|
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 01:05 AM by BzaDem
I know many here oppose the Baucus bill, and often for good reasons. But all of a sudden, many are citing the new AHIP-commissioned study as if that is somehow going to kill the Baucus bill, and then (somehow) propel the House bill to final passage, as if the AHIP is somehow on board with that plan.
Are you kidding me?
The reason AHIP opposes the Baucus bill is because the individual mandate is not strong enough. The bill has a waiver for anyone who can't find a plan that is 8% or less of one's income, and the penalty itself for not being insured was lowered 1500/family. That is really what is pissing AHIP off.
What would be a fix to the Baucus bill that is palatable to AHIP? It would be to raise (or eliminate) the hardship waiver and raise the penalty to something comparable to the cost of a health insurance plan. I highly doubt anyone on DU wants that. Yet if AHIP goes to war with the Baucus bill, it is FAR more likely that we will end up getting a Baucus bill with a strengthened mandate than anything even resembling HR3200 in the House (under reconciliation or normal Senate order). The more you attack the Baucus bill using this AHIP study (or anything AHIP says), the more you are giving them credibility to strengthen the mandate.
The only reason the AHIP isn't going after the House plan significantly is because they know its chances of getting through the Senate are 0%. If that were to somehow change, all of AHIP's arguments would apply even more to the House bill. By citing or quoting any AHIP material in opposition to the Baucus bill, you are just playing a game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If you want to go there, be careful what you wish for.
|