Risk Pool that was supposed to be available Jan 1
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7186515#7186515
7186515, So what has happened to the National High Risk Pool that was supposed to be available Jan 1
Posted by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Wed Dec-09-09 12:11 PM

for those with prior conditions, those who have been denied coverage or those who have had prohibitively expensive policies?

Did the Senate just make that vanish? That was an item on the "14 Things that will happen Immediately" list that was released by Pelosi after the House Bill passed. That list has been posted here many times.





http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30371_Page3.html
Harry Reid: Democrats reach 'broad agreement'

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 12/8/09 8:25 PM EST
Updated: 12/9/09 7:57 AM EST

Senate Democrats have reached a "broad agreement" on a health reform bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday night — a plan that would replace the public option in the current Senate bill with a new national insurance plan offered by private insurers, and a chance for older Americans to “buy in” to Medicare.

Democrats on Tuesday night took a major step forward on a plan by agreeing to ask congressional scorekeepers to give them cost estimates on a possible compromise that would break the impasse over health reform in the Senate.

In doing so, Senate negotiators moved decisively away from including a government-run health insurance plan that would start on Day One in any final compromise, a major disappointment for the Democratic base but one that is likely to prove necessary to win over fiscally moderate senators.

Instead, Democrats are considering including a “trigger” that would allow a public plan to kick in – but only in the event that private insurers didn’t step up and offer policies for the new national health insurance plan, which seemed unlikely.

To win over liberals disappointed at losing the public option, Democrats would allow older Americans starting at age 55 to buy into Medicare, the popular program for the aged. The Medicare expansion would be a significant victory for Democrats, who spent years pushing for it. The proposal would in effect create a public health insurance option for older Americans, since Medicare is government-funded and government-run.

.......................

The state “opt-out” public option in the current Senate bill is no longer in play. But the group sent a proposal to the Congressional Budget Office for the public option “trigger,” according to people familiar with the talks.

The group also reached a consensus to expand access to Medicare, allowing people 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in the program. Details of who would be eligible within that age group were unclear Tuesday.

The “buy-in” period could kick in as early as 2011 – three years ahead of when the larger set of reforms would begin – although the coverage for the interim period would not be subsidized.


......................

By Tuesday evening, the group was no longer considering opening Medicaid to people with incomes 150 percent above the poverty line, according to senators involved in the talks. It faded as a realistic option amid concerns among moderates and many governors that it would put too much of a burden on state governments, which pick up a portion of the coverage costs.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who is still being wooed by Democrats, expressed strong skepticism toward another key element, the expansion of Medicare to people between 55 and 64. She said she was concerned the bill would rely too much on government to fill gaps in insurance coverage that the private sector should handle.

Reid said he had not spoken to Snowe since the Democratic group concluded its talks.............................

[Schema Thing]

1. Doesn't seem to answer that post in the slightest. But it is good info.

[waterscalm]

2. It seems to me that there is no 'high risk pool" in the Senate bill at

this point --except a watered down one as stated in the OP. What is your take on it?

[Schema Thing]

3. I don't know

I'm curious too; but it has zero to do with the new development of adding 55 yo's to medicare.

I believe the Senate bill *does* have some provisions for high risk, and starting immediately; but I couldn't point you to that info.

[waterscalm]

4. I think this IS the "provision"

[Schema Thing]

5. Obviously. But *why* would you think such a thing?

What is your information source?

[waterscalm]

7. based on the content of the OP.

[Schema Thing]

9. Ok, but I don't get why you think you are on the same topic

"National High Risk Pool that was supposed to be available Jan 1"


is something that either was, or wasn't, in the House and senate bills for a long time now.


this Medicare thing is something different, and only been seriously discussed in the past two days.


If you have information that shows the Medicare proposal supersedes the other, I understand your point. Do you?

[waterscalm]

10. I do not think it was in the Senate bill.

[Schema Thing]

11. well it looks like you may be on to something:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x46292



I sure hope that's wrong.




btw, welcome to DU :wave:

[waterscalm]

12. FDL usually does a good analysis. Thanks for the heads up. I will

have to read it.--

This Medicare option was only to pacify the progressives anyway. but looks to be that it gets worse as we go along.--but I, too, hope I am wrong.


Thanks for the welcome.

[frazzled]

6. It will be subsidized as soon as the subsidies for the exchange kick in

Don't give half the equation

[waterscalm]

8. if that is so, I missed it in the article.

[frazzled]

13. Because that article is not very well sourced

This, from "An aide briefed on the negotiations" to TPM reporter Brian Beutler:

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php

Now, I don't know if this aide has it right either. No one will know until we're told, or until after the CBO scoring. But this sounds more likely to me. I can't imagine a Jay Rockefeller or Bernie Sanders (both of whom are praising the move today) would go for a Medicare buy-in that won't eventually allow subsidies to kick in.

FDL would be one of the last places I'd go to get information about health care reform. I just don't see anyone there who has expertise in this area. For the policy of it, I tend to go to Ezra Klein; for the politics end, maybe to TPM.