“It is a have-to-get-done that’s really hard to get done,” said one lobbyist.
. . .
It looked just like a campaign launch, from the line winding around the Fellowship Chapel Church, to the tailgaters giving away hot dogs, to the 2,000 voters who eventually packed inside.
But when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) arrived, there were no waving signs. They were there to kick off the push for universal health care, with legislation queued up for September, and no expectation that the Republican-controlled Congress would pass it.
. . .
axpayers who do not have minimum essential coverage (through an employer, a government program, or individual insurance) or qualify for an exemption must pay an individual responsibility tax. The tax is calculated on a monthly basis and is the greater of either a fixed dollar amount or 2.5 percent of household income above the tax filing limit, up to the the national average premium for a bronze (60 percent actuarial value) health plan.
The IRS has announced that for the 2016 tax filing season the average bronze plan premium used for calculating the maximum penalty will be $232 for each member of a tax household up to $1,360 for five or more members.
. . .
“Medicaid for All” has suddenly become the darling of the health reform crowd. Nevada almost became the first state in the nation to adopt Medicaid for All this year — until Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the plan in June. Other states, including Massachusetts and Minnesota, are looking into it.
These Medicaid-for-All plans would let anyone “buy into” the program. Middle-class families could pay government-set premiums for Medicaid coverage. They would get guaranteed health benefits at government-subsidized prices. And given that the program pays healthcare providers less than private insurance, Medicaid for All might even rein in health spending — or so the thinking goes.
. . .
Suppose you wanted to sabotage Obamacare and could not get Congress to help. Short of repeal legislation, the next best strategy would be to cut off funds to health insurers—in other words, starve the beast. That should work, right?
Surprisingly not, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Responding to a request from House Democrats, CBO considered what could happen to health coverage, insurance premiums, and taxpayer cost if the federal government stopped paying insurers for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). Under CBO’s scenario, the federal government would stop making payments to insurers totaling $118 billion between 2018 and 2026. As a result, the federal deficit would rise (not fall) by $194 billion, low-income individuals would pay about the same (not more) for coverage, and more people (not fewer) would be insured.
. . .