Senate Dems decide to half-ass Medicare-For-All

Submitted by gjohnsit on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 6:43pm

On the 52nd Anniversary of the creation of Medicare, moderate Senate Democrats decided that "bold" was not an option.
Incrementalism is the name of the game.

In a sign that the Democratic Party is embracing more progressive health care ideas, eight Democratic senators announced Thursday that they were co-sponsoring legislation that would allow people 55 and older to buy in to Medicare.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the Medicare at 55 Act with the immediate support of Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Al Franken (Minn.).

The bill, which would allow Americans aged 55 to 64 to purchase Medicare coverage, reflects the growing influence of progressive activists who are pushing for a single-payer health care system they dub “Medicare for all.”

OK. It's better than the status quo, but why stop at 55? Why not make the buy-in option universal?

Proponents of a “Medicare for all” system have long argued that the for-profit insurance model has failed, noting that Medicare provides coverage at a significantly lower cost per person. Medicare enjoys widespread popularity, thanks to the coverage it has provided seniors since 1966 (it later expanded to include disability coverage).

Sanders still plans on introducing a real Medicare For All bill.

Tags:

Medicare for All

Vote

Comments

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 7:01pm

Good thing they have the required 60 votes to pass it.

Oh wait, they don't?

Oh well, clearly this was the good intentions that they'll totally follow through on if we just give them the 60 votes again.

See, isn't this a fun game? They pretend to care until we believe them, then they run away laughing.

/snark

Sorry, But I think we've seen this kind of crap before... And with that in mind, here's a nice song for the Democrats.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU_y9FB0QKk]

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Wink on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 7:19pm

Better than nuthin', and

beats the hell out of TrumpCare. I guess it means everybody else - the under 55 crowd - still suffers under ObamaCare (which is a Repub plan written by the F'ing Heritage Foundation), apparently. Still, the only thing incrementalism gets us is more waiting. People don't vote for waiting. They've been waiting for 30 years.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Roy Blakeley on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 10:37pm

It will not pass but

@Wink it at least is a small step toward Medicare for all, whereas Obamacare was a bailout for the Health Insurance and Healthcare industries and offered no plausible path to Medicare for all.

Submitted by Wink on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 11:09pm

Agree. But, it's a win,

@Roy Blakeley
too, for "incrementalism" loved by the Status Quo powers that be. Voters are tired of waiting, are looking for something that works right now.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 8:42pm

@Wink

@Wink

Or for stalling tactics. "See, we compromised on your healthcare demands! You'll just have to compromise on the time-span vaguely predicted for our pushing for that. Now, where's my money that you haven't been sending me when I get 187 people to mail you begging letters?"

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by SancheLlewellyn on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 9:34am

I would take it in a minute if they could pass it

@Wink Thank Joe Lieberman for blocking it in the first place.

1. It would lower the average (per member) cost of the ACA, because you would take out older and sicker (on average) patients from the pool.

2. It would lower the average (per member) cost of Medicare, because you would add younger and less sick (on average) patients to Medicare.

You can repeat this process with younger patients, perhaps in stages. (Or perhaps not at all, because the Democratic party loves them some corporate cash.) But it starts the ball rolling in the right direction. In addition, it invites some Republican to snark and yet accidentally hit on the truth: "Hey, why don't you just move everyone into Medicare then?"

Why not, indeed?

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:28pm

Agree on your first point, SL--but, the Devil's in the Details

@SancheLlewellyn

as to whether or not it would aid, or destabilize the Medicare program to add folks ages 50-64. From what I've read, it might be preferrable to make participation 'mandatory' for this cohort, in order to avoid adverse selection--which would likely result in skyrocketing Medicare premiums, which because of the fairly recent 'Doc Fix' law, are already increasing at a higher rate than in past years.

It is (partly) for this reason, that PNHP isn't recommending that a 'public option' plan be included in the ACA Marketplace, or Exchange.

They prefer to see a (national) universal single-payer health plan passed and implemented. They insist that there needs to be 'one' risk pool, to succeed.

Also, heard a BPC discussion on this topic last week. One of the 'experts' warned that any proposal or bill must be written exactly right, or the addition of younger seniors could succeed in helping stabilize the individual insurance market, but at the same time, destabilize Medicare.

