Yes. It would take a Dem House and Senate as well I would imagine.
Medicare/Private Insurance Done if Kamala wins….
- Thread starter Robduq23
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
As long as republicans hold majority one or the other we are safe I would say. Did you see today 6 democrats agreed with the republicans to condemn her for handling of the border? I don't think she's going to get much accomplished if she does win.
Medicare bro
Super Genius
- 249
Even then I don't think enough democrats would vote for it.
dems had control of the Congress and Executive branch in 2009-2010 and again in 2021-2022, and it didn't happen.
If it were going to happen, it would have.
Furthermore, the exchange already exists via medicare.gov
What is stop stop CMS from zero-ing out the commissions right now? They already regulate the pay. They could have done that at any point during the Obama years or Biden years, without Congress.
However Medicare for All would wipe us out, but the dems would need a large majority of Congress to pass it, and the willingness to lose control for a decade like in 2010 in order to pass it.
No need to worry.
But they didn't lose control...Obama was re elected remember. And the country is much further left than it was in 2010. It will happen...it's just a matter of when. it might be 5 years down the road...or 20. no sense in worrying about.Hopefully we are all retired by then.
just-a-client
Expert
- 45
It takes 51 votes in the Senate (or 50 + VP) to pass some kinds of bills. They have to be primarily related to revenue. Called reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian makes the determination of what can and what can't be included in these bills.
So, the Inflation Reduction Act was passed with 51 votes. It was supposed to be a much bigger bill, but the Democrats couldn't get Joe Manchin of W. Va, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both Democrats at the time, to vote for the larger bill. (I think they are both now Independents, but "caucus" with the Democrats. Just like Bernie Sanders and Angus King, actually. Yup, Bernie is technically not a Democrat.)
Thus: Congress could impose the $35 limit on insulin on Medicare plans, and make other changes like restructuring the Part D benefit, and establishing Medicare drug negotiation, because 75% of Medicare spending is funded by the government. But they could not impose the insulin rule on the under-65 plans - because that would not be a revenue-related bill. Laws governing just about anything can certainly be passed by Congress, but bills that are not primarily revenue-related are subject to the filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome.
Most of the ACA was passed with 60 votes. But certain narrowly defined revenue sections of the bill have been tweaked with 51 votes. Republicans were going to repeal and replace elements of the ACA with 51 votes, but that effort failed because John McCain voted no. But remember what did pass Congress - the penalty for not having insurance was set to $0. The penalty was technically not eliminated, but the amount of the penalty is now $0. It was a legislative sleight-of-hand by the Republican congress at the time. That was effectively the elimination of the individual mandate, and it turned out that did not cause a total marketplace collapse, as was feared. (The similar "mandate" in supplements is limited periods for open enrollment and guaranteed issue, and in Part D there is the late enrollment penalty. There usually has to be something in place to prevent death spirals, as you well know!)
I suspect much or all of Medicare For All, or a stripped down version for Medicare for the over-55, actually *could* be passed with 51 votes. So far, they haven't had the votes for it, and probably still won't after the next election.
So, the Inflation Reduction Act was passed with 51 votes. It was supposed to be a much bigger bill, but the Democrats couldn't get Joe Manchin of W. Va, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both Democrats at the time, to vote for the larger bill. (I think they are both now Independents, but "caucus" with the Democrats. Just like Bernie Sanders and Angus King, actually. Yup, Bernie is technically not a Democrat.)
Thus: Congress could impose the $35 limit on insulin on Medicare plans, and make other changes like restructuring the Part D benefit, and establishing Medicare drug negotiation, because 75% of Medicare spending is funded by the government. But they could not impose the insulin rule on the under-65 plans - because that would not be a revenue-related bill. Laws governing just about anything can certainly be passed by Congress, but bills that are not primarily revenue-related are subject to the filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome.
Most of the ACA was passed with 60 votes. But certain narrowly defined revenue sections of the bill have been tweaked with 51 votes. Republicans were going to repeal and replace elements of the ACA with 51 votes, but that effort failed because John McCain voted no. But remember what did pass Congress - the penalty for not having insurance was set to $0. The penalty was technically not eliminated, but the amount of the penalty is now $0. It was a legislative sleight-of-hand by the Republican congress at the time. That was effectively the elimination of the individual mandate, and it turned out that did not cause a total marketplace collapse, as was feared. (The similar "mandate" in supplements is limited periods for open enrollment and guaranteed issue, and in Part D there is the late enrollment penalty. There usually has to be something in place to prevent death spirals, as you well know!)
I suspect much or all of Medicare For All, or a stripped down version for Medicare for the over-55, actually *could* be passed with 51 votes. So far, they haven't had the votes for it, and probably still won't after the next election.
Lose control of the Congress. Which is what happened.
- Thread starter
- #28
I have so much anxiety every election year. Nothing last forever. I understand that. I'm realistic. Just hope there's something else after it to apply the skills I learned in this industry. Been doing it 15 years but only 40 years old.
- 17,063
Why would Medicare for all wipe us out? We have Medicare for 65+ right now and we all stay pretty busy with it.
If they added it for everyone wouldn't that just be more business for us?
Similar threads
