Category Archives: Amodei

Rep. Mark Amodei: We Don’t Have Enough Corporate Money in Politics?

Nevada’s own Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2) may believe there isn’t enough corporate money in politics — On April 17, 2017 he introduced H.R. 2101, the Prior Approval Reform Act, which would make it easier for business trade associations to make political contributions.  Ah, just what we need! More corporate money in our political system!

The bill has the blessing of the Association of General Contractors, which posted the following argument on line in May, 2017:

“This legislation would repeal the prior approval requirement that is unfairly imposed upon and discriminates against corporate-member trade association PACs, like AGC PAC.

As you may know, the Federal Election Campaign Act requires the political action committee (PAC) of a trade association with corporate members, like AGC of America, to obtain prior approval in writing from a member corporation before communicating detailed information about the PAC and/or soliciting its executive or administrative staff. Furthermore, the regulation states that a corporate member may approve solicitations by only one trade association per calendar year.

AGC members have a constitutional right to join together in support of or in opposition to candidates for political office. Requiring prior approval discourages our members from participating in the association’s PAC, and creates an unequal playing field that restricts your First Amendment rights to free speech.”

Oh, the horror — “burdensome regulations” which seek to limit corporate political activities like soliciting money from members for advertising campaigns.  Notice please that nothing in the rationale posits that trade associations are not allowed to indulge in money gathering and expenditures — only that they have to get prior approval.  They certainly aren’t forbidden from engaging in PACs, the post only asserts that the corporations find this regulation ‘discouraging.’

The contractors take their argument a step further in this letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan: (pdf)

“Trade associations, like AGC, are discriminated against because their PACs are the only political committees that must first obtain exclusive permission from member companies before soliciting eligible individuals for support. No other class of PAC, including corporate, labor union, and individual membership association, is subject to the prior approval requirement. The requirement also restricts the First Amendment rights of AGC member company employees. The hardworking men and women in the construction industry are often frustrated that their company must first grant permission before they can be asked to make a personal contribution. It makes no sense that they can be solicited by individual member PACs and outside groups, but not by the trade association in which they participate unless their company provides its permission. Members of AGC have a constitutional right to join together in support of, or in opposition to, candidates for political office.”

Humm, a “hardworking” person in the construction sector can’t be solicited for a contribution unless the member company approves.  Let’s take a look at the trade associations which would benefit from this “reform,”  the list would include the following — America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, CTIA the Wireless Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, The Internet Association (Facebook, Google, Amazon), Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association, National Association of Federal Credit Unions, Global Automakers, Growth Energy, Airports Council International, Airlines for America,  International Franchise Association, the American Medical Association, Motion Picture Association of America, US Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, US Travel Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Interstate Natural Gas Association, Business Roundtable, Nuclear Energy Institute, American Gaming Association, National Retail Federation, Independent Petroleum Association, Information Technology Industry Council, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Realtors, American Bankers Association… if these are the top trade association lobby organizations in Washington, D.C. it’s hard to see precisely how these powerful outfits are “discouraged” from political participation by a “burdensome” regulation that requires them to get permission from their components before soliciting donations from their employees.

What we have here, compliments of Nevada Representative Mark Amodei, is yet another proposal designed to insert even more corporate money into the American political process.  Thus much for representing the “little guy.”

Comments Off on Rep. Mark Amodei: We Don’t Have Enough Corporate Money in Politics?

Filed under Amodei, Nevada politics, Politics

ICYMI: In Case You Missed It, Instant Summer Reading Recommendations

The Nevada Independent has several excellent articles about the health insurance ‘reform’ battle in the state,  I’d recommend starting with ‘Senator Cortez-Masto’s denunciation of the Senate health bill,” and move on to ‘Dispatches from Washington.’

The Reno Gazette Journal reports (video) on Rep. Jacky Rosen’s (D-NV3) decision to run for Senator Dean Heller’s seat.

Please note TPM’s report from the conference of Secretaries of State concerning election data security.  If this conclusion doesn’t disturb us, it should:

“But both Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State, who are responsible for carrying out elections in many states, said they have been frustrated in recent months by a lack of information from federal intelligence officials on allegations of Russian meddling with the vote. They say that despite the best efforts by federal officials, it may be too late in to make substantive changes.”

Interestingly enough, vote suppression advocate Chris Kobach was a no-show at the meeting.  Perhaps this is because some election experts have identified major flaws in Kobach’s “election integrity” plans.

And, now we get to “muddle time” during which the current administration tries to muddy the waters about the  other election problem — Russian interference.  Spokespersons and advocates are on the air-waves saying that “Gee, it’s not 17 intelligence agencies, it’s actually just a handful of people who reached the conclusion that the Russians meddled,”  which is one tactic to discredit the reports that are unequivocal in their assessment that, yes, the Russians interfered.   Following this comes the Gee Whiz moment in which the apologist who says that “we’ve not actually seen the evidence of this.”  A statement such as this is simply a variation on the previous talking point:  We’ve investigated this enough, there’s nothing there, move along please.

Speaking of elections, please take a look at the bill introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2) HR 2101, the Prior Approval Reform Act:  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to expand the ability of trade associations to solicit contributions from the stockholders and executive or administrative personnel of their member corporations, and for other purposes.  The effective date, January 1, 2018, would allow more “corporate” money in politics just in time for 2018 campaign season.   The Associated General Contractors would be pleased to see this enacted. [pdf]  Those disturbed by the dark, and darker money, flowing into our campaigns should track this bill.

Comments Off on ICYMI: In Case You Missed It, Instant Summer Reading Recommendations

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Amodei’s Bubbles: Republican Dreams for the AHCA

Nevada Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) is eager to let his constituents know that the District will not be negatively impacted by the GOP health insurance/tax cut bill currently being drafted in secret on Capitol Hill.  Not. So. Fast.

First, there will be losses.  Total coverage losses are projected to be felt by 37,500 under the AHCA, and 5,700 of those will be children, another 700 are disabled individuals in District 2.   Representative Amodei is optimistic about what will happen to these constituents —

Any Nevadan who has enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program from its inception in 2014 through the end of 2019 is free to remain in the program so long as their income does not exceed 138% of the national poverty level; …

In short, according to Rep. Amodei, his constituents are to be carefree and happy about their health insurance coverage until the end of 2019.  It’s now 2017.  Thus the recipients are to be reassured for another two years because:

  • Nevada will continue to receive the enhanced federal Medicaid funding for enrollees that it is currently receiving for as long as that enrollee stays in the program;

  • Present expanded enrollees lose eligibility only if they exceed income of 138% of the national poverty level, or if they elect to take employer provided or private health insurance;

Lovely, until we peek into the House version (the basis for the Senate version) and find:

“Medicaid provides coverage for over 70 million individuals and relies on both federal and state funding to continue growing. Under current law, the federal government covers, on average, 57 percent of each state’s total Medicaid costs, no matter the amount. The states pay for the remainder.

In contrast, under the AHCA’s per capita cap Medicaid program, starting in 2020, the federal government would provide states with a flat, capped dollar amount of funding for each person they enroll. The dollar amount is based on states’ 2016-level per-enrollee spending.”

One way to interpret this is that the District’s enrollees will be fine for the moment, but should be aware that the sword labeled ‘the Medicaid Per Capita Lid’ is swinging over head.  This has the potential to burst the first of Amodei’s bubbles.

Secondly, there’s this part of Representative Amodei’s eternal optimism:

“While we understand that Medicaid Expansion will eventually be phased out, we expect the recovery of our economy to continue, giving us reason to believe we will not need as robust of a safety net as we once needed at the height of the recession.  Additionally, with Nevada leading the nation in job growth in 2016, we also can expect employer-based coverage to become available to more people.”

A bit of confusion reigns here — don’t worry about Medicaid expansion cuts because Nevadans will be covered — but notice that the Medicaid expansion will “eventually be phased out.” One really doesn’t get to have it both ways.  But, there’s more.

Yes, the Gallup 2016 Job Creation Index gives Nevada top marks for job creation, but remember that this polling is based on asking workers if the employer is increasing hiring.   It is also statewide.  If we drill down we find positive news, but an incomplete picture.

“Employment increased in Nevada’s two large counties from September 2015 to September 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with 2015 annual average employment of 75,000 or more.) Washoe County’s employment rose 5.0 percent and Clark County’s employment rose 3.7 percent.” [BLS]

What we are required to believe  is that employment increases in District 2 will be sufficient to cover some 37,500 people who will need to find employer paid insurance coverage by 2020.  Exactly how this is supposed to happen isn’t all that clear.

