ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Vermont Report Says State Can Save More Under Single Payer Than Obamacare

Yesterday, as House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Vermont legislature heard a proposal for how to move the state to a single-payer system. The report, organized by Bill Hsiao, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, would provide insurance to everyone with a common benefit package that would pay at least “87 percent of each Vermonter’s medical and mental health expenses and 77 percent of his or her drug expenses” and channel all the payments to doctors and hospitals “through a single pipe.”

The “pipe,” so to speak, is an Independent Board representing “all the major payers, including, employers, state government and consumers, as well as the beneficiaries or recipients of benefits and payments, including providers and consumer groups.” The board would “negotiate updates to the benefit packages and payment rates to providers,” but outsource all claims administration and provider relations work to a private company. This kind of approach, Hsiao estimates, would create savings that would outpace those of reform, producing savings of “approximately $590 in 2010 US Dollar real terms“:

Specifically, in 2015 project that the cost would decrease by approximately 11% of what they would be under PPACA….Under those savings assumptions, total health care costs in 2015 would reach approximately $5.776 billion in real 2010 dollars, $500 million less than under implementation of PPACA. On a per capita basis, total expenditures would be $8,580 in 2015, or about $750 than under PPACA. The savings would reach about $1.2 billion in 2019. By that year, the total per capita expenditures would increase to $8,800, representing a per capita savings of about $1,800 compared to PPACA.

The plan would be financed through a higher payroll tax on employees and their workers, but Hsiao estimates that the tax burden would be “less than what they are paying in premiums now.” Premiums costs could further be lowered through payment and malpractice reform. Private insurers, meanwhile, will their role greatly reduced, but not entirely eliminated. The report indicates private companies could sell “supplementary insurance” that provides greater coverage than the common benefits package.

Hsiao said that Vermont faced “no fewer than 15 hurdles before it would be able to implement the plan,” not the least of which are some of the new requirements and regulations in the Affordable Care Act. The Vermont Congressional delegation has introduced an amendment that would expand a provision in the law that allows states to propose their own pilot health care programs and seek a waiver from the federal health care law so that they can pursue their own approaches to health care reform. The current law allows states to pursue these waivers in 2017; the amendment would move this waiver date up to 2014. A companion measure has also been introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA) in the Senate, but it remains to be seen how cooperative HHS will be in granting waiver and allowing the state to pursue these reforms.

Politics

Republican Study Committee Member Can’t Explain How His Spending Cut Plan Adds Up…Because It Doesn’t

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) today released a plan that supposedly outlines $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years. But as The Wonk Room pointed out, only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion is specified, while the rest is simply hand-waving about keeping non-defense discretionary spending at the 2006 level for a decade. As TPM’s Brian Buetler put it, “In other words, it punts the question of what to cut to future Congresses, which could just as easily bust the cap.”

Today, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), an RSC member, appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, and Cavuto also evidently noticed that the vast bulk of the RSC’s savings come from unspecified cuts. When he asked Campbell explain how the RSC magically turned $330 billion into $2.5 trillion, Campbell dropped the ball:

CAVUTO: I don’t want to pick it apart too much, because you always appreciate the efforts at spending cuts, but a lot of these eliminations and reductions, Congressman, realistically come to $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion of proposed cuts. So, in other words, the real meat, up-front cuts, while still substantial, about $330 billion, ain’t the $2.5 trillion. So what is the more realistic figure?

CAMPBELL: The more realistic figure than the two, oh, you mean other than what’s listed on here?

Watch it:

Campbell then proceeded to incorrectly claim that the $2.5 trillion in savings is a result of multiplying the $330 billion in specific cuts out over a ten year budget window, which would actually amount to more than $2.5 trillion in savings.

It’s not surprising, of course, that the RSC would be hesitant to place on paper the practical implications of its plan. Returning non-defense discretionary spending to the 2006 level — and then keeping it there — would result in billions of dollars in cuts to vital and popular programs and agencies like Pell Grants, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Institutes of Health and the federal prison system.

As Steve Benen pointed out, the RSC’s plan would also be “devastating” for the labor market. “Indeed, if lawmakers were to get together to plot how Congress could deliberately increase unemployment, their plan would look an awful lot like this one,” he wrote. “The RSC proposal would deliberately fire thousands of civilian workers, force states to make sweeping job cuts, and lay off thousands more who work in transportation and infrastructure.” Here is the Center for American Progress’ plan for meaningful deficit reduction by 2015.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Health

Murkowski Breaks With McConnell: GOP Should Focus On Economy, Not ‘Messaging’ Health Repeal

Yesterday, after the House repealed the Affordable Care Act, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he would “assure” a Senate vote on the legislation, despite Senate Democrats’ opposition to holding such a vote. “The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn’t want to vote on this bill,” McConnell said. “But I assure you, we will.”

During an appearance on Alaska’s KTVA just moments after McConnell made his remarks, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) broke with her party leadership and said that even though she would vote to repeal the law, the Senate should not spend its time on “messaging” and should instead focus on more pressing economic issues:

MURKOWSKI: I don’t believe that there are votes sufficient in the Senate to repeal health care reform….We’re in this situation where there is some messaging going on…The real question is how much time do we as a Congress spend on this messaging? We’ve got a situation where our economy continues to be in the tank, the longest extended period of high unemployment since World War II….As important as making sure that we’re reigning in our health care costs — spending a lot of time on the messaging vote? I don’t think that’s what the American public wants us to do. …I don’t think what people want is kind of the messaging that’s going on.

Watch it:

Indeed, following the House passage of repeal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who controls the Senate schedule, condemned the repeal and reiterated — through a spokesperson — that he would not bring the measure to a vote. “This is nothing more than partisan grandstanding at a time when we should be working together to create jobs and strengthen the middle class,” he said in a statement (voicing a sentiment that Murkwoski apparently agrees with).

Murkowski has been on a bit of an independent streak after being disavowed by the Republican party for mounting a successful re-election campaign as a write-in candidate. At the end of last year, she was the only Republican “to cast votes on all four items on President Barack Obama’s wish list: a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a tax-cut compromise, the START deal and cloture for the DREAM Act.

Politics

Boehner On What Spending Cuts The House GOP Plans To Enact: ‘You’re Asking Me?’

During their sure-footed campaign to achieve a Republican majority this year, Republicans continually floundered over their promise to cut government spending. A remarkable number weren’t able to list even one cut they’d make from the federal budget.

But now the House Republicans have Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at the helm, a politician who promises “to take a new approach that hasn’t been tried in Washington before.” Boehner claims “it’s not rocket science” to cut government spending. And yet, like his party brethren, Boehner’s “new approach” falls flat on specifics. When pushed to name one program he’d cut earlier this month, he was equally ignorant: “I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.”

The Speaker’s continued lack of substance is leaving his flock without direction as they struggle to construct a resolution on their campaign pledge to “roll back domestic spending to the 2008 appropriations levels” for next Tuesday. Set to hit the floor hours before the State of the Union, Republican lawmakers still couldn’t name specifics during their committee meeting on the resolution. But rather than offer any reassuring message of leadership, Boehner opted for an incredulous ignorance of the entire process: “You’re asking me?”:

Neither House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), nor House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) even attended a House Rules Committee hearing on the resolution Wednesday. Democrats pounced in what became a freewheeling, sometimes comical proceeding. And while Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is very much driving the train, he has kept himself divorced from the details of what represents an average 18 percent cut from 2010 spending levels.

“You’re asking me?” Boehner laughed, when asked by POLITICO how he thought the cuts would be first implemented in a stopgap spending bill next month. “I know how to delegate.”

By “delegating” out his job, Boehner can now hide behind the flanks of his subordinates without really reaping the backlash. With their leader in the rear, GOP lawmakers are out in front with a $2.5 trillion hatchet job on the federal budget. Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (OH) unveiled the “Spending Reduction Act” today, a bill that “proposes the elimination or drastic reduction of more than 50 government programs,” including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and 15 percent of federal jobs. Perhaps to overcompensate for the other broken promises, Jordan is pushing the GOP pledge to cut back to 2008 levels even further back to 2006 spending levels.

While House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) merely “applauds” the “effort,” Boehner, of course, is “seeking to minimize exposure to attacks from the opposition,” and thus is “unlikely” to push these cuts hard. Whether he’ll ever offer any clear plan of his own, however,

Economy

Republican Study Committee Member Can’t Explain How His Spending Cut Plan Adds Up…Because It Doesn’t

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) today released a plan that supposedly outlines $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years. But as I pointed out earlier, only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion is specified, while the rest is simply hand-waving about keeping non-defense discretionary spending at the 2006 level for a decade. As TPM’s Brian Buetler put it, “In other words, it punts the question of what to cut to future Congresses, which could just as easily bust the cap.”