For instance, the HuffPo piece says that Stabenow's Bill 'echos' the bill proposed by House Democrats. From the quote of the cost of the premiums, we can surmise that they are not subsidized (or barely).

I just pulled the chart--if Warren Buffet were enrolling in Medicare this year, his monthly tab would be $428.60. The House Bill says the cost could be as little as $8212 annually (per individual, as far as I can tell). That's about $684.33 per individual buy-in.

I could be wrong, but I would think that most folks (ages 50-64) with better health insurance offerings would not go for this Medicare buy-in--unless they were either relatively ill, or, affluent enough that the inflated monthly premium was no problem for them.

If those (younger) seniors were to enroll in Traditional Medicare, they'd have to carry another insurance plan--or be stuck with picking up a large chuck of the OOP. And, even if they enrolled in a Part C Plan, OOP costs could be as much as $6,700 for 2017.

And, even after paying about $1369 monthly for their coverage (per couple), they would not be able to cover any of their young, or adult children under the age 26, as part of their Medicare coverage or enrollment.

Bottom line, I very much look forward to seeing the legislation that the House and Senate Dems plan to put forth. But, I'd need to very carefully scrutinize the details of their respective 'plans,' before I can render a judgment as to whether or not I will support such legislation.

My 'hope' is that this is a truly 'good faith' effort--not an attempt to sabotage the Traditional Medicare system.

(Some 'experts' and neoliberal lawmakers favor pushing seniors into the private Medicare system--Medicare Advantage, or Part C. This Plan would be easier to voucherize in the ACA Marketplace.)

Mollie

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."--Old English Proverb

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 8:47pm

@Unabashed Liberal

@Unabashed Liberal

... if Warren Buffet were enrolling in Medicare this year, his monthly tab would be $428.60. The House Bill says the cost could be as little as $8212 annually (per individual, as far as I can tell). That's about $684.33 per individual buy-in. ...

And that's a step in the right direction? For pensioners? America needs regime change, now! But you knew that...

#2.2

as to whether or not it would aid, or destabilize the Medicare program to add folks ages 50-64. From what I've read, it might be preferrable to make participation 'mandatory' for this cohort, in order to avoid adverse selection--which would likely result in skyrocketing Medicare premiums, which because of the fairly recent 'Doc Fix' law, are already increasing at a higher rate than in past years.

It is (partly) for this reason, that PNHP isn't recommending that a 'public option' plan be included in the ACA Marketplace, or Exchange.

They prefer to see a (national) universal single-payer health plan passed and implemented. They insist that there needs to be 'one' risk pool, to succeed.

Also, heard a BPC discussion on this topic last week. One of the 'experts' warned that any proposal or bill must be written exactly right, or the addition of younger seniors could succeed in helping stabilize the individual insurance market, but at the same time, destabilize Medicare.

For instance, the HuffPo piece says that Stabenow's Bill 'echos' the bill proposed by House Democrats. From the quote of the cost of the premiums, we can surmise that they are not subsidized (or barely).

I just pulled the chart--if Warren Buffet were enrolling in Medicare this year, his monthly tab would be $428.60. The House Bill says the cost could be as little as $8212 annually (per individual, as far as I can tell). That's about $684.33 per individual buy-in.

I could be wrong, but I would think that most folks (ages 50-64) with better health insurance offerings would not go for this Medicare buy-in--unless they were either relatively ill, or, affluent enough that the inflated monthly premium was no problem for them.

If those (younger) seniors were to enroll in Traditional Medicare, they'd have to carry another insurance plan--or be stuck with picking up a large chuck of the OOP. And, even if they enrolled in a Part C Plan, OOP costs could be as much as $6,700 for 2017.

And, even after paying about $1369 monthly for their coverage (per couple), they would not be able to cover any of their young, or adult children under the age 26, as part of their Medicare coverage or enrollment.

Bottom line, I very much look forward to seeing the legislation that the House and Senate Dems plan to put forth. But, I'd need to very carefully scrutinize the details of their respective 'plans,' before I can render a judgment as to whether or not I will support such legislation.

My 'hope' is that this is a truly 'good faith' effort--not an attempt to sabotage the Traditional Medicare system.

(Some 'experts' and neoliberal lawmakers favor pushing seniors into the private Medicare system--Medicare Advantage, or Part C. This Plan would be easier to voucherize in the ACA Marketplace.)

Mollie

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."--Old English Proverb

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by SancheLlewellyn on Sun, 08/06/2017 - 11:03am

I would say just lower the age of Medicare eligibility

@Unabashed Liberal (Eventually to zero) but in this case, down to 50, or 55. At this age, premiums on the exchange start to shoot up so those folks would gladly make the switch. Employers would also move their 50+ employees off their plan and onto Medicare, and then we would hear an uproar from the Freedumbers, and who knows how badly the government would structure this. After all, Rube Goldberg had a hand in writing the ACA.

I will warn people, however, part of the reason Medicare has such low administrative costs is because it foists off the costs on people running it. Medicare compliance can suck up many FTEs in the health care industry. Of course, if we had single payer (or Japan-like cost controls), like most of the rest of the world . . .

#2.2

as to whether or not it would aid, or destabilize the Medicare program to add folks ages 50-64. From what I've read, it might be preferrable to make participation 'mandatory' for this cohort, in order to avoid adverse selection--which would likely result in skyrocketing Medicare premiums, which because of the fairly recent 'Doc Fix' law, are already increasing at a higher rate than in past years.

It is (partly) for this reason, that PNHP isn't recommending that a 'public option' plan be included in the ACA Marketplace, or Exchange.

They prefer to see a (national) universal single-payer health plan passed and implemented. They insist that there needs to be 'one' risk pool, to succeed.

Also, heard a BPC discussion on this topic last week. One of the 'experts' warned that any proposal or bill must be written exactly right, or the addition of younger seniors could succeed in helping stabilize the individual insurance market, but at the same time, destabilize Medicare.

For instance, the HuffPo piece says that Stabenow's Bill 'echos' the bill proposed by House Democrats. From the quote of the cost of the premiums, we can surmise that they are not subsidized (or barely).

I just pulled the chart--if Warren Buffet were enrolling in Medicare this year, his monthly tab would be $428.60. The House Bill says the cost could be as little as $8212 annually (per individual, as far as I can tell). That's about $684.33 per individual buy-in.

I could be wrong, but I would think that most folks (ages 50-64) with better health insurance offerings would not go for this Medicare buy-in--unless they were either relatively ill, or, affluent enough that the inflated monthly premium was no problem for them.

If those (younger) seniors were to enroll in Traditional Medicare, they'd have to carry another insurance plan--or be stuck with picking up a large chuck of the OOP. And, even if they enrolled in a Part C Plan, OOP costs could be as much as $6,700 for 2017.

And, even after paying about $1369 monthly for their coverage (per couple), they would not be able to cover any of their young, or adult children under the age 26, as part of their Medicare coverage or enrollment.

Bottom line, I very much look forward to seeing the legislation that the House and Senate Dems plan to put forth. But, I'd need to very carefully scrutinize the details of their respective 'plans,' before I can render a judgment as to whether or not I will support such legislation.

My 'hope' is that this is a truly 'good faith' effort--not an attempt to sabotage the Traditional Medicare system.

(Some 'experts' and neoliberal lawmakers favor pushing seniors into the private Medicare system--Medicare Advantage, or Part C. This Plan would be easier to voucherize in the ACA Marketplace.)

Mollie

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."--Old English Proverb

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 1:42pm

This!

@Wink

People don't vote for waiting. They've been waiting for 30 years.

It can be done and the only reason that it is not being done is that these scum bags owe their souls to the insurance/pharma industries. It is easy to propose something, even a half ass measure, when you know it will never get done. This is so typical of the Democrats to do this.

Seriously, if the Republicans wanted a permanent majority for decades, all they would have to do is pass Medicare for all. But neither party really wants to help the people. Obama had the opportunity and he blew it on purpose. Obama made me very cynical over promises of any type, especially by the Democrats.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 7:56pm

Yay! This sounds great!

Passing their plan to expand a health insurance program that still has the Medicare part D donut hole and that doesn't cover vision and dental.
I don't care what they say they want to do, because when they had the chance to pass single payer, they didn't. They had the 50 votes at one time during the debate and since they used reconciliation to pass it, they could have taken out what the republicans amendments and whola, single payer is here.
I bet that if they ever get all 3 houses again, they will not pass anything that gets in the way of profits.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 8:28pm

Any Comment From Schumer?

Or Pelosi? This is so incremental it should be ~~a slam dunk~~ Tinker to Evers to Chance:

Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance are, without a doubt, the best double-play group of all time.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/69933-tinker-to-evers-to-chance-the-s...

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Fri, 08/04/2017 - 9:07pm

If Stabenow's bill 'echos' the House Dems bill, does it

mean that the monthly premiums are unsubsidized?

The math for the (unsubsidized) monthly premiums did not work out to be especially inexpensive. Of course, I'd agree that $8,000 plus in premiums, beats $13,000 plus, annually.

Also, I'll be curious to know if the Medicare buy-in would apply to both Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.

Since there's no cap on OOP costs for Traditional Medicare, and current federal law does not allow folks under the age of 65 (aside from folks on SSDI, etc.) to purchase a Medicare Supplement plan, it would seem that a buy-in into Traditional Medicare--unless you're Warren Buffet--would mostly make sense if it were a 'secondary' insurer--to supplement another primary health plan.

Of course, private industry Medicare Advantage Plans have an OOP annual cap--about $6700 this year, I believe. So, they might be a viable option as a standalone healthcare plan.

Thanks for posting about this, gj. Got so torn up about the recent passage of another VA Bill, I didn't even notice the press on this!

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 12:31am

Mollie, do you have a link to the article about this?

@Unabashed Liberal
I have read that they wanted to privatize veteran's health care, but I haven't seen anything lately on it.
These a-holes will never care for the people that they send to fight for their wars after they get hurt or dead, profits are all they care about.
I realize that there is an economic draft, but I don't think I would have the courage to kill anyone who was no threat to this country so that anyone could make money off of their deaths.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 12:53am

Hi, SD! By 'this,' do you mean a link about

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

what I mentioned about the House bill Medicare premiums not being subsidized (in a proposed buy-in for folks ages 50-64)?

Or, are you talking about the VA bill that just passed a couple days ago. If you mean the VA Bill, I am still trying to find out the details, since I just saw that lawmakers passed more funding for The Veterans Choice Act--to the tune of 2.1 billion dollars--earlier this week.

They also made changes to 'rules' regarding future hiring at the VA, which appear to bypass the Civil Service Merit System (which I don't agree with, for the most part). Once I get more on this topic, I'll a blurb and a link at EB.

Let me know, and have a nice weekend!

Mollie

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 11:19am

The VA privatization link

@Unabashed Liberal
sorry I didn't make that more clear.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 7:22pm

Here's a legislative 'history' of the Veterans Choice

@snoopydawg

Act of 2014--its informal name. Maybe this would be more helpful, since there are various pieces of legislation related to the original bill which began the privatization of veterans health services after Bernie's negotiations with McCain (Senate) and Miller (House).

Outline of Legislative History

• June – Senate and House begin work on legislation to alleviate access
issues:
– House and Senate Access Bills – S. 2450 and H.R. 4810
– Senate Omnibus Bill – S. 1950
– Accountability Bills – S. 2013 and H.R. 4031

• Senate and House pass separate Access Bills – enter into Conference
Committee.

• July 28 – Conference Committee produces a compromise Conference
Report that is then referred to the two houses of Congress for approval.

• Last week of July – House and Senate pass Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014, H.R. 3230 (Conference Report).

• President Obama signed H.R. 3230 on 8/7/14.

Now, it's been tweaked and refunded since this groundbreaking legislation passed. The current Chairperson of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Johnny Isakson, said that the 2014 Bill 'broke the glass ceiling' on privatization of the VA (on C-Span's Newsmakers program).

Here's a quote from the current VA Secretary--the chief privatizing official and/or a holdover from O's Administration, Dr David Shulkin. IIRC, Shulkin is the only VA Secretary who's never been in the military. (Even the former Proctor & Gamble CEO who preceded Shulkin as VA Secretary, had at least attended West Point.) Shulkin is going to further open up the privatization process, lifting a number of restrictions.

BTW, the quote below is about the 2.0 Privatization that I've been referencing, lately. It is not the funding bill that I referenced last night--which extended and refunded the 'Veterans Choice Program' for six more months, and further privatized 'the system of hiring' for the VA. (Which I mostly object to, except under the most dire of circumstances. Shulkin's and lawmakers' goal appears to be to totally remake the Veterans Administration in the image of a private sector organization/company, as far as I can tell.)

Here's a statement of Dr Shulkin's at a recent conference,

Speaking to hundreds of people at the Disabled American Veterans annual conference in Arlington, Va., Shulkin laid out his top 10 priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was his first public address since becoming VA secretary.

High on Shulkin’s list was redesigning the Veterans Choice Program into what he called “Choice 2.0.”

His plan would include removing the rule that allows veterans to go outside the VA for health care if they had to wait more than 30 days for an appointment or live more than 40 miles driving distance from a VA facility. Some veterans and lawmakers have criticized the 40-mile, 30-day rule for limiting veterans’ health care choices, and Shulkin called the program “extremely complex and bureaucratic.”

[What Shulkin doesn't mention is that many more veterans never wanted VA medical services privatized in the first place. Most of them only want services in the private sector if they are unavailable through the VA System.]

Choice set to expire

Before he can propose Choice 2.0, Congress first must eliminate the expiration date for the original Veterans Choice Program, Shulkin said.

This extension and refunding has just passed. I believe that it extends the program for six months, while he completes his full privatization plan. The only medical services to speak of that lawmakers intend to keep at the VA, are those that pertain to 'war injuries.' IOW, treatment for PTSD, prosthetic fittings/therapy, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), etc.

Here's a link.

And, a very brief excerpt below,

Last-minute Veterans Choice funding bill filled with key VA hiring flexibilities

By Nicole Ogrysko | @nogryskoWFED
July 28, 2017 5:44 pm

An additional $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program isn’t the only provision lawmakers rushed to pass before leaving Friday for the August recess.

Under the House Veterans Affairs Committee leadership, lawmakers managed to find a solution that replenishes the Veterans Choice Fund with an additional $2.1 billion dollars and invests in key VA functions. . . .

Investment in key function means further privatizing the 'hiring' system/procedures. Obviously, I am against this--except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. These policies amount to circumventing the personnel merit system, which has served the Feds well for decades and decades. For instance, it helps keep down the politicization of the workforce--keeping it more professional, as well as ensures that the highest personnel standards are applied across the board during the hiring process.

BTW, the Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 just passed this June. This is the bill that Kevin Baron (Military One) and the AFGE say upended amost 150 years of Civil Service Protections. I've got the video of him saying this on C-Span's Newsmakers.

Hey, as soon as lawmakers/Shulkin ram through the '2.0 VA Bill,' I'll post it at EB. Bottom line, until 2.0 passes, you can reference Bernie's 2014 bill, for how the VA medical services were privatized. Here's an article about it, and the so-called 'conference report' that resulted from the legislation (and which was signed by PBO).

Sanders, Miller to announce VA reform deal

By Jacqueline Klimas - The Washington Times - Sunday, July 27, 2014

The House and Senate’s top negotiators reached a tentative deal on legislation to fix the Veterans Affairs Department health care system and are expected to announce the details Monday afternoon.

The compromise bill will address the “short-term and long-term needs of the VA,” according to an aide to Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent and the Democrats’ lead negotiator on the deal.

Mr. Sanders will give details of the tentative agreement with Rep. Jeff Miller, Florida Republican, on Monday afternoon, according to a statement from the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. . . .

Here's a link to the resulting 'conference report' after the bills passed, and were reconciled by Committee. PBO signed it into law, and the rest was history (as they say).

My understanding is that even though they technically have 6 months, Dr Shulkin intends to get 2.0 through this legislative session. Got my eyes peeled, but hope you'll keep a look out for it, too.

Hope this helps. Have a good weekend!

Mollie

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 8:54pm

@Unabashed Liberal

@Unabashed Liberal

Of course money goes into it as it's privatized further...

#5.1.1.1

Act of 2014--its informal name. Maybe this would be more helpful, since there are various pieces of legislation related to the original bill which began the privatization of veterans health services after Bernie's negotiations with McCain (Senate) and Miller (House).

Outline of Legislative History

• June – Senate and House begin work on legislation to alleviate access
issues:
– House and Senate Access Bills – S. 2450 and H.R. 4810
– Senate Omnibus Bill – S. 1950
– Accountability Bills – S. 2013 and H.R. 4031

• Senate and House pass separate Access Bills – enter into Conference
Committee.

• July 28 – Conference Committee produces a compromise Conference
Report that is then referred to the two houses of Congress for approval.

• Last week of July – House and Senate pass Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014, H.R. 3230 (Conference Report).

• President Obama signed H.R. 3230 on 8/7/14.

Now, it's been tweaked and refunded since this groundbreaking legislation passed. The current Chairperson of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Johnny Isakson, said that the 2014 Bill 'broke the glass ceiling' on privatization of the VA (on C-Span's Newsmakers program).

Here's a quote from the current VA Secretary--the chief privatizing official and/or a holdover from O's Administration, Dr David Shulkin. IIRC, Shulkin is the only VA Secretary who's never been in the military. (Even the former Proctor & Gamble CEO who preceded Shulkin as VA Secretary, had at least attended West Point.) Shulkin is going to further open up the privatization process, lifting a number of restrictions.

BTW, the quote below is about the 2.0 Privatization that I've been referencing, lately. It is not the funding bill that I referenced last night--which extended and refunded the 'Veterans Choice Program' for six more months, and further privatized 'the system of hiring' for the VA. (Which I mostly object to, except under the most dire of circumstances. Shulkin's and lawmakers' goal appears to be to totally remake the Veterans Administration in the image of a private sector organization/company, as far as I can tell.)

Here's a statement of Dr Shulkin's at a recent conference,

Speaking to hundreds of people at the Disabled American Veterans annual conference in Arlington, Va., Shulkin laid out his top 10 priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was his first public address since becoming VA secretary.

High on Shulkin’s list was redesigning the Veterans Choice Program into what he called “Choice 2.0.”

His plan would include removing the rule that allows veterans to go outside the VA for health care if they had to wait more than 30 days for an appointment or live more than 40 miles driving distance from a VA facility. Some veterans and lawmakers have criticized the 40-mile, 30-day rule for limiting veterans’ health care choices, and Shulkin called the program “extremely complex and bureaucratic.”

[What Shulkin doesn't mention is that many more veterans never wanted VA medical services privatized in the first place. Most of them only want services in the private sector if they are unavailable through the VA System.]

Choice set to expire

Before he can propose Choice 2.0, Congress first must eliminate the expiration date for the original Veterans Choice Program, Shulkin said.

This extension and refunding has just passed. I believe that it extends the program for six months, while he completes his full privatization plan. The only medical services to speak of that lawmakers intend to keep at the VA, are those that pertain to 'war injuries.' IOW, treatment for PTSD, prosthetic fittings/therapy, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), etc.

Here's a link.

And, a very brief excerpt below,

Last-minute Veterans Choice funding bill filled with key VA hiring flexibilities

By Nicole Ogrysko | @nogryskoWFED
July 28, 2017 5:44 pm

An additional $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program isn’t the only provision lawmakers rushed to pass before leaving Friday for the August recess.

Under the House Veterans Affairs Committee leadership, lawmakers managed to find a solution that replenishes the Veterans Choice Fund with an additional $2.1 billion dollars and invests in key VA functions. . . .

Investment in key function means further privatizing the 'hiring' system/procedures. Obviously, I am against this--except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. These policies amount to circumventing the personnel merit system, which has served the Feds well for decades and decades. For instance, it helps keep down the politicization of the workforce--keeping it more professional, as well as ensures that the highest personnel standards are applied across the board during the hiring process.

BTW, the Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 just passed this June. This is the bill that Kevin Baron (Military One) and the AFGE say upended amost 150 years of Civil Service Protections. I've got the video of him saying this on C-Span's Newsmakers.

Hey, as soon as lawmakers/Shulkin ram through the '2.0 VA Bill,' I'll post it at EB. Bottom line, until 2.0 passes, you can reference Bernie's 2014 bill, for how the VA medical services were privatized. Here's an article about it, and the so-called 'conference report' that resulted from the legislation (and which was signed by PBO).

Sanders, Miller to announce VA reform deal

By Jacqueline Klimas - The Washington Times - Sunday, July 27, 2014

The House and Senate’s top negotiators reached a tentative deal on legislation to fix the Veterans Affairs Department health care system and are expected to announce the details Monday afternoon.

The compromise bill will address the “short-term and long-term needs of the VA,” according to an aide to Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent and the Democrats’ lead negotiator on the deal.

Mr. Sanders will give details of the tentative agreement with Rep. Jeff Miller, Florida Republican, on Monday afternoon, according to a statement from the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. . . .

Here's a link to the resulting 'conference report' after the bills passed, and were reconciled by Committee. PBO signed it into law, and the rest was history (as they say).

My understanding is that even though they technically have 6 months, Dr Shulkin intends to get 2.0 through this legislative session. Got my eyes peeled, but hope you'll keep a look out for it, too.

Hope this helps. Have a good weekend!

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by SancheLlewellyn on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 9:43am

War for profit

@snoopydawg Phil Ochs wrote about it quite a lot.

"At arlington he's lowered down without a pause,
And his native land welcomes him with open jaws,
And the tombstone reads such a noble cause,
That's the sad and silent song of a soldier."

Submitted by Blueslide on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 7:09am

I hate to be so pessimistic...

...but this is their starting point for negotiations. Once again the Dems are taking healthcare for all off the table.

So let me see, with a GOP Congress and Potus, we are going to wind up with cuts to medicaid AND Medicare and more welfare for useless insurance companies.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 7:22am

This is derived from a negotiation with health insurers

…that has already taken place. Obviously. It essentially slices off and removes the oldest, sickest demographic in the private health care marketplace.

It's good news for the health care insurance parasites because it removes many of the pre-existing obligations that they are still forced to cover under Obamacare. Plus, the 55-64 demographic is the most likely to suffer the wear and tear and expensive pitfalls of aging. Thus, it's a thumb's up for profits, especially after they've already jacked up premiums with them in mind. Free money!

Hopefully it's a neutral for the Medicare pool, but it's nowhere as fiscally upbeat as it would be if younger healthier folks were buying in. Medicare is targeted for cuts that will provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. That scheme is discussed as if it already happened. The insurers and congressional traitors both have reason$ to love to see Medicare take a dive in quality once the 55+ buy in. It would be PROOF that national health care is a lousy idea. If they manage to stick vouchers in the Bill via amendment, the Medicare program will be degraded for many seniors, who will be touted as VICTIMS of the Single Payer system. (It really does sound like Democrat-style sabotage they can blame on Republicans, and still allow them to collect the big bucks from the insurance lobby.)

As for the 55-64 crowd, those who are currently insured will experience the same level of medical care whether they buy in to Medicare or continue on with their private plan — as long as Medicare is not cut or degraded. The rest is a guess. People will probably decide based on their level of job security. A "buy-in" to Medicare likely means they will pay higher premiums than those 65+, without subsidies. As for the uninsured in that demographic, I'm guessing those on Medicaid will stay put. For those going without, they will probably continue to do so.

It's strictly business and politics. I'm not feeling the socialism.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 10:45am

Well, that's how we got Medicare in the first place

@Pluto's Republic
Big Insurance wanted nothing to do with the 65+ crowd, so the gov't found it necessary to put up a sketchy sort of a safety net for them.

Now they want nothing to do with the 55+ crowd, so they're being tossed into the sketchy safety net too.

Any sane and responsible government would long since have started to expand and strengthen the safety net - but the US Kleptocracy only acts when it is absolutely forced to.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 08/05/2017 - 2:04pm

Exactly!

@Pluto's Republic It is obvious that an insurance pool that is comprised of mostly older, and therefore more likely to have health issues, people is going to be a more costly option for a government program.

The beauty of Medicare for all is that it create a very large pool of persons from all age groups which allows the costs to be spread among more people. It ensures that everyone is covered at a much lower cost per person than the current system or the hybrid being proposed by the Democrats. I am very sure that the insurance industry had more than ample input into this latest proposal by the Democrats.

I will continue to say what I have said here on many occasions. Why do we even need a middle man in the delivery of healthcare in this country? The middle man (insurance companies) represent an unnecessary cost.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy