"Medicare PRICES for All" — latest neolib head fake

In a move of health care strategery that the likes of a Beto O'Rourke would surely love, two Obamacare flaks at neoliberal punditry mag Washington Monthly say "we" (who's that mouse in your collective pocket?) don't really need Medicare for All.

We need Medicare PRICES for all.

This is built on such a foundation of sinking bullshit, I don't know where to start.

First, if this does save my late-stage capitalist employer money on health care, he's not passing it on to me. But, you guys know that.

Second, my boss wants to keep me enserfed to health care benefits. "Bennies," so that I still don't want to change jobs. But, you guys know that, too.

And, talk about burying the lede? It's down in the last paragraph of the long piece:

So why not just keep it simple, at least to start? A “Medicare prices for all” plan doesn’t require tax increases or involve transfers paid for by the middle class. It doesn’t require Americans to give up their current health care plans. And it doesn’t repeal or replace the popular features of the Affordable Care Act. But it does directly attack the middle-class affordability crisis using a proven approach that the great majority of Americans might actually support.

In other words, you poor? Keep your state-largesse-dependent Medicaid. Working poor? Keep your CHIP for your kids. 

If you're "working poor" or lower-middle-class in a state that didn't do the Medicaid expansion with Obamacare, or did it, but with restrictions? Oh, so sorry. That "transfers paid for by the middle class" shows the gig is up right there. Because we can attack, or pretend to attack, an abstract health care industry, but we can't tax rich individuals more and more progressively as part of a national health care system.

They even outrightly admit that, two paragraphs up:

Even if the CAP plan was financed in good measure by new taxes on the super-rich, it would still involve large transfers from middle-income people, who will be at least partially financing their own benefits, to people with lower incomes, who would be paying nothing for the health care they receive.

This dreck may not be racist, but it certainly is classist. Beyond that, middle-class taxes already help pay for Medicaid and CHIP. And these neoliberal wingnuts know THAT, too. So, it's classist with a counterfactual pandering element.

And we sure as hell can't have a British-style NHS because that would be an even bigger giveaway to "them" than Medicare for All. (It would also address the increasing monopilization of hospitals that Medicare PRICES for All would not. What's to stop a hospital from going cash-only? Or a cartel of them, if the gummint doesn't investigate?)

Fuck you all. Fuck your Council for Affordable Health Coverage, since it's an insurance industry front group.

TX Progressives talk Trump, death penalty, pollution

The Texas Progressive Alliance is old enough to remember a time when Republicans thought cozying up to Russia was a bad idea (your blogger will have an updated report on the "12 Russians" indictments and the Trump-Putin summit next week) as it brings you this week's roundup — and as one member celebrates the Cardinals firingMike Matheny.

Off the Kuff reviewed the prognosticator projections for Texas' Congressional races.

SocraticGadfly talked about how the latest animal research seems to partially refute some ideas of Elizabeth Loftus' claims about how memory can operate.

Neil at You Need To Act Right Now detailed steps he was taking to defeat Trump and Trump's wickedness. Everything we do in this regard has value.

The NAACP had its annual convention in San Antonio and talked about getting out the black vote and continuing to fight disenfranchisement laws.

State Rep. Joe Moody calls for the abolition of the death penalty in Texas.

The Texas Trib notes how Greg Abbott is building on Rick Perry in consolidating trhe governor’s power.

State Rep. Joe Moody calls for the abolition of the death penalty in Texas.

Sanford Nowlin frets about the state of local media in San Antonio, though his worries apply to most metropolitan areas.

Stephen Young at the Dallas Observer describes the politics behind why Texas is likely to continue to oppose Medicaid expansion. The Texas Observer notes that, for similar reasons, automatic voter registration, ie, "motor voter," same-day registration and other ideas, won't happen.

Erica Schommer decries the planned reopening of the Willacy County Detention Center.

Equality Texas responds to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Greensource DFW says bacteria could decompose those nasty paper bags — and produce electricity in the process.

Downwinders at Risk stumbles on an old clean air fund and asks questions about it while suggesting it could be repurposed.

Backstory — your blogger was in Lancaster at the time, and trongly supported the coalition’s work to block coal-fired power plants. He does remember, and notes, that Cedar Hill and Duncanville refused to join Lancaster and DeSoto among Best Southwest cities. Back to you, Rob Franke.

Harry Truman and national health care

A lot of people know that business organizations and the American Medical Association opposed Truman's national health care push. They don't realize that organized labor did as well .

But it did. As discussed in the great new book "The Age of Acquiescence," per my review, the New Deal "settlement" between labor and management-ownership in America was that organized labor would accept the financial settlement of wage gains and benefits offerings (which became more important during World War II with wages generally frozen or nearly so), in exchange for eschewing German-type unionism of sitting on corporate boards (see Volkswagen of America today) and other broader attempts to alter the labor-management power relationship.

So, in Truman's time, the bennies, including good private health insurance, that came with a union job, as well as the pay itself, were a recruiting incentive, and one that organized labor wasn't going to surrender, not even if this helped change the labor-management power relationship to the working man's benefit in general.

Even with LBJ's moves, and without formally stated opposition by organized labor, surely this is why he settled for Medicare and Medicaid. Senior citizens normally are retired and therefore not candidates for union job recruitment. Poor people are working in low-paying non-union jobs, if working at all; also, therefore, not part of organized labor's orbit.

That said, Truman was proposing something more than just national health care. He wanted a federal hospital oversight agency, and a federal form of workmen's compensation for work time lost due to medical treatment. That said, the Truman Library claims that organized labor was in support, but this is the first time I've seen such a claim. I've generally read elsewhere that, if not opposed, it was no more than neutral.

Anyway, the combination of ideas in the bill might have been better than just single-payer health care.

Why?

First, Truman probably could have said that, if surgery were needed, it would only be compensated for if performed at an accredited hospital. That, in turn, would have opened the door to federal pricing controls, including saying "no" with a capital "N" to outrageous pricing by Big Pharma.

(Today, the JCAHO only partially performs the accreditation idea, and as a private agency, doesn't have the same teeth that a federal regulatory board would.)

The Texas non-solution for Medicaid expansion is dying

The Austin American-Statesman has details. I have no doubt that no bill's gonna get to the House floor before the Thursday deadline.

Some tea partiers will love that. Their "Texas solution" is, of course, to do nothing. Democrats are smart, both politically and otherwise, to avoid this baby with a 10-foot pole, but who knows if a few more would break ranks?

Anyway, in the meantime, smaller, rural hospitals will see taxes for their taxation districts rise again with the ER becoming more and more the substitute for health insurance. But, those voters still won't, or will refuse to, draw the connection with their local representative.

Texas Medicaid kabuki clears first hurdle

The House Appropriations Commission, earlier today, passed John Zerwas' HB 3791.

All you need to know about this attempt to put a smiley face on Texas' rejection of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion is this:

Rather than expand Medicaid as directed under the Affordable Care Act, under Zerwas’ proposal, Texas would leverage tax revenue collected from premiums on health care plans to pay for the state’s portion of the program’s costs. It would also allow the state to save money by tailoring Medicaid recipients’ benefits, implementing “personal responsibility” cost-sharing measures such as co-pays and deductibles, and prioritizing premium assistance for private market health plans. ...

The conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation had a strong hand in helping craft the language of the block grant proposal (within the bill), which would request that the state be allowed to implement sliding scale subsidies for Medicaid recipients to purchase private health coverage. Such a block grant would require an OK from the Obama administration, which political observers believe is unlikely.

That said, the TPPF doesn't like the rest of the bill. Original bill language here.

Why? Because it might actually involve spending more money, among other things. Even if it involves corporate socialism (never forget who the real socialists are in America) for private health care.

That said, let's say it passes the whole House. AND the whole Senate. Including with components TPPF doesn't like

What's Tricky Ricky Perry going to do?

This could be one of those rock-and-hard-place issues for him. It could also bear on whether he's running for re-election in 2014, or for Prez again in 2016. Either his signature or veto could bear on his plans, or already gelling plans could bear on either a signature or a veto.

Signing it would give him another chance to thumb his nose at Dear Leader. But, what if not all parts of his potential base like it?

Another alleged liberal sellout on entitlements - Cong Progressives

About 70 percent of the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to sign a letter pledging to oppose cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes, you read that right. Refused to sign.

As of today, after many weeks of progressive lobbying and pleading and petitioning nationwide, 47 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have refused to sign the letter, initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, pledging to “vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

List of refusniks here.

Howqver, just two short months ago, the same CPC sent a letter to Dear Leader proposing to fight Social Security cuts.

So, is Medicare, or Medicaid, the deal-breaker for the 47 pseudoprogressives?

In that case, is this an issue of "old people vote, but poor people don't"?

Just.Wow.

I'd like to think there's some other reason involved. Sheila Jackson Lee is about as liberal as you can be and still be inside today's Democratic Party, and she's a refusnik. John Lewis is a veteran of all sorts of progressive causes.

Stay tuned.

Mark your Texas wingnut calendar for #Obamacare #Medicaid fun!

This baby should be a doozy.

Per a Tricky Ricky Perry press announcement:

John Cornyn, you're no Ted Cruz!

Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz will hold a round table discussion followed by a press conference on the importance of not expanding Medicaid and the need to reform the current program giving states the flexibility to innovate and enact patient-centered, market-driven reforms.

Participants include Congressman Michael Burgess, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, Commissioner Kyle Janek and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

It's Monday at 10:30 at the Capitol.

Given that Perry has proposed bupkis so far as an actual alternative to Obama's expansion of Medicaid, I expect nothing of substance beyond a demand that the current level of Medicaid be allowed to be provided through private insurers.

Otherwise, expect this:

Why isn't Gohmert Pyle invited to this event?

