Title : Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right
link : Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right
Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right
Amidst millions of gallons of ink spilt very few have pointed out that the Senate Healthcare Bill ("Better Care" - so called) never fessed up to its central premise: to cut federal medical benefits to the bone. So no wonder so few are enthused about it, especially the ideological Right. And now that bill resides in limbo as McConnell waits for John McCain to recover from blood clot surgery to return to D.C. and vote. Of course, McCain like McConnell has a "Cadillac" level of care in what is provided to the Senate. Too many millions of Americans do not.
In the meantime, over the past few days we beheld the organization known as AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) put the kibosh on the version of the Reepo bill offered (via amendment) by Ted Cruz. To remind readers, Cruz' "plan"(called "mini-Med" by progressives) would let insurers sell low cost coverage with skimpy coverage as long as they also sell policies providing a stringent set of services they're already required to provide under the ACA, aka "Obamacare". But the AHIP and its sister organizations (e.g. Blue Cross - Blue Shield Association) have asserted this would:
- Be unworkable in any form
- Increase premiums
- Lead to widespread termination of coverage
Bottom line, this gimmick would encourage the healthy to go "lowball" and buy the bare bones policies leaving sicker people (who need comprehensive coverage) confronting unaffordable costs. In fact, two insurance groups assert premiums would especially skyrocket for those with pre-existing conditions, especially for middle income families who don't qualify for the bill's tax credit (which is pathetic as it is and in no way compare's to the generous ACA subsidies).
But hey, this is exactly what the Repukes want! A bare bones, mock "health care" bill masquerading as a real one to provide PR cover so they can deliver tax cuts to the rich. Once one grasps that, and that cutting the biggest piece of the health care puzzle (Medicaid) is what the Right is all about, then it become evident why no compromise is possible.
Let's start with the delirious Peggy Noonan who recently wrote in an op -ed ('On Health Care, A Promise, Not A Threat', July 1-2, p. A13) that a Democratic Senator ought to come forward to work with the Repubs for a health compromise thereby "showing a little humility and humanity". According to her "this person would be a hero in the Beltway which prizes compromise and constructiveness".
Adding:
"The Democratic Party made this mess. It's on them to help dig out of it. If they show some humility, Republicans would look pretty poor in not responding with their own olive branch."
I have news for Miss Peggy, the Republicans already look pretty bad with their barbaric Senate bill - even after a proposal to remove the tax cuts for the rich. Why the hell should any Dem with more than air between the ears help these fools out of their morass? Besides, there is simply no way to any such compromise given it would be political suicide for the Dems to go along with gutting Medicaid, which is the core basis of McConnell's bill.
Since the Repukes will not cooperate with the Ds unless Medicaid is cut (some $774 b by 2020) and the Ds will not cooperate with the 'pukes if they insist on such cutting - then there is absolutely no way to any Noonan-style compromise, whether the Beltway likes it or not.
None of the conservo opinion writers, as I will show, appear to grasp that the entire state -federal funding system for low income and disabled citizens would be changed to a per capita cap if Medicaid was cut. Such a move would forever limit federal spending to the states - many of which are already facing huge budget crunches, deficits. What do you then think would happen? Well the disabled and sick would be tossed out to beg for any help they could get.
The 'pukes talk of getting these low income folk into cheaper policies (like Cruz' advocates) but what they're really advocating is putting them into health care ghettoes: exploitative policies preying on pools of the mostly sick featuring monumental deductibles combined with outrageous premiums and very limited care (e.g. no maternity care, no mental health care, no ER visits). What sort of moron would sign onto that? Certainly no sane Dem!
Thus, Noonan's blather that "the GOP donor class would likely hate a compromise bill as the Democratic Party's nihilist left - which wants no compromise" misses the point because she doesn't grasp the fact that giving away the store to make nice is a losing wicket. Once again, for a million economic reasons, gutting Medicaid to salvage Bitch McConnell's bill can't be part of any humane compromise.
The steady, stupid spin of the Right in assorted op-eds and thinktank blather also has antagonized the Democrats. One of the most ignorant and disgusting of all was rendered by Peter Cove in his July 5th WSJ piece ('Get Able-Bodied Americans Off The Couch') depicting those on the Medicaid rolls as deadbeats and latter day welfare queens. He argued that basically there were millions of "able bodied" - including men- just laying around and grabbing Medicaid without working - when they could work and get health benefits from a company.
