THE TREATMENT JANUARY 8, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Under heavy political fire from left and right for his so-called “Cornhusker Kickback,” Ben Nelson said Thursday that he has begun negotiating with the Senate leadership to expand his Medicaid funding deal to all states. According to Nelson’s spokesperson, the Nebraska Senator “had always intended to push for other states to receive the same arrangement, which involved the federal government forever picking up Nebraska's share of the Medicaid expansion,” Politico reported.
Such a change to the legislation would not only take the heat off of Nelson; it would also ease the pressure on the Democratic leaders of the reform effort. As I wrote this week, state officials from both red and blue states have blasted the bill’s Medicaid provisions—though for distinctly different reasons. In theory, at least, Nelson’s proposal could help state governments facing fiscal difficulties and put reform on a more solid footing. As Paul Waldman explains:
Because they have to balance their budgets every year (unlike the federal government), states have often looked to cutting Medicaid when times get tough. Though they will no longer be able to do so if this reform passes, that just means they'll be more likely to cut other social services. The federal government has much more flexibility with spending, and can borrow when it needs to in order to maintain services.
But does Nelson’s proposal really have a chance of passing? Fully financing the Medicaid expansion for all states would cost about $25 billion to $30 billion. Financing is one of the biggest political hurdles that the Democrats still have to resolve, given the huge differences between the House and Senate bills, and there’s extremely little wiggle room.
I’m guessing that Nelson’s latest statement is more of a political gesture than anything else, and that the leadership will ultimately remove the Nebraska carve-out from the bill. In the meantime, the White House has been trying to win over the Democratic governors upset with the bill, convening a conference call with them on Thursday. Though there are still signs of discontent, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell vowed that the governors would “be a lot clearer” about supporting health-care reform and explaining how expanded federal subsidies and other measures in the bill would actually help state governing. If such outreach can help quell a Democratic revolt over the Medicaid expansion, simply eliminating Nelson’s carve-out could be enough.
2 comments
Suzy: In the article I read on Nelson's comments (from the Huffington Post): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/ben-nelson-medicaid-deal-_n_416046.html he also mentioned that the two main deal makers (or deal breakers, depending on your perspective) with the health care legislation were the exclusion of a government run public option and no coverage for abortions. This is no surprise, but he did not say that the overall size of the package or the taxes used for financing would necessarily be 'deal breakers'. As per Jon Cohn's previous article on improving the Senate bill, does this mean he would be open to a national exchange, increased subsidies, higher income taxes on the wealthy, etc.? Of course he also said he thought it was a mistake to do health care legislation at this time, which might indicate he is having second thoughts about his 'yea' vote. Anyway, I suppose we will need to continue to decipher his sphinx-like utterances until this thing gets resolved.
- RobertW
January 10, 2010 at 2:29pm
States, or at least the progressives in them should have another concern. After eliminating single-payer from the start, whittling/killing off the public option, playing with/dropping the Medicare over 55 buy-in, the Senate bill kicked in Section 1332 which forbids States from applying for Medicare, etc waivers, as part of funding alternative, viable models for financing health care till 2017. A single, not-for-profit system of funding health care is the way to achieve guaranteed, affordable care for all. A national exchange, included in the House bill would depend on private, for-profit insurance. If a State wanted to apply for the waivers to try otherwise, no go till 2017 according to the Senate bill - flaunting States' rights and fundamental health care reform in one fell swoop. Hopefully, as Democratic leadership joins the two bills, they've figured out how they'll face progressives if they've slammed shut all the avenues for fundamental reform
- bsemple
January 10, 2010 at 10:54pm