1. Ted Cruz will claim that Obamacare is a part of the UN's Agenda 22, a super-secret follow-up to Agenda 21. It's a plot by the UN to take over health care in the US.
2. John Cornyn will claim that he's always been just as stout a defender of wingnuttery as Cruz, and deny that his middle name is now "Primaried."
3. David Dewhurst will try to muscle in to the wingnut spotlight, adding to rumors that his new middle name is "Primaried-Cornyn."
4. Lois Kolkhorst will prove, once again, that even a blind hog wingnut can find an acorn (Trans-Texas Corridor) about once a decade.
5. Michael Burgess will say, "I think I'm not wingnut enough to be here. Didn't you mean to invite Gohmert Pyle?"
6. And, Louie Gohmert Pyle will probably try to check in via Skype, if he doesn't think that's part of the UN's Agenda 23.
7. Meanwhile, the rest of us will wonder if Greg Abbott's invite got lost in the mail, or if Rick Perry is worried about HIS middle name being "Primaried-Abbott."

Update, March 29: Meanwhile, Cornyn has already jumped the gun, combining nutbar memes by claiming "the French are coming," illegally crossing the border with Mexico. Cornyn has shown he can join Gohmert Pyle in high-road hypocrisy, though, condemning Don Young for using the term "wetbacks" about Mexicans crossing illegally.

Update, April 1: It had April Fool's Day jokesters, even if they were deadly serious. Ted Cruz gives us a sampling of nutbar eclair. A broader coverage of the event is here.

#Obamacare, #Medicaid, Tricky Ricky Perry, and neoliberal blue stateism

Ron Brownstein has a good column at National Journal about how Tricky Ricky Perry could help turn Texas blue.

Well, first, let's take this with a grain of salt.

Dems haven't won a statewide election here since what, 1990, when Miss Ann was elected gov?

Second, depending on this to drive Texas blue is about as smart as depending on Hispanic numbers growth to do the same.

That said, the story notes that some GOPers on the House side of the Lege are still pushing for an Arkansas deal on the Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare.

Last week, (GOP State Rep. John) Zerwas introduced legislation that would authorize state health officials to negotiate with the Obama administration to expand while delivering coverage for the newly eligible through new means. He likes the deal the administration is discussing with Arkansas, which could allow the state to use Medicaid expansion dollars to instead buy private insurance for its eligible adults, and he believes that approach could be “sellable to the governor.”

Yes, this would be better than nothing, but I generally DO NOT LIKE the Medicaid expansion of Obamacare being negotiated away so that states can do it all through private insurers. That said, since the non-Medicaid part of Obamacare is all through private insurers, are you surprised that Obama would agree to this?

And speaking the Texas Senate GOP harder line?

Key state Senate Republicans, though, are striking a harder line. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams says he will support enlarging Medicaid only if Obama allows Texas to transform the way it delivers Medicaid, not only to the expansion population but also to the current recipients. “The existing program is not sustainable,” Williams says.

That’s a hardball position, but not necessarily disqualifying: The administration has reached an agreement in principle with Florida, for instance, to move more Medicaid recipients into private managed care. Many here, though, wonder if Perry would take any deal. The widespread belief is that he intends to seek the GOP presidential nomination again in 2016, and accepting more Medicaid money would smudge his image of Alamo-like resistance to Obama.

Obamacare through private insurers, including the Medicaid portion. The possibility of more of that on the non-Obamacare portion of Medicaid. Still no plan by Team Obama to submit a bill to end cost-ineffective Medicare Plus, Medicare's version of cost-ineffective private coverage. Obama pushing for free trade deals to benefit Big Pharma.

And, as part of the neolib snake oil, no federal department or bureau for insurance regulation.

That said, Brownstein notes that because many, many of the uninsured here in Tejas are Hispanic, this would be another gunshot-in-foot move by Perry in particular and the GOP in general.

And, Dems would get the pickings, even with not necessarily helping Hispanics that much. Hence, the last part of my header.

Newt hearts oldsters, not poor — especially not sick ones

That's the bottom line behind Newt Gingrich slamming Paul Ryan's Medicare revamp.

Senor citizens vote, and often vote Republican.

But, Ryan's plan to revamp Medicaid?

Newt's totally down with that.

The poor don't vote as often (and nursing-home bound seniors pretty much don't vote at all), and when the poor DO vote, they don't vote GOP as often.

So, to call Ryan's Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering" is just another right-wing lie inside the small tent.

90 is NOT "the new 50"

Susan Jacoby, whose mother is 90 and grandmother lived to 100, tells us it 90 won't become the new 50 anytime soon, and offers other wisdom from the retirement cusp of the Baby Boom — wisdom you probably won't hear from the rest of her cohort.

Sixty-five-year-old Susan Jacoby says she hopes she doesn't live as long as her 90-year-old mom, noting that our incremental increases in average life expectancy have more and more elderly dealing with chronic pain and such.

And, it's not just that. She notes all the other problems facing the aging Boomers.

As I listed them elsewhere, they include:

Laid off. Forced to take lower-paying jobs. Still holding mortgages, which may be underwater. Stocks and 401(k)s that tanked in the recession. Some serious stuff.

That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.

Who wants to live to be 90 on Social Security and modest other benefits that are slowly trickling away, or that have to be spent down before Medicaid starts covering nursing home care?