Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (126692)	12/9/2009 10:27:51 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541018

Ezra Klein, whom everyone I read considers the genuine authority on the contents of the various healthcare insurance proposals, offers his take on the Senate deal as reported. Much more optimistic than I would have expected. In fact, a bit like Benen, he considers the government managed insurance exchanges as perhaps a better alternative than the weakened Senate public option. ------------------------------- The team of 10 reaches a deal on the public option But, err, they won't tell anyone what it is. At least not until they hear back from the Congressional Budget Office. The most telling tidbit so far has come from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who said, "I've got a smile on my face. I don't smile naturally." Rockefeller has been pushing to open Medicare to people between 55 and 64 years old. If he's got a smile on his face, that probably means he managed to shove hard enough. More tomorrow, when this thing begins to leak. Update: The specifics are beginning to leak. The deal looks pretty much like it's looked for the past few days: The Office of Personnel Management will shepherd national, non-profit plans into existence. Medicare will open to folks between 55 and 64 who are eligible for the exchange. If the national non-profit plans don't materialize, then there appears to be a trigger that will call a public plan into the market, but that seems pretty unlikely. All of this, of course, is contingent on CBO giving it a good score. The details will be important here. What are the conditions for the non-profit plans? How many plans do there need to be? What does the regulation look like? When does the Medicare buy-in start? But assuming those pieces don't come in much worse than expected, the combination of national non-profits and a Medicare buy-in seems like a pretty good deal. Better by far than what Democrats looked likely to get a week ago. And more likely, by far, to seed health-care reform with scalable experiments. A public option partnered with Medicare might have been better than these policies, but national non-profits and direct competition between Medicare and insurers is more promising than the compromised public plans that succeeded the initial policy idea. In fact, it's like we split the strong public option into two parts. The national non-profits are not exactly like, but not that far from, the compromised public plan in the House version of the bill. They won't be publicly run, but with the OPM regulating them tightly and carefully choosing which offerings are accepted into the market, the impact might not be that different in practice. They have the advantages of offering a single product nationally and being freed from the profit motive, both of which were key to the theory of the weaker public option. Indeed, they're like publicly-regulated utilities more than private plans. These look a lot like the semi-private insurers that function well in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others. Meanwhile, the Medicare buy-in lets people in the broader insurance market see what national bargaining power can do for individual premiums. Right now, Medicare's rates are largely hidden, as no one pays the full premiums, and so no one can really compare it to private offerings. But if the premiums become visible, and Medicare's superior bargaining power is capable of offering rates 20 to 30 percent lower than its private competitors can muster, we'll see how long it is before representatives begin getting calls from 50-year-olds who'd like the opportunity to exchange money in return for insurance as good as what 55-year-olds can get. Now, will the deal hold when Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe get a look at it? Stay tuned for more on that... By Ezra Klein \| December 9, 2009; 12:16 AM ET voices.washingtonpost.com

To: JohnM who wrote (126692)	12/9/2009 11:01:45 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Respond to of 541018

Krugman; December 8, 2009, 3:25 pm Show me the money! I’ll be on Lehrer tonight to talk about the new stimulus job-growth acceleration plan. But it’s going to be really hard, because it’s impossible to judge without some numbers. As I understand it, what the administration is trying to do is leverage an inadequate amount of money into disproportionate job creation. Hence the jobs tax credit and the cash-for-caulkers program, each of which might — might — produce many more jobs per buck than a conventional stimulus. Basically, it’s about making policy in the face of a dysfunctional Congress. But even so, it can’t be done without a significant amount of funds. If Robert Reich is right and it’s only $70 billion, it’s a Potemkin policy — all facade, virtually no substance. How big do the numbers have to be to make it serious? It’s hard to see much impact with less than $200 billion — and what I really want to see is that including all the pieces, from COBRA extension to state aid, it’s much bigger than that. So show me the money, and I’ll tell you what I think about the plan. Anyone hear Krugman last night? steve