There are too many “ifs” in the proposition to adopt it with any enthusiasm.  IF there is continued employment increases — in the face of the financial deregulation legislation in the House and Senate which threaten to recreate the Wall Street Casino environment that wrecked Nevada’s economy in 2007-2008.  IF the employment increases in the rural portions of District 2 are sufficient to put Medicaid expansion enrollees into employer plans.

And then, there are the problems intrinsic in the AHCA in the employer sponsored insurance plans.  Those believing that the AHCA will deliver the same level of health insurance coverage in employer sponsored plans as the ACA may be in for a rude shock.

“The amendment (to the AHCA) would allow states to apply for waivers to rescind two major regulations of Obamacare, if the state can prove that healthcare costs would decrease as a result. That has led to concerns about its potential effects on the individual insurance market, but it could also change insurance for people that get coverage through their employers.

One of those Affordable Care Act-implemented protections — called essential health benefits (EHB) — requires insurers to cover a baseline of 10 health procedures and items including emergency-room visits, prenatal care, mental-health care, and some prescriptions.

Under Obamacare, employer plans could not place a lifetime limit on the amount that the plans pay out on EHBs, and required plans to limit the amount of out-of-pocket costs an employee had to pay annually, according to The Journal. That made plans more costly for employers but also provided better coverage for employees.”

Thus, there are three problems — junk plans might be back in the market; essential benefits can be reduced; and lifetime and annual benefit limits could be reintroduced.  We can safely assume that Representative Amodei’s analysis contains the usual measure of Trickle Down Happy Talk (if only the tax cuts are big enough all employers will hire enough people to make the magic happen! — See Kansas) and assumptions which sound superficially rationale but don’t hold up to much scrutiny.

Comments Off on Amodei’s Bubbles: Republican Dreams for the AHCA

Filed under Amodei, health insurance, Medicaid, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Deregulation isn’t the solution, it’s the problem

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) was pleased to vote for the so-called “Choice Act,” which rolls back some of the reforms enacted in the wake of the Wall Street casino debacle and subsequent recession as the Great Wall Street Derivative Monster collapsed like an air dancer in a Nevada wind.   The theory behind this ridiculousness is that regulations restrict commerce, and a restriction of commerce diminishes wealth, therefore diminished wealth impacts investment, ergo diminished investment equates to a limit on economic growth.  Not. So. Fast.

Yes, regulations restrict “commerce,” but only some kinds of “commerce,” generally the fraudulent variety.  I am free to issue shares of stock in my corporation — however, I am not free to issue shares of stock in the Reese River Steamboat Company.  Some sharp soul offered shares of this highly dubious company during one of the mining booms, and assuredly some investors were cheated by this obviously fraudulent sale.  We have regulations to prevent this.  We have laws and related regulations to prevent insider trading, to prevent “blue sky” stocks, and to reduce the possibility investors are cheated by financial products which promise high returns with little or no risk.  Sometimes the adage, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is,” isn’t quite enough to prevent mismanagement of other people’s money.

Recently, Wells Fargo was found guilty of violating regulations and laws relating to the creation of phony accounts, the fine totaled a massive $185 million and some 5,300 individuals were fired. [NYT] The situation was all the more egregious because the bank was ripping off its own customers.  $100 million of that fine was the highest penalty the CFPB ever levied against a financial institution.  This is precisely the agency the so-called “Choice Act” wants to ham-string.

The “Choice Act” would eliminate the regulation regime which was intended to prevent the collapse of banking institutions.  Just for the record, let’s look at the list of US institutions that either disappeared or were acquired during the Great Recession: New Century, American Home Mortgage, Netbank, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Sovereign Bank, National City Bank, CommerceBancorp, Downey Savings and Loan, IndyMac Federal Bank, HSBC Finance Corporation, Colonial Bank, Guaranty Bank, First Federal Bank of California, Ambac, MFGlobal, PMI Group, and FGIC.

If we extrapolate the “let the market sort it out” argument to its conclusion — it’s acceptable to allow banking institutions to over-extend themselves to such an extent that they will ultimately collapse; that’s just the market “at work.”  Fine, if the impact of such deregulation solely impinges on the banking institutions themselves, but that’s not what happens in the real world.  In the real world such supposedly safe havens (money market accounts) were in peril:

“A little over a year ago the collapse of Lehman Brothers sparked heavy redemptions from the dozen or so money market funds that held Lehman debt securities. The hit was particularly hard at The Reserve Fund, a money market fund that had a $785 million position in Lehman commercial paper. Soon The Reserve saw a run on its Primary Fund, spreading to other Reserve funds. Reserve tried to furiously sell its portfolio securities to satisfy redemptions, but this only depressed their values.

Despite its best efforts, The Reserve Primary Fund couldn’t find enough buyers and on Sept. 16 the unthinkable happened. The Primary Fund “broke the buck,” meaning that the net asset value of the fund, $1, fell to $0.97 a share. It was only the second time a money market fund, which are commonly thought of as guaranteed, broke the buck in 30 years.”

Meanwhile in Nevada, unemployment soared to 14+%, the state endured being listed among the states with the highest levels of foreclosures, and it took until 2016 for the state to recover almost all the wealth and jobs lost in the aftermath of the deregulated Wall Street casino debacle. [LVRJ]

Deregulation may sound fine when discussed in theoretical, ethereal, terms, it obviously didn’t work in the real world in which Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and IndyMac collapsed, and where the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck.”

The questions someone should ask of Representative Amodei, and other “deregulators,” are:

(1) Do you favor a return to the regulatory environment in which investment banks were allowed to over-extend and engage in risk taking far beyond their capacity to remain solvent?

(2) Do you favor a regulatory environment in which those being regulated are allowed permission to “self regulate,” without oversight from governmental agencies and institutions?

The second question is particularly important because it addresses the question of trust in commercial relationships.

The most basic of all commercial relationships is the simple act of buying and selling.  I have something to sell, and there is a potential customer for my goods or services.  This is another point at which deregulation can easily become part of the problem.  If I am selling food, there are self-evident reasons for regulating the conditions under which that food is prepared and served to the general public.  Deregulation invites disasters of the public health variety.  We trust that the food offered for sale by restaurants and groceries is safe for consumption.

If I am selling financial products does the buyer (consumer) have the expectation that my product is what it purports to be?  That it is backed by sufficient funds for ‘redemption?’ That it conforms to the standards of acceptable practices?  And, if it doesn’t, are there avenues of redress such that the consumer can be compensated?  In short, can the customer be assured that he or she can trust the product?

If I am selling a manufactured product, can the consumer trust that the item was produced in a safe way, that the product will perform as advertised, that the product will not create a hazard in my home or office?  There are voices on the fringe of Free Market thought calling  for the abolition or at least the restriction of the Consumer Product Safety Commivoicssion, who would love to see the return of Caveat Emptor, but most reasonable people agree that regulations pertaining to product safety are conducive to commerce, NOT restrictive.  A vehicle which meets or exceeds safety standards is more likely to be my choice than a vehicle which does not.  A vehicle which meets or exceeds fuel consumption standards is more like to be my choice than one which does not.  In short, regulatory standards benefit the best products (and their producers) while those who do not meet the standards have a more difficult time at the point of sale.  Now, the question becomes — do we want a regulatory environment which benefits the marginal, the inadequate, or perhaps even the corrupt producers?

Unfortunately, the deregulatory voices are answering this question in the affirmative.

Is this really the answer Representative Amodei and his cohorts want to give to constituents in the Second District? In the US?  To our customers around the world?

 

 

Comments Off on Deregulation isn’t the solution, it’s the problem

Filed under Amodei, banking, Economy, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Anti-Choice: The Rebirth of Deregulation

I don’t think anyone in the state of Nevada doesn’t know what happened the last time Wall Street was left unfettered.  The Bubble splattered all over the state.   The offcast included 167,000 empty houses. [USAToday]  Nevada’s unemployment rate soared to 12.8% by December, 2009.  By October 2010 the state’s unemployment rate was 14.4%.  And now the House of Representatives is on track to vote on H.R. 10, the “Choice Act” to dismantle the financial regulatory reforms enacted in the wake of the Housing Debacle and deregulated banking disaster.

Two procedural votes are on record to move this bill forward — House vote 290, and House vote 291 — and Representative Mark Amodei voted in favor of bringing this bill to a vote by the full House.   Watch this space for an update on the vote for passage.

Update:  On House vote #299, Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) voted along with 232 other Republicans to essentially gut the financial reform regulations enacted in the wake of the Housing Bubble debacle. (HR 10)

Representatives Kihuen, Rosen, and Titus voted against this deregulation bill.

Comment: Be aware of Republican representatives to frame this vote as one against Bank Bailouts and “Too Big to Fail.”   In a polite world we’d call this something euphemistic like “south bound product of a north bound bull.”  The Dodd Frank Act requires banks to have a plan for unwinding failing banks, and bankers have screamed to the heavens about provisions to allow outside oversight of banking management.  More simply, if you approve of the antics of Wells Fargo — then you’ll love the “Choice Act,” a bill which gives banks the “choice” to skewer its customers and investors.

Comments Off on Anti-Choice: The Rebirth of Deregulation

Filed under Amodei, Economy, financial regulation, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Disinformation Dismay

Perhaps Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) would like to apply his talent for taking simple GOP talking points and putting them through the Amodei X600 Syntax Degenerator to the Trumpian version of why it was necessary to take the US out of a VOLUNTARY climate improvement agreement? Vox explains the 5 biggest bits of disinformation in the Rose Garden jazz concert and diplomatic disaster. Want more fact checking? Politifact provides more.

And, we hear that Senator Dean (Moderate in Name Only) Heller (R-NV) wants to get to “yes” on replacing the Affordable Care Act with some GOP approved insurance scheme that actually replaces affordable health insurance with a major tax cut for those who enjoy an income level in the top 2%.  How do we get to “yes” with this scenario?

“However, under the AHCA, currently under consideration in the Senate, the tax credit will be a flat rate based on age. Korbulic said a 40-year-old making $30,000 a year could see a more than $400 increase in premiums because of the flat rate, but a person over the age of of 60 making the same amount could see a $6,000 jump in premium costs.”

“I think you’re looking at a scenario where consumers are going to have less affordable access, and so that will likely mean they’re going to be priced out of the market,” Korbulic said. “

Meanwhile, the Trump Chicken put in an appearance at Senator Heller’s Las Vegas office. Senator Heller has a relatively predictable pattern. (1) Publicly announce “concern” or “trouble” with Republican legislation.  (2) Receive some nebulous assurance that the result of the Republican legislation won’t be the obvious. (3) Revert to standard GOP platitudes and clichés like “free market,” “freedom,” “personal choice,” and “individual responsibility,” and then (4) Vote right along with the GOP leadership as he had intended to all along.  (Examples?  SCHIP votes.  Financial Reform.)  There’s no particular reason to believe his performance on this matter will be any different.

Representative Amodei emerged from hiding to explain his chances for a statewide office are slim to none.   There is no indication yet in these parts that the tag team of Heller and Amodei will conduct town hall meetings with constituents in any populated area of the Silver State with lights, cameras, and real questions.

 

Comments Off on Disinformation Dismay

Filed under Amodei, ecology, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Politics

All Quiet on the Humboldt

When last we heard from Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2) it was in early May at which time he smoothly flipped his vote on the disastrous ACA replacement bill, with a convoluted explanation that “it” wouldn’t hurt Nevada…and then came the CBO scoring.  The District 2 Congressional representative has kept his head down like a ground squirrel in his burrow by the side of the highway.  This prevents him from dashing into the roadway, or as constituents might call it — holding an in person town hall meeting.

Tossing statistics about like so much confetti doesn’t remove the cold fact that the bill for which Amodei voted cuts $839 Billion with a B from the Medicaid expansion.  Cue the GOP lament that there are “able bodied” people who benefit from the Medicaid program, a program initially meant to serve the desperately poor.  The expansion aided people who may not be homeless without a tent but who were certainly desperate in terms of their ability to afford health insurance for themselves and their families.  These are the people who waited until the medical situation was so dire expensive emergency room treatment was required; who used the emergency rooms as a form of walk in clinic for the lack of any more available alternative; who went without any medical attention whatsoever — 48,000 who died according to the Harvard study because health insurance was unaffordable.

Representative Amodei may not have believed the ACA replacement bill would have profound impacts on Rural health services, but other politicians from other states have pointed this out with remarkable clarity.

Missouri, for example, refused the Medicaid expansion, and the results aren’t positive, as described by Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill:

“Well, we have, first, more than 2 million Missourians live in rural areas of our state. And 41 percent of our state’s hospitals are in rural areas. We know that they are under particular stress right now, particularly in states like Missouri that have refused the money that has been offered them for their Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act. We know that there’ve been 78 rural hospitals closed, including three in Missouri. We know that 74 percent of those hospitals were actually in states that refused to accept the Medicaid money that was offered by the federal government back to the federal taxpayers in those states.”

Arkansas which accepted the Medicaid expansion also has some issues related to its rural hospitals:

“The ACA’s crafters essentially made a deal with hospitals: The ACA cut Medicare reimbursements, but the reduction in uncompensated care through the Medicaid expansion helped offset some of those cuts. Without that offsetting boost, some of the state’s smaller rural hospitals might not be able to survive. A hospital like Baxter — the fifth most Medicare-reliant hospital in the nation, according to Moody’s, thanks to the community’s significant proportion of retirees — would be forced to make dramatic cuts in services without the Medicaid offset. “The expansion of Medicaid through Arkansas Works is one of the key components that’s been able to help us through the change in the ACA,” Peterson said. “Not just Baxter, but it helps all of rural Arkansas.”

What is true of Missouri and Arkansas is true for rural health care in general:

Of the more than 11 million people who have gained Medicaid coverage through the ACA expansion, nearly 1.7 million live in rural America, according to new CBPP estimates (see Appendix Table 1).  The expansion population is more rural than the population as a whole: rural residents make up 12.1 percent of the population of expansion states but 14.1 percent of expansion enrollees in these states.  In at least eight expansion states, more than one-third of expansion enrollees live in rural areas: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and West Virginia.

The Medicaid expansion has been a lifeline for rural areas in other ways.  The ACA coverage expansions, especially the Medicaid expansion, have substantially reduced hospital uncompensated care costs: uncompensated care costs as a share of hospital operating budgets fell by about half between 2013 and 2015 in expansion states.[8] Reductions in uncompensated care and increases in the share of patients covered by Medicaid have been especially important for rural hospitals.

Nevada hasn’t been immune from the problems associated with a lack of access to affordable health insurance and uncompensated care:

“Rural residents are themselves a public health challenge, as they are generally older, more isolated and less likely to be covered by insurance than their urban counterparts. They’re also more likely to smoke, suffer from obesity and hypertension and die from complications of diabetes.

But preventive care that could head off medical emergencies is hard to come by in many areas. Nevada’s rural and “frontier” counties – a term used for the state’s most-remote and sparsely populated regions – and reservations face severe shortages not just of doctors and primary care services, but also nurses, EMTs, dentists and substance abuse and mental health professionals. And in some areas, the numbers are dwindling, despite efforts to reverse the trend.”

 

And so, there are rural hospitals in Representative Amodei’s district — Elko, Lovelock, Battle Mountain, Yerington, Winnemucca, Ely, Fallon and others — wondering what effects will be felt if the GOP adopts the framework in the House bill for which Amodei voted.   Residents in Tonopah watched as their hospital closed in August 2015, an unfortunate testament to the perils of privatization.  The question which might, and should be raised, to Representative Amodei in some town hall (should he ever emerge) is how does the Republican version of health care insurance “reform” protect rural hospitals from financial pressures endangering rural hospital administration.

Ah, but all this is “old news” now that the Representatives voted on an unscored bill in their haste to get something, anything, done and have tossed the blazing ball into the lap of the Senate — in which we might expect Senator Dean Heller to lament the inadequacies of the measure to the Heavens, and then vote along with Senate leadership for the final (probably dismal) result.

Let’s guess that Senator Heller will announce his ‘profound misgivings and questions’ and then after consultations with some officials, reverse his position and do what he has always done — vote against any augmentation of health insurance affordability for his constituents (see his votes on SCHIP on multiple occasions.)

And so it remains — all quiet on the Humboldt — as Representative Amodei and Senator remain quiet (unless we count Heller’s scripted telephone town hall) on an issue of profound significance to District 2’s health care service providers.

Comments Off on All Quiet on the Humboldt

Filed under Amodei, health insurance, Heller, Medicaid, Medicare, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics, public health, Rural Nevada