But let’s suppose she was correct and but let’s suppose she was correct, and the President really did have the power to institute M4All immediately via XO. In one fell swoop, millions of legal contracts between carriers & providers, carriers & employers become null & void.
Doctors and hospitals, many of which are already on the verge of closing, suddenly see their revenue plummet by ~40% or so. Abortion suddenly has to be paid for 100% out of pocket by every woman in America who wants one.
Suddenly the ~77 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid, which has no premiums or deductibles for most enrollees and minimal copays, find themselves having to pay all three. What, you thought the current scope of Medicare didn’t include those? It does.
A couple million jobs are permanently lost as every health insurance carrier in the country goes bankrupt overnight, assuming the XO doesn’t keep Medicare Advantage. Not just the fat cat CEOs, mind you...every low-level shlub in the billing dept, every agent & broker.
Of course there are ways of dealing with all of these issues, and the actual M4All legislation tackles them and many others, or at least attempts to do so. Which is exactly why it would have to be done via legislation if done at all, not via XO.
Of course I also have no clue whether she’s talking about CURRENT Medicare (dual-eligibles would keep MedicId as well; it would just be an OPTION and thus wouldn’t wipe out existing private coverage) or if she means BernieCare, which would also make the Hyde Amendment irrelevant.
Just how far does @JENFL23’s magical XO go, is what I’m asking? Does it give Trump the right to fund all of this as well? Does it let him expand the scope of Medicare to include every service and drug under the run? Does it let him increase reimbursement rates?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
📣 Tonight is Christmas Eve, so here's a thread about a so-called "Christian Health Sharing Ministry" which dives into Inception-level surreality. 1/
"Health Sharing Ministries" (usually offered by "Christian" organizations but occasionally via non-Christian groups) are promoted as an alternative to actual health insurance policies. They've become much more popular since the #ACA became law because they're less expensive. 2/
HOWEVER, there's some REASONS why they're less expensive than #ACA-compliant policies:
"Although HCSMs are not insurance & DO NOT GUARANTEE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, their features closely mimic traditional insurance products, possibly confusing consumers." 3/
Trump just pardoned war criminals and has offered to pay the legal fees for his supporters who beat up protesters. What’s to stop him from openly telling his domestic terrorist base to follow through with their threats, have them charged in federal court and then pardoning them?
He’s still in office for 27 more days thanks to the GOP Senate, Barr just left leaving an even BIGGER Trump sycophant in charge of the DoJ for the next 4 weeks...while the public is distracted by Christmas, New Year’s & a mountain of COVID deaths.
Several have noted that his pardon won’t help with state charges...but some of THEM won’t know that. I suspect that’s why he’s floating pardoning Rittenhouse. He’s been told he can’t—but his base may hear about it and assume he can.
I decided to check into this. I found that only 1 Senator (Tammy Baldwin of WI) and 2 House members (Katie Porter of CA-45 and Johana Hayes of CT-05) *represent a swing state/district* AND openly/loudly state their support of "pure" M4All on their campaign websites.
Update: I answered my own question. The average partisan lean of all 116 districts where the sitting House Dem is a M4All cosponsor is D+19 according to @CookPolitical.
There are only 13 districts among those which are D+5 or worse.