The end of the HCR debate

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 02:28:23 AM EST

Alan Grayson, of course, solves the problem with a 4-page bill:

This evening Alan Grayson, Orlando's spectacular and effective fighter for ordinary working families in a Congress that overwhelmingly caters to wealthy and powerful special interests, introduced the most real and straight forward healthcare reform bill that's come up so far. Unless Obama makes the House leadership kill H.R. 4789-- a distinct possibility-- this should pass the House more easily than anything that's been proposed for healthcare reform so far. And I bet it could even win cloture in the Senate! His bill offers the opportunity for everyone in the country to buy into Medicare. “Obviously," said Grayson, "America wants and needs more competition in health coverage, and a public option offers that. But it’s just as important that we offer people not just another choice, but another kind of choice. A lot of people don’t want to be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies that will make money by denying them the care that they need to stay healthy, or to stay alive. We deserve to have a real alternative... The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population. That’s like saying, ‘Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.’ It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair. This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote.”

The bill: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare.

Basically, Grayson is saying to let this "alternative" vote happen. Will it?

4 Pages. Medicare coverage for those that lack healthcare.

Tags: hcr (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Let's have the vote

Up-or-down!

I'm not sure if there is any need for a CBO score?

by vecky 2010-03-10 02:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Hope springs eternal... but this one is beyond DOA.

by nycweboy1 2010-03-10 07:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Useless Bill for Public Option Fetishists

When did the public option become more important than whether working Americans get the health care they need? The Grayson bill would do nothing to prevent medical bankruptcy, help a parent take their kid to the pediatrician, or regulate insurance companies.

It would only allow people to enroll in Medicare Part A. Part A only covers hospital care. It has a deductible of $1100 before it pays a penny of benefits. If you are in the hospital more than 60 days, you pay $275 per day. After 90 days, you pay $550 per day. And after 150 days in the hospital, Medicare Part A pays nothing.

Part A provides no coverage for physician care. Even if you are in the hospital, Medicare Part A doesn't pay the bill for your attending doctor, surgeon, or consulting physicians. If this was all the insurance you had when you got really sick, you'd be in a world of hurt.

Tell the House to pass the damn bill now!

by Bazarov 2010-03-10 11:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

I knew it was too good to be true

Alan Grayson is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party as of late, but I'm not sure where he's going with this. What's the point of birnging this up now in the 1th hour?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-03-10 01:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

RE: Useless Bill for Public Option Fetishists

Are you sure it's only Part A? Why is he talking about it paying for itself (through premiums) if it would only be Part A, which isn't funded by premiums?

by tunesmith 2010-03-10 04:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

RE: Useless Bill for Public Option Fetishists

Part A is funded though a payroll tax, but if you don't have the requisite 40 quarters (10 years) of payroll contributions the premium can be as high as 450$ a month.

That's only for over 65's though. Obviously figuring out a fair premium level for other age-groups would be required.

by vecky 2010-03-10 06:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

RE: Useless Bill for Public Option Fetishists

Found a source that says it allows people to buy into Part B as well.

by tunesmith 2010-03-11 05:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

RE: Useless Bill for Public Option Fetishists

As was pointed out to me on Kos, the bill amends Part A of the Social Security Act, not Part A of MediCare.

by TheUnknown285 2010-03-12 03:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Cutting the Gordian Knot

This bill would prevent medical bankruptcy, and solve alot of problems.

Alexander the great was once given a problem to solve - a knot out in the desert called the 'Gordian Knot'.

He walked up to it. Withdrew his sword and cut the knot clean, solving the problem.

This is precisely what is going on here.

Good work.

by Trey Rentz 2010-03-10 11:51AM | 2 recs

permalink

Only applies to Part A of Medicare

Which, I might add, is the part that covers the giant, hospital bill, portion of healthcare. Yes, family doctor visits can bite you, but not in bills of 4, 5 or 6 digits worth of bite.

The clue is the title of the bill itself:

http://grayson.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Public_Option_Act.pdf

On page two of the document, Section Two, is the actual, legal, title of the Bill:

SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE BUY-IN OPTION. (a) IN GEN2 ERAL.—Part A of title XVIII of the Social Security 3 Act is amended—

SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE BUY-IN OPTION. (a) IN GEN2
ERAL.—Part A of title XVIII of the Social Security
3 Act is amended—

The part to pay attention to is the last part, where it notes which portion of the Social Security Act it is affecting.

Part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act

From the Social Security website, we find Part A of title XVIII is:

Part A—Hospital Insurance Benefits for the Aged and Disabled

So, only Part A, but a great step to ensuring catastrophic costs don't bankrupt people anymore. This doesn't address the rising costs of lack of care for chronic conditions, which will tend to increase those Part A costs over the coming decades, if we don't do something about chronic care.

But it's a great dang start.

At cost.

by Angie in WA State 2010-03-10 05:38PM | 1 recs

permalink

No, it's a stupid idea. It shows he doesn't know shit

about either Medicare or the health care system as a whole. He is just looking at the vehicle for funding only. Not the funding, just the vehicle. Medicare is an individual plan. So each family member would have their own separate plan and separate charges for A and also B. Each kid would have to pay the plan A fee because they wouldn't have worked 10 years. There is no stop loss— that is an out of pocket limit. There are some other cute things.

by sam dobermann 2010-03-11 07:27AM | 0 recs