Category Archives: Heller

Hellerisms on Parade: Health Care Edition

And then there was this:

“The individual mandate I thought was atrocious, was wrong and shouldn’t have been in Obamacare at all,” he said. “I don’t think your government should tell you to buy something that you can’t afford. And if you can’t afford it you pay a fine. Yet 90,000 Nevadans pay the fine.” — Senator Dean Heller

Let’s start with the assumption that Senator Dean Heller is a capitalist, a firm believer in the free market system.  He’s certainly reinforced this impression given any occasion to do so.  So, why was there an “individual mandate” in the Affordable Care Act?  — The answer is capitalism.

The more precise answer is the “adverse selection” problem in free markets.  The most concise explication I’ve found for this comes from the Economist’s View:

“To explain how the adverse selection problem arises in these markets, note that people purchasing health insurance generally have better information about their health status than the people selling the insurance. If insurance is offered in this market at somewhere near the average cost of care for the group, people will use the superior information they have about their own health status to determine if this is a good deal for them. All of the people expecting to pay less for health care than the price the companies are asking for the insurance will drop out of the market (the young and healthy for the most part; all that is actually needed is that some people are willing to take a chance and go without insurance). With the relatively healthy people dropping out of the insurance pool, the price of insurance must go up, and when it does, more people drop out, the price goes up again, and the result is just like in the used car example above: The market breaks down and nobody (or hardly anybody) can purchase insurance.”

Now, if a person is reasonably conversant with capitalism and the patterns intrinsic to the operation of free markets, then the problem of  ‘adverse selection’ should be part of that person’s lexicon.  Granted it’s not an easy thing to explain, but the Economist’s View post quoted above offers the “used car” analogical example which makes the concept more accessible.   Therefore, if Senator Heller is indeed a capitalist, and if he has better that average economic knowledge base, then his explanation of his opposition to the individual mandate makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

There’s also the political side of the issue, recall that Obama’s original plan didn’t contain an individual mandate while Secretary Clinton’s proposal did, and the result:

“Once elected, Obama quickly recognized the inescapable truth: An individual mandate was essential to make the plan work. Without that larger pool of premium-payers, there is no feasible way to require insurance companies to cover all applicants and charge the same amount, regardless of their heath status.” [WaPo]

There’s just no way to get around the problem of Adverse Selection, and still have an insurance system based on free market capitalism. 

Those still unsure about their understanding of Adverse Selection and how it operates in a free market system may want to consult some of the following sources:  Investopedia is a good source for short, concise, definitions of economic terms such as Adverse Selection. The Economic Times also has a dictionary style definition.  Risk Management specialists have a more technical definition.  Those wishing to dive a bit deeper into the weeds might want to see the World Bank’s explication.   There’s also an explanation from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners which goes into greater depth. (pdf)

Granted the individual mandate isn’t popular — that part is easy — but anyone who professes to be a free market capitalist (as does Senator Heller) can’t ignore the principle of Adverse Selection and how that concept impacts the insurance markets.

The alternatives to a purely market based insurance system in which the most people possible can obtain health insurance at relatively affordable rates are problematic for the free-marketeers.  A public option (federally sponsored insurance program operating in the general market) is one possibility.  Another alternative simply removes the free from free market — the single payer, or Medicare for All proposal, in which public insurance pays for medical services delivered in the private market.  At the furthest end of the spectrum would be nationalized medical health services such as the British or French systems. The arguments for and against each of these are ideological and political, and not necessarily relevant to the discussion of free market based health care delivery.  However, they do mitigate, from divergent directions, the issue of Adverse Selection.

The problem for Senator Heller is that he can maintain his free market positions OR he can oppose the individual mandate, but in light of the persistent and perpetual issue of Adverse Selection he can’t do both.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Hellerisms on Parade: Health Care Edition

Filed under Economy, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Deflection, Distraction, and Destruction: Trump & the GOP

“…this is exactly what Trump does when he’s in trouble. He finds an enemy and punches as hard as he can.”  [WaPo]

Now, why is he in trouble? And,  what will happen today in Reno at the American Legion convention?  Additionally, who will be standing with the President at the closed to the public event?  The Nevada Independent, which if you’ve not already bookmarked you should, reports: (1) Adam Laxalt, Tea Party Darling will gleefully meet the President and has wrangled radical right wing VP Pence to his Basque food-fest; (2) Dean Heller, maybe not so much but then he won’t say — so what is new about the Heller rope-a-dope strategy? (3) Mark Amodei (R-NV2) showed up Tuesday and may have skedaddled? “A spokeswoman for Amodei did not respond to a follow up question as to whether or not the congressman would meet with Trump while the president is in Reno.” (4) Governor Sandoval appears to be adopting the Republican Gubernatorial Avoidance Strategy — meet him at the airport and then scamper off out of sight thereafter.  If the crowd is thinning, then why the Great Counter Punch?

What makes the President go into full attack mode?  What sends him off on tangents about white supremacy, statues of CSA ‘heroes,’ and “the Media?”  There’s a pattern, the deflection and distraction flare as the investigation of his connections to the Russians progress.

Why did he fire former FBI Director James Comey? Why was he upset with A.G. Jeff Sessions?  Why did he hammer Sen. Mitch McConnell? — Why the “profane shouting match?

“During the call, which Mr. Trump initiated on Aug. 9 from his New Jersey golf club, the president accused Mr. McConnell of bungling the health care issue. He was even more animated about what he intimated was the Senate leader’s refusal to protect him from investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to Republicans briefed on the conversation.”

What happened prior to August 9, 2017 that’s increased the need for deflection and distraction?

On August 1, 2017 PBS reported that the President dictated the message delivered by his son concerning the meeting at Trump Tower during the campaign with a small host of Russians who were very interested in “adoptions” (read: getting rid of the Magnitsky Act sanctions.)  The President’s assertions that the investigation is fake news and a witch hunt cracks a bit when it’s known that HE was aware of the trouble his son was in for taking and arranging that meeting.  On August 3, 2017 the President grudgingly signed the new Russian sanctions bill dictated by Congress. No fanfare, no ceremony, and two explanations or signing statements.  That was the same day the Wall Street Journal reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had impaneled a grand jury in the District of Columbia.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) spoke out in support of the Grand Jury, and Mr. Mueller’s continuing investigation of all matters related to Russian interference, and thereafter was rewarded by a “tweet storm” of abuse from the President, reported on August 7th.  The Special Counsel investigators raided the home of former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort on August 9.  They were looking for tax documents and foreign banking records, and since they didn’t merely ask Manafort’s legal team for them we can safely assume Mr. Manafort was (a) not as cooperative as his press comments made him out to be, and (b) in possession of things he might very well want to destroy before they landed in Mr. Mueller’s hands.

Events in Charlottesville, VA on August 12 and 13, 2017 intervened to capture public attention as Neo-Nazis and white supremacists took center stage, and as the President waffled about who might have been “responsible.”  Presidential commentary about “history” and “heritage” as if they are synonymous deflected and distracted from the continuing Russia probe.

Fast forward to August 22, 2017 on which it is revealed that the “Trump Dossier” re-emerges into the public consciousness.  Spokespersons for the President have tagged the dossier as “unsubstantiated,” “debunked,” or “unproven” as a general matter, without noting that individual contentions within the document are still under investigation.  The president of the company underwriting the dossier has now spent an entire working day with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee.    Interestingly enough, the President chose to spend a significant amount of his time during a campaign rally in Phoenix on August 22nd railing about “fake news” and the “unfair media.”

Those dismissing the dossier as “debunked” may be a bit premature.  The origin of the dossier investigation lies within the “never Trump” wing of the GOP, and after Trump secured the GOP nomination the Clinton Campaign was interested in the contents.  For a “debunked” piece of investigation it’s certainly had an impact, and the FBI now has information from the author about his sources, again as of August 22nd.  If some of the allegations in the Steele Dossier can be sourced, investigated, and substantiated, then the generalized “debunking” portion of the President’s defense can start to crack.  And, we wonder why he spent an inordinate amount of time denouncing the media on the evening of August 22, 2017?  Deflection and Distraction?

Perhaps now this paragraph concerning the cracks reported by the New York Times in the McConnell/Trump relationship makes more sense:

“During the call, which Mr. Trump initiated on Aug. 9 from his New Jersey golf club, the president accused Mr. McConnell of bungling the health care issue. He was even more animated about what he intimated was the Senate leader’s refusal to protect him from investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to Republicans briefed on the conversation.”

Why would the President become “more animated” about Senator McConnell’s purported failure to “protect” him?  Does the President demand Senator McConnell “protect” the President from the Senate Judiciary and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

Protect him from What?  Destruction?  The gamble for Republicans — from reluctant Senator Heller to enthusiastic Adam Laxalt — is whether to hitch their political futures to the distraction/deflection tactics of the current administration or cut loose and hope he doesn’t lead them to destruction.

Comments Off on Deflection, Distraction, and Destruction: Trump & the GOP

Filed under Amodei, Heller, nevada taxation, Politics, Republicans

Heller’s Dipsy Doodle on Health Care: Centene Edition

Here we have Senator Dean Heller’s comments on access to health care insurance in Nevada — and some translation.

“I welcome Centene’s announcement that it will offer plans on the Nevada exchange, providing Nevadans with additional health care options so that no county in our state is bare. I was proud to work with Governor Sandoval to make sure that people living in all of Nevada’s 17 counties have the option to purchase coverage on the exchange next year,” said Senator Dean Heller. “Nevadans have been left with dwindling choices when it comes to their health care coverage, and it’s more evidence that Obamacare is failing. That’s why I continue to work for health care solutions – like the Graham-Cassidy-Heller plan – that return power to the states, protect Nevada’s most vulnerable, and repeal Obamacare’s onerous mandates that continue to squeeze hardworking Nevadans who can least afford it.”

Huh?  Working with Governor Sandoval to make sure people can purchase health insurance plans in the individual market certainly wasn’t in evidence when Senator Heller voted in favor of the last Senate version of the risible ‘repeal and replace with nothing’ bill.

And, no, the ‘dwindling choices” aren’t the product of failing ACA provisions — the choices are dwindling because insurance corporations are facing unpredictable (anathema to insurance) situations created by the President’s threat to cut the cost sharing provisions, which Senator Heller persists in inferring are “insurance company bailouts.”

And, there’s that Graham-Cassidy amendment to which Senator Heller amended himself, which turns Medicaid into a block grant program with an altered formula and which cuts lower income family’s access to affordable insurance plans in the individual market.  That, to put it mildly, isn’t a solution.

And so it goes…into the 2018 election.

Comments Off on Heller’s Dipsy Doodle on Health Care: Centene Edition

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada news, Nevada politics, Politics

The Eternal Sunshine of a Perpetual Gadfly Candidate’s Mind: Tarkanian takes on Heller

The son of a former UNLV basketball coach, and leading candidate for the Sharron Angle Perpetual Campaigner award, Danny Tarkanian — Trump supporter and right winger has decided to give Senator Dean Heller a primary.  This may allow Senator Heller room to reprise his “I’m a moderate” role — well, yes, if one is compared to the Perpetual Candidate who says on his Facebook Page: (Let’s add some commentary– in red)

“Over the past several weeks, I have been inundated with text, emails, and phone calls from people of all walks of life across the state of Nevada who are upset with Dean Heller for campaigning one way in Nevada and voting the exact opposite in Washington DC. [This is interesting since Senator Heller has voted with Trump 89.6% of the time.]The refrain is the same: he turned his back on us.
Today, after much thought and discussion with my family and friends, I have decided to run for the United States Senate. [Here’s guessing he was waiting by the phone for the first call?] I am running for United States Senate because Nevada deserves a Senator who will keep his word and vote in Washington DC the same way he campaigns here in Nevada.  [Interesting since Heller tends to campaign as a moderate and vote as a conservative.]
I am a conservative Republican who supports the policies of President Trump to repeal Obamacare [And can we trust you have a PLAN to replace the ACA?] and end illegal immigration.  [Nothing like a flippant tip of the hat to gratuitous racism.] I will continue to support President Trump’s policies that have led to a 20% increase in the stock market in just six months. [continuing a market trend for the last umpteen quarters] I will join Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and Senator Paul fighting for real reforms against the liberals in our party. [or, I intend to join the diehard purists in Congress who have contributed to gridlock; defining ‘liberal’ as anyone who isn’t carefully tucked into some corporate pocket…]
I look forward to campaigning across the state of Nevada [in perpetuity] and earning your support. It is time to take a stand. Together, we will make our state, and our country, proud.”

There’s more in the Nevada Independent.  <— well worth a click and read.

Comments Off on The Eternal Sunshine of a Perpetual Gadfly Candidate’s Mind: Tarkanian takes on Heller

Filed under Heller, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Rest and Repair: ACA and market stabilization

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) might have wished for a kinder, gentler, headline from the Reno Gazette Journal, but he got this one: “After weeks of waffling, Heller votes ‘yes’ on failed ‘skinny repeal’ of Obamacare.”  Rest assured, he’s promised to work on health insurance reform as part of his duties on the Senate Finance Committee.   This would be as good a time as any for him to demonstrate his knowledge of the insurance sector.

Heller Plays the Bail Out Card: Game One 

Let’s track back a couple of paces in time to review how Senator Heller presented his ‘moderate’ credentials on economic concerns.  While Nevada was in the throes of the Great Recession brought on by the Wall Street Casino machinations, Senator Heller was touting his opposition to the Dodd-Frank Act to insert some common sense regulation of the banking industy, casting it as follows: “Heller mentioned he was the only member of the Nevada delegation to vote against the bank bailout. He called the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill “cover for those who voted for the bank bailout.”  In short,  that “cover” was the regulation of some of the practices that caused the collapse of the investment banks in the United States.  Senator Heller calculated that the use of the phrase “bailout” would be sufficiently negative to thoroughly obscure his support for the deregulation of the banking sector and the Wall Street Casino players therein.  There’s little reason to doubt he’ll try this play again in 2018.

McConnell Tees Up the Bail Out Card: Game Two

After the “skinny bill” failed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell provided the framework for the next time Senator Heller might want to play the Bail Out card:

“Now, I think it’s appropriate to ask, what are their ideas? It’ll be interesting to see what they suggest as the way forward. For myself I can say — and I bet I’m pretty safe in saying for most on this side of the aisle — that bailing out insurance companies with no thought of any kind of reform is not something I want to be part of. And I suspect there are not many folks over here that are interested in that. But it’ll be interesting to see what they have in mind.”  (emphasis added)

If Senator Heller didn’t mind obfuscating the purpose of the Dodd Frank Act (by calling it a bail out), he’ll certainly not mind playing the same game with the attempts to improve our health insurance system.  It would be very tempting for him to try this play one more time to cover his opposition to the very proposals that would stabilize the individual health care insurance markets in this country.  For the record, I’m assuming that if a proposal helps an insurance corporation, then Senator Heller will be sure to call it a “bail out.”   Or, in the immortal words of President George W. Bush, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.’

Making Mountains from Mole Hills

There are justifiable questions about the stability of the individual health insurance market, but before we launch major proposals in this direction it’s important to note that for all the palaver about the collapse, demise, descent or whatever of the Affordable Care Act, that individual market has been stabilizing on its own.  The Kaiser Family Foundation released its report on this market:

“Large premium increases, typically granted by state regulators, in 2017 contributed to the improved financial performance, as insurers adjusted for a sicker-than-expected risk pool, the analysis finds. However, data on hospitalizations suggest that the risk pool was not getting progressively sicker as of 2017, supporting the notion that the large increases were necessary as a one-time market correction.

Slow growth in claims for medical expenses also played a role in insurers’ financial improvements, according to the analysis.”

So far so good, but there are issues to be faced.

“Although the analysis finds the market is stabilizing, it notes that ongoing uncertainty over payment of cost-sharing subsidies to insurers and enforcement of the individual mandate could lead insurers to leave the market or charge higher premiums in 2018.”

We can now safely assert that when Senator McConnell (and perhaps Senator Heller) speak of “bailing out” insurance companies they may be referring to proposals to provide more certainty to the insurance corporations that the administration will, in fact, make good on those promises to come through with cost-sharing subsidies.  That’s truly stretching the definition of a bail out, but it may prove a highly convenient hook on which to hang Republican rhetoric.

The previous post mentioned the Three R’s — risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance.  Here’s one proposal for the last on the list:

“Senator Kaine and Senator Tom Carper of Delaware on Wednesday introduced legislation to create a reinsurance program to help insurers offset the cost of covering older, less healthy customers. That type of program—which provides payments to insurers that enroll high-cost individuals—was originally part of Obamacare until it expired last year, and Republican legislators in Minnesota and Alaska have embraced the idea as a way to stabilize insurance markets in those states. “That’s something that should have some bipartisan appeal,” Kaine said. [Atlantic]

Reinsurance was in place until 2016 in order to ease any problems with corporations insuring a high number of risky policy holders, such as those with pre-existing medical conditions.  Re-establishing it would serve the same stabilization purposes today.   The Kaiser Family Foundation provides an explanation of risk adjustment and risk corridors which don’t require an MBA to understand. Neither of these constitute any form of “bail out.”

Conflation Projection 

Conflation is too often a vehicle for obfuscation.  For example, one of the Republican objections to the ACA continues to be the incantation: Socialized Medicine!  There’s no hint of socialized medicine in the ACA, it’s a full bore market based system of encouraging  affordable health insurance policies sold by PRIVATE companies to PRIVATE CONSUMERS for use to pay PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.  However, this doesn’t prevent Republicans from speculating on the ulterior motives of Democratic advocates of expanding access to affordable health insurance policies.

“Soon, they’ll want a public option!” And, then they’ll want Single Payer…and there you have it Socialized Medicine.

Let’s stop here before the fog gets too thick, and explore other options for improving health care access in another post.

*Thanks to @Karoli and Mark Stufflebeam for suggestions and references. 

Comments Off on Rest and Repair: ACA and market stabilization

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, McConnell, Medicare, nevada health, Politics

The Moderate Heller Myth: Health Insurance Edition

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) has cultivated his “moderate” image to the point that this adjective is attached to him with remarkable consistency — when if a person does even a perfunctory piece of research on his actual voting record what emerges is the model of a hard line conservative.  There is a pattern.  The Senator expresses “concerns” with a bill; then announces with ranging degrees of fanfare his opposition to a bill “in its current form,” then when the rubber grinds on the road surface the Senator votes along with the Republican leadership.

Why would anyone seriously believe he would support fixing the Affordable Care Act’s problems and not ultimately support what is now being called the “skinny repeal” version in the Senate based on the following voting record:

In 2007 then Representative Heller voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act (HR 4).  Then on August 1, 2007 he voted against HR 3162, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization.  The next day he voted against HR 734, the Prescription Drug Imports bill.  On March 5, 2008 he voted against HR 1424, the Mental Health Coverage bill.  Further into 2008 he voted “no” on HR 5501, the bill to fund programs fighting AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, and “no” again on the concurrence version of the bill in July.   If he had a ‘flash’ of moderation during this period it happened in the summer of 2008 when he voted in favor of HR 5613 (Medicaid extensions and changes), HR 6631 (Medicare), the latter including a vote to override the President’s veto.  By November 2009 he was back in full Conservative mode.

He voted against HR 3962 (Health Care and Insurance Law amendments) on November 8, 2009, and HR 3961 (Revising Medicare Physician Fee Schedules and re-establishing PAYGO) on November 19, 2009.

In March 2010 Heller voted against HR 4872 (Health Care Reconciliation Act), and HR 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).  He also voted against the concurrence bills.

January 19, 2011 he voted in favor of the Repealing the Health Care bill (HR 2).  He also signaled his stance on Planned Parenthood when he voted in favor of H.Amdt. 95 (Prohibiting the use of Federal funds for Planned Parenthood) on February 18, 2011.    He was in favor of repealing the individual mandate (HR 4), of repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund (HR 1217).  May 4, 2011 he voted to repeal funding of the construction of school based health centers (HR 1214).

There was another “soft” period in some of his initial Senate votes in 2011, especially concerning the importation of medication from Canada (interesting since many prescription drugs are manufactured in other overseas sites).  See S. Amdt 769, S. Amdt 2111, and S. Amdt 2107 in May 2012.  On March 31, 2014 he voted in favor of HR 4302 (Protecting Access to Medicare).

He was back riding the Republican rails in September 2015, supporting an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood, (S. Amdt 2669) which failed a cloture vote.   Then on December 3, 2015 he voted in favor of another ACA repeal bill (HR 3762).    If we’re looking for patterns in this record they aren’t too difficult to discern. (1) Senator Heller can be relied upon to vote in favor of any legislation which deprives Planned Parenthood of funding for health care services, (2) Senator Heller can be relied upon to vote in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and (3) Senator Heller’s voting record, if it illustrates any ‘moderation’ at all, comes in the form of dealing with prescription drug prices, but even that is a mixed bag of votes.

Thus, when he makes comments like the following:

“Obamacare isn’t the answer, but doing nothing to try to solve the problems it has created isn’t the answer either,” the statement read. “That is why I will vote to move forward and give us a chance to address the unworkable aspects of the law that have left many Nevadans — particularly those living in rural areas — with dwindling or no choices.

“Whether it’s my ideas to protect Nevadans who depend on Medicaid or the Graham-Cassidy proposal that empowers states and repeals the individual and employer mandates, there are commonsense solutions that could improve our health care system and today’s vote gives us the opportunity to fight for them. If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.”

We should examine them with some caution.   If he is referring to rural Nevada voters as ‘victims’ of the Affordable Care Act he might want to note that before the ACA there was one insurer in the northern Nevada rural market and if there is only one now that’s really not much of a change, much less a “nightmare.”  Nor is he mentioning that the proposed cuts to Medicaid will have a profoundly negative effect on rural Nevada hospitals. [DB previous]

That Graham-Cassidy proposal isn’t exactly a winner either:

“The new plan released Thursday morning and written by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) would block grant about $500 billion of federal spending to the states over 10 years to either repeal, repair or keep their ObamaCare programs.”

We have no idea if the number is an accurate estimate of what would keep the health care systems of all 50 states afloat — no one seems to want to ‘score’ anything these days.  Additionally, Americans should be aware by now that when Republicans chant “Block Grant” they mean “dump it on the states, wash our hands, and walk away” while the states struggle to keep up with demands to meet needs and provide services, operating on budgets which cannot function on deficits.

Then, there’s that perfectly typical Hellerian comment: “If it is improved, I will support it,” leaving the issue entirely up to Senator Heller’s subjective assessment if “it” has improved his re-election chances enough to go along with it while not upsetting his very conservative base.  Meanwhile, the media persists in repeating the “Moderate Heller” mythology, and we haven’t even begun to speak of his actions to thwart and later repeal any common sense regulations on the financial sector.

 

Comments Off on The Moderate Heller Myth: Health Insurance Edition

Filed under conservatism, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Medicaid, Medicare, Nevada Test Site, Politics, public health, Republicans, Rural Nevada, SCHIP

Heller at the President’s Right: Lunch Time At The White House

Nothing like watching Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) sitting next to POTUS, smiling and applauding as the remarks from the President replicate every standard talking point made by every Republican since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.  Including such wonderful clichés as:

You’ll pay lower premiums (Oh, such lower premiums you won’t believe) — Any fool can sell low premium policies, the ones with high deductibles and co-pays, limited benefits, and caps.  Worse still, these junk policies will be sold across state lines so that consumer standards and protections of the worst level of protection will be the standard.

The states will have control over Medicaid (smaller units will be better for individual needs)  Nothing like blowing a big wide ‘beautiful’ hole in the Nevada budget!  Cutting $770B from Medicaid will have effects far beyond Nevada’s capacity to support its elderly, its children, its rural health care facilities, its support for low income working families.  That was the point of Medicaid — expenses far beyond the capacity of individual states could be shared nationwide, allowing medical care and services for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Some counties only have one insurance corporation offering policies in the individual market.  Did the president recall that before the ACA there were some counties that had no insurance corporations offering policies in the individual market.  There’s a solution to this problem — one the president didn’t mention — establish a public option.

Then there flowed the usual barrel of platitudes and campaign rhetoric, freedom and flexibility, low cost with high coverage,  everyone can get better insurance, reduce burdensome taxation, burdensome regulation….

And there was Senator Dean Heller, smiling as though siding with the president isn’t going to be a major political problem for him in the 2018 campaign season.  It makes a person wonder.

Senator Heller can be reached at 202-224-6244, 775-686-5770; 702-388-6605

Comments Off on Heller at the President’s Right: Lunch Time At The White House

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Politics