Today, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), an RSC member, appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, and Cavuto also evidently noticed that the vast bulk of the RSC’s savings come from unspecified cuts. When he asked Campbell explain how the RSC magically turned $330 billion into $2.5 trillion, Campbell dropped the ball:

CAVUTO: I don’t want to pick it apart too much, because you always appreciate the efforts at spending cuts, but a lot of these eliminations and reductions, Congressman, realistically come to $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion of proposed cuts. So, in other words, the real meat, up-front cuts, while still substantial, about $330 billion, ain’t the $2.5 trillion. So what is the more realistic figure?

CAMPBELL: The more realistic figure than the two, oh, you mean other than what’s listed on here?

Watch it:

Campbell then proceeded to incorrectly claim that the $2.5 trillion in savings is a result of multiplying the $330 billion in specific cuts out over a ten year budget window, which would actually amount to more than $2.5 trillion in savings.

It’s not surprising, of course, that the RSC would be hesitant to place on paper the practical implications of its plan. Returning non-defense discretionary spending to the 2006 level — and then keeping it there — would result in billions of dollars in cuts to vital and popular programs and agencies like Pell Grants, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Institutes of Health and the federal prison system.

As Steve Benen pointed out, the RSC’s plan would also be “devastating” for the labor market. “Indeed, if lawmakers were to get together to plot how Congress could deliberately increase unemployment, their plan would look an awful lot like this one,” he wrote. “The RSC proposal would deliberately fire thousands of civilian workers, force states to make sweeping job cuts, and lay off thousands more who work in transportation and infrastructure.” If you’re interested in a legitimate deficit reduction plan, go here.

Climate Progress

Must-read Hansen and Sato paper: We are at a climate tipping point that, once crossed, enables multi-meter sea level rise this century

Climate change is likely to be the predominant scientific, economic, political and moral issue of the 21st century

Right now, we’re headed towards an ice-free planet.  That takes us through the Eemian interglacial period of about 130,000 years ago when sea levels were 15 to 20 feet higher, when temperatures had been thought to be about 1°C warmer than today.  Then we go back to the “early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today,” as NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato explain in a new draft paper, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change.”

The question is how much warmer was it in the Eemian and early Pliocene than today — and how fast can the great ice sheets disintegrate?

We already know we’re at CO2 levels that risk catastrophe if they are sustained or exceeded for any extended period of time (see Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher).

Hansen and Sato go further, saying we’re actually at or very near the highest temperatures of the current Holocene interglacial — the last 12,000 years of relatively stable climate that has made modern civilization possible.

Holocene

They argue that the Eemian was warmer than the Holocene maximum by “at most by about 1°C, but probably by only several tenths of a degree Celsius.”  Their make the remarkable finding, that sea level rise will be highly nonlinear this century on our current business-as-usual [BAU] emissions that:

BAU scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain.

While this conclusion takes them well outside of every other recent prediction of sea level rise (SLR), Hansen deserves to be listened to because he has been right longer than almost anyone else in the field (see “Right for three decades: 1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels“).   Also, at least one recent study that attempts to integrate a linear historically-based analysis with a rapid response term finds we are headed towards SLR of “as much as 1.9 metres (6ft 3in) by 2100″ if we stay on BAU (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100“).

Hansen and Sato make their case for a strong nonlinear SLR based on a “phase change feedback mechanism,” that, as we’ll see, appears consistent with the recent scientific literature and observations1:

Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

Before I sputter out:

— The limits of corporate personhood.

— The most “most emailed New York Times article” of all time.

— Bloggers beat professionals at Apple forecasting.

— The executive director of Human Rights Watch got a prime seat at the China state dinner.

— Yes it can be rational to vote.

— John McWhorter thinks hard drugs “should be available in maintenance doses, possibly for free.”

For dental surgery, it’s Eels, “Novocaine for the Soul”.

Security

Russell Pearce Proposes Legislation To Use Public Funds To Defend A Law That’s Already Being Defended

Back in September, the judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request by Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) to be a party in the federal government’s legal challenge to Arizona immigration law, SB-1070. Pearce, who sponsored SB-1070, claimed he has a “unique perspective” on SB-1070 and wanted to use his own attorneys to convince the appellate judges that all provisions of the law are legal. According to the Yuma Sun, Pearce seems to believe that there is evidence that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who is defending the law, does not believe that the statute in its entirety is legal. “Sen. Pearce is uniquely qualified to provide this interpretation of SB 1070 as its author and chief sponsor,” wrote his lawyers.

Pearce has never been known to give up easily, and this case is no exception. Coffee Today reports that Pearce introduced a bill, SB-1117, which would give the Senate President (who happens to be Pearce) and the leader of the Arizona House of Representatives the power to hire lawyers to initiate SB-1070 legal proceedings before state and federal courts, along with an unlimited power to use public funds to defend the controversial law. The bill states:

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate may direct counsel to initiate a legal proceeding or appear on behalf of their respective chambers or on behalf of the legislature in any challenge in a state or federal court to laws 2010, chapter 113 and any amendments to that law. [...]

This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law.

As of the end of July 2010, lawyers defending SB-1070 have billed more than $1 million. So far, Brewer has been using money from the “defense fund” she set up which has attracted approximately $3.6 million in private donations. Pearce — who brags about being recognized as a “Hero of the Taxpayer” by Americans for Prosperity — essentially wants to reinvent the wheel by defending a law that Brewer’s administration already seems pretty committed to fighting for. All while the state’s budget deficit looms over the heads of lawmakers and the state legislature continues to uphold deathly cuts to the state’s medical transplant funding program.

Politics

Florida Bill Would Make It A Felony For Doctors To Ask Patients About Gun Ownership

Florida State Rep. Jason Brodeur (R) recently introduced a bill which criminalizes any “verbal or written inquiry by a public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person regarding the ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of a patient or the family of a patient,” and the penalty for violating this proposed law is steep:

Sponsored by Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, the bill (HB 155) would make it a felony for a physician or staff member to ask patients or family members of patients if they own guns or store guns at home. If found guilty, the medical provider could be fined up to $5 million or face up to five years in jail.

Brodeur’s proposed government takeover of the doctor/patient relationship is just the latest example of right-wing lawmakers wrapping themselves in the Constitution before spitting on it. During his campaign for the state house, Brodeur touted his support for the meritless lawsuits claiming that the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution — describing them as a “crusade against federal government intervention into our health care.”

Yet Brodeur’s love of the Constitution ends the minute he wanted to push his own crackpot agenda. One of Brodeur’s first acts as a lawmaker was to sponsor a wildly unconstitutional proposal to nullify a federal law. Likewise, as conservative law professor Eugene Volokh explains, his proposal to censor doctors’ speech “violate[s] the First Amendment, as well as just being a lousy idea”:

[T}his restriction seems to me to be well outside the proper limits of the government’s power here. The restriction isn’t limited to speech that is misleading or dangerous to patients; perfectly accurate and reasonable advice about preventing gun injury is covered alongside exaggeration and hysteria. Nor is this a requirement that doctors say extra things that the government thinks patients ought to know (such speech compulsions are generally forbidden, but may be constitutional when imposed on professional-client speech); this limits the information that doctors can give patients, rather than adding to such information.

Thankfully for Brodeur, the penalties for sponsoring unconstitutional bills are much less severe than the ones he wants to impose on doctors who violate his preferred speech codes–otherwise Brodeur would be looking at up to ten years in prison and a $10 million fine.

Yglesias

The Case For Bromance

Ann Friedman writes about straight men and social support networks:

From an early age, most women are socialized to be more nurturing and relationship-oriented than men, so perhaps this isn’t surprising. My guess is that homophobia also plays a huge role. Men are taught to perceive intimacy with other men as gay. You can see it in trend stories about “man-dates” and movies about male friendship, which often veer pretty quickly from depictions of platonic affection to defensive homophobia. There’s even a social stigma attached to cross-gender friendships. Just ask Slate’s Juliet Lapidos and her best friend, Jeff. Or me and my bestie Josh. (No, he’s not gay. No, I’m not gay. No, we’ve never dated. Yes, we are super tight.) If all of these relationships are socially off-limits, who’s a man to befriend?

I thought about this gender gap in support networks when I read the Times article about Jared Loughner. For all of the explanations that have been offered for his actions — a culture that glorifies violence, easy access to guns, poor access to mental health care — Loughner’s lack of a strong emotional and social support network has not been a prominent part of the post-tragedy narrative. It’s been taken as a given that this young man was a loner. We’ve come to expect that perpetrators of headline-dominating acts of violence will be young, single, heterosexual men like Loughner.

There are consequences to the fact that many men don’t have the social support they need and deserve. I think this is changing as our societal understanding of gender evolves. But it’s changing slowly. I, for one, can’t wait until bromance is not just a punchline but a part of every dude’s life.

I thought of this today when I was getting ready to be anesthetized and have my teeth pulled. I had put down on some form that Kate Crawford was going to pick me up, and from there basically everyone just assumed (accurately) that she’s my girlfriend. It wasn’t an unreasonable assumption, per se, but it’s emblematic of the phenomenon Ann’s talking about here. In practice, a straight single man who reaches out for help will almost always find that people are ready to be there for him. But there’s no socially validated way to do so.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up