SIUSLAW NEWS ❚ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2017
5 A
Opinion
Is it time for a ‘New Deal’ in America?
HOLIDAY CRAFTERS
MARKET
At
Greentrees Village
on
Friday, October 20th, 11-4
Saturday, October 21, 9-3
Unique Gift s and Decor items
for everyone on your list!
Located in the
Greentrees Recreation Hall
1600 Rhododendron, Florence
VOICE YOUR OPINION!
Write a Letter to the Editor:
E DITOR @T HE S IUSLAW N EWS . COM
Back in the 1930s and into
the 1940s, this country was
plagued by The Great
Depression which impacted
nearly every man, woman and
child in our country — even
those and beyond.
One quarter of Americans
were unemployed and hungry.
Eventually, through the
efforts of President Roosevelt,
and his cabinet, a change
known as The New Deal helped
put America back on the road to
recovery.
This change focused on put-
ting people to work building an
infrastructure in this country
unlike any other. Highways,
bridges, parks and more were
built, some of which remain in
use today. This change in atti-
GUEST VIEWPOINT
B Y J AY C ABLE
R ETIRED MUNICIPAL JUDGE
tude and action transformed the
country and brought it out of
its desperate condition and
eventually into one of prosperi-
ty.
Granted, we are not now suf-
fering from a depression, but
we are just beginning to pull
ourselves out of one.
Nonetheless, a New Deal is
needed here in America.
While we send millions of
dollars to foreign countries,
here in the United States mass
killings are on the rise — yet
we cut funding for mental
health support and treatment —
seemingly because we believe
incarceration is better than
treatment.
I see everyday people who
drive better cars than I do,
using food stamps to buy candy
and energy drinks and figuring
out new ways to turn food EBT
cards into cash to buy ciga-
rettes, beer and drugs.
I certainly have no problem
helping those in need get back
on their feet and become con-
tributing members of society
— but with real food and shel-
ter.
I look at the many issues our
country faces — Disrespect for
our flag and what it stands for,
the need for better care for our
veterans, pharmaceutical injus-
tices, to name a few — and I
wonder:
Do we need a New Deal here
in America?
I believe we do.
A new spirit, a new dedica-
tion, a new attitude, a new
vision — and a New Deal.
(Jay Cable is a retired munici-
ple judge and owner of Bridgeport
Market in Florence. He will also
be portraying Franklin D.
Roosevelt in the upcoming Last
Resort Players production of the
musical “Annie” in November.)
Healthcare — One tweet, one thousand cuts
Last week, President Trump
tweeted notice of his “execu-
tive order” stopping all
Affordable Care Act “cost
sharing reduction” subsidies,
known as CSRs.
“Massive subsidy payments
to their pet insurance compa-
nies has (sic) stopped...!” were
his exact, if grammatically
disappointing, words.
Before speculating on the
impact across U.S. exchanges,
including 50,000 Oregonians
having CSR subsidies through
“silver plans,” let’s revisit the
state of U.S. health insurance
before the Affordable Care
Act (ACA) became opera-
tional in 2014.
GUEST VIEWPOINT
B Y R AND D AWSON
R ETIRED CONSUMER AND INSURANCE LAWYER
In November 2011, the
respected “Commonwealth
Fund,” a nonpartisan health
policy organization docu-
mented a crushing premium
cost trend. According to the
report:
• By 2010, there were no
states where average premi-
ums were less than 14 percent
of median incomes in 2010,
compared with 13 states in
2003
• 62 percent of the popula-
tion lived in states where total
premiums amounted to 20
percent or more of middle
incomes.
• There were 23 states in
which the average annual pre-
mium equalled 20 percent or
more of median household
income for the under-65 popu-
lation, compared with just one
state in 2003.
“If premium trends contin-
ue ... the average premium for
family coverage will rise 72
percent by 2020, to nearly
$24,000.
This pre-ACA cost reality
encompassed both front-end
“premium” prices and grow-
ing back-end “cost-sharing” in
the form of deductibles, co-
pays and co-insurance.
In response, the ACA pro-
vided subsidy support for both
premiums and, for certain
income levels, “cost-sharing
reduction subsidies” (CSRs)
accessible through “silver
plan” policies.
Now the irony: President
Trump’s CSR cuts leave the
silver plan policies intact and
insurance carriers obligated to
issue and support policies
with full CSR benefits — if
carriers remain in the market.
Oregon regulatory offices
just declared “those enrolled
in cost-sharing reduction
plans can continue to access
this important type of assis-
tance.”
In short, only reimburse-
ment payments to carriers for
CSR benefits are stopped.
But — if money is fungible
— are they?
All front-end premium sup-
ports remain. By raising pre-
miums, carriers easily replace
lost revenue from the cut CSR
payments.
Many of those policy hold-
ers can now apply for
increased premium reimburse-
ment support. Their “net pre-
mium” costs may be less or
slightly higher than before the
CSR cuts.
So what about all that
“wonderful” savings that
come as a result of these cuts?
August estimates by the
Congressional Budget Office
and Joint Committee on
Taxation (CBO) said CSR cuts
would actually enlarge federal
deficits by $194 billion dollars
by 2026.
Estimated
premium
changes vary for the 38 states
that used healthcare.gov, rang-
ing from 9 percent in North
Dakota to 27 percent in
Mississippi.
Oregon “silver plan” costs
were estimated to change by
about 10 percent. It’s reported
that Pennsylvania increases
could be near 30 percent,
while Florida increases could
range between 26 and as high
as 72 percent.
In sum, new premium sup-
port payments to carriers far
exceed eliminated CSR pay-
ments. One might suspect this
was known, but creates won-
derfully optimistic — though
innacurate
—
political
“optics” about rising premi-
ums
and
collapsing
Obamacare.
It begs the following ques-
tions:
Do the fake results of the
President’s tweