Senate Democrats, especially those up for tough re-election fights, are getting a bit antsy regarding how Ocare affects those chances
(Fox News) Several Democratic senators reportedly plan to introduce as soon as Thursday a set of principles and legislation aimed at fixing parts of ObamaCare amid concerns the law could cost Democrats House seats and possibly the Senate in November.
Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Mark Begich, D-Alaska; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; and Sen. Angus King, I., Maine, will introduce proposals to improve the law, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Begich and Warner have called for allowing “copper” plans on the government-run health exchanges. The new insurance plans would offer lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs than the “bronze,” “silver” and “gold” options currently offered.
Can you get more expensive in terms of out of pocket costs/deductibles than the current plans, which carry an average deductible of a bit over $5,000? Not much of a fix, eh? There may be more proposed fixes within the Wall Street Journal article which was the basis for the Fox/AP article, alas, behind the paywall. But, then, Dems, especially the vulnerable ones, have been yapping about fixes for quite some time now, yet never actually submit legislation.
Some Republicans have expressed reservations about helping Democrats improve a law believed to be central to the GOP’s midterm strategy, The Journal reported.
“These folks have voted for that bad piece of legislation [are] now having remorse,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R., Ga., adding that Democrats “want to try to do something political to a very unpopular piece of legislation.”
Typically squishy Republican Jennifer Rubin offers some good points
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake advises Democrats not to bother defending Obamacare. (“Say it was flawed from the beginning, and we’re going to fix it.â€) That raises some interesting problems for Democrats.
First, why did they vote for this mess, and why have they been resisting fixing it so far? There is quite a credibility problem for people who jammed through the law based on a host of misrepresentations (keep your doctor, keep your plan, create jobs, etc.). Why entrust these same people to fix it?
More problematic for Democrats is how to describe the needed fixes or even to identify the flaws in the law they all supported. There sure are a lot of problems.
One thing she notes is the inability to sign up young people. And what if the subsidies for the federal marketplace are struck down?
Even more daunting is another legal problem, which has gotten less attention but may be the most troublesome. The New York Times reports: “Two of the three federal judges hearing a challenge to the Affordable Care Act appeared open on Tuesday to the argument that people buying health insurance in the federal marketplace should not be eligible for tax subsidies, the first indication that the White House could be facing another potentially serious legal challenge to a central part of President Obama’s health care law.†We are talking about ending the subsidies for exchanges in 36 states. “Of the 4.2 million people who selected private health plans from October through February, 2.6 million obtained coverage through the federal exchange, and four-fifths of them qualified for subsidies that reduce their premiums. Without subsidies, many would have been unable to afford insurance.†It would be a fitting end for the law that was crammed through, unread and poorly understood by its own supporters:
While everyone has been focused on the “contraception mandate” suits, the subsidy suit is much, much bigger. If Hobby Lobby and the other companies win their suits, at best (or worst for Ocare supporters), this will mean that companies can opt out of providing insurance that has free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. It won’t harm the law in the least. And, really, most companies do not care.
Killing the ability to offer subsidies for those who sign up through the federal exchanges would be devastating, and the Democrats would have only themselves to blame. They wrote and voted for the law. And the law states that only those signing up through exchanges “established by the state”, a phrase that appears 7 times in the PPACA, qualify for subsidies. Hey, maybe Democrats should have read the bill, eh?
In fact, when voters tell pollsters that they would like the law fixed, or liberal pundits insist we should keep it because it is basically working except for some minor glitches, they have no idea what fixes are possible or sustainable, in large part because Democrats won’t fess up as to what they have in mind. Republicans want to “fix it†also – keep the protection for people with preexisting conditions and allow young people to stay on their parents’ policies (something insurance companies will undoubtedly allow so long as there is demand) and change the rest.
Until Democrats actually come forth with legislation it is all yap yap, empty promises to “fix” Ocare in order to get re-elected. And right on time, the Senators offer some yap yap, which includes the “copper level” mentioned above, plus
We are calling to restore startup funds for new consumer-driven health insurance cooperatives, now operating in 23 states. This will allow families to have more options to access health coverage beyond traditional insurance companies, infusing state marketplaces with more competition to reduce average premiums.
In other words, more taxpayer money. Seems as if the pricetag of Ocare keeps going up. Or, they’d like it to go up.
We also propose directing state insurance regulators to develop models for their states to sell health insurance across state lines. These multi-state models will help us discern the benefits and challenges of selling health insurance in this manner, and determine if it is a means to increasing choice and competition among plans—potentially driving down costs while maintaining quality and value.
Wait, I thought Dems said this was Bad? It is also not allowed per federal law, so these Senators would need some, you know, legislation to be passed.
Second, to ease the transition for employers, we want to expand the option for voluntary coverage for employers with fewer than 100 employees, about 98 percent of all businesses. This will enable small and mid-sized businesses to make their own choices for their businesses, and employees can shop for coverage on the individual marketplace.
OK, so ask Team Obama to change this. They continue on with more words and ideas, then get to
But let’s stop trying to score political points by turning up the rhetoric and instead roll up our sleeves and get to work.
OK, fine: where are your legislative proposals? When will you submit legislation? As for the politics, can you smell the fear for their jobs through the power if the Internet?
