Legal Commentary

The Stupak Problem: Private Insurance Subsidies

By Big Tent Democrat

If I were in Congress, and the price to pay for passing the health bills was accepting the Stupak Amendment, I think I probably would swallow it. But before I did that, I would search for solutions that would obviate that need. The heart of the problem is the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance through state based exchanges. While it is true that the new bill does not change existing law (the Hyde amendments of course apply to the expansion of Medicaid), Stupak has seized on the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to argue that new restrictions must be placed on insurance policies offered in these state based exchanges. Stupak is not satisfied by the Nelson Amendment, that permits states to prohibit the sale of private insurance policies that offer abortion in their exchanges.

The obvious solution stares us all in the face - shift the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to federal subsidies for the purchase of public insurance (Medicaid, Medicare or a new public insurance option.) More . . .

Matt Yglesias writes:

The perversity of holding up a major expansion of health insurance coverage over a desire to slightly increase the severity of already-severe restrictions on abortion funding simply highlights the mistaken nature of the premises.

This is all well and good, but such critiques seem unlikely to sway anyone who holds the Stupak position. It seems past time to begin the process of finding a solution that best fits progressive values.

That solution is to shift federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to the purchase of public insurance.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 07, 2010 (boomark / email).