One had to wonder what this asshole was drinking or what manner of rope he was smoking. Other WSJ letter writers also echoed his babble including that "those in poverty have the luxury of saying 'no' to a job and suffering no consequences when they choose not to work". Suffer no consequences? What is this dumb turd thinking? How about losing his home, his kids without enough food and having his utilities shut down? Added was this other ignorance: "Someone who loses a job loses not one penny of cash assistance nor his food stamp vouchers nor Section 8 housing". Again, no remote idea that de facto cuts have already been applied to those programs. For example, in March, 2016 a budget decision by the Repukes led to up to 1 million in 22 states losing their food assistance benefits after three months regardless of how hard they were looking for work.
But that's the key characteristic of these Philistines on the Right, they don't care that people are already working, if they're not earning enough money it's all on them not the economy which is geared more to Wall Street than Main Street.
No wonder the above sort of comments and Cove's piece elicited furor in the Colorado Medicaid care and recipient community. Moe Keller, a Vice President of Mental Health Colorado noting (Denver Post, July 9, p. 16A):
"There is a shocking ignorance about who these people on Medicaid are. They (op-ed writers, public officials, much of the public) think they're just siting around eating bon-bons and watching TV. They're not. They're working individuals."
Or - they are people who have worked, hard, and now not in a physical condition to do what they used to. At least one WSJ letter contributor - an M.D. - did provide the proper perspective. As he wrote in his reply to Cove's piece:
"Some of my unemployed patients are over 50, have a history of back or similar injury, abuse or previous jail time. Employers don't want to take the risk of employing such an individual as firing them might entail claims of age discrimination, or payment for work-related injuries......A person on Medicaid with significant and costly chronic medical problems who wants to work simply cannot afford to take the chance of losing public health benefits as private insurance with its copays and deductibles are overwhelming at entry level positions"
In other words, the choice not to work (if one's job potential is limited) - for whatever reason - is a rational one. It is also a rational one to go onto Medicaid if one already is covered by their own insurance but have a child with severe brain damage who would not be covered by that private insurance.
This is the case of Jennifer and Matthew Fischer highlighted in the Denver Post's extended look at Medicaid recipients in Colorado (op. cit.). Both, as the Post notes, "have health insurance and work full time". It "covers major medical issues picks up substantial costs for their child's medical care - though they inevitably hit their maximums in January each year. But there is much it doesn't provide and that's where Medicaid comes in. That includes the wheelchair ($25,000 a year), and the formula their 11 year old needs to ingest through a feeding tube. ($500 a month), as well as a nurse who accompanies their daughter to school and attends to her needs. As the Post explains:
"All of that is covered through a Medicaid waiver, making Cecilia (the Fischer's daughter) among the 45 percent of the state's Medicaid recipients who are age 20 or younger."
This insight is critical in skewering the whining of other Right nabobs like WSJ columnist Daniel Henninger who has pissed and moaned ('The GOP's Fatal Infatuation', July 9):because "Medicaid's original purpose was to ensure medical care for the disabled and poor women and children" - not middle class people. So, of course, Henninger like other pro-GOP whiners has complained long and hard about Obamacare's "evil genius" in expanding the program. Henninger concedes that GOP gubernators in "expansion states" have had no choice than to swallow "the kool aid" and accept it, because their citizens have grown dependent on it..
According to Henninger (ibid.):
"Once the governors took expanded Medicaid payments, they were hooked"
Adding that "Medicaid is already lowest common denominator medicine"
Well, try telling that to the Fischers who have seen their daughter Cecilia reach a level of capacity she wouldn't have otherwise, i.e. without Medicaid. It's easy for one percenter nabobs like Henninger to dismiss Medicaid when they reap Cadillac level care via their elite jobs, like at the WSJ. But for those who have it and depend on it, especially to keep sick and disabled kids and family with care at home, it's as gold standard as one could want.
The Right, essentially, has zero interest in providing any kind of viable health care to those who most need it. So they'd rather engage in PR stunts and obfuscation than come clean to the American people about what they're really doing. That is, to gut the one program that nearly 76 million depend on and which stands between them and medical catastrophe or bankruptcy and penury.
There is no way any sober and sane Democrat could ever agree to a compromise that demands the gutting of Medicaid.
Thus Article Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right
That's an article Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right with the link address https://updated-1news.blogspot.com/2017/07/why-no-health-care-compromise-is.html
0 Response to "Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible WIth The Right"
Post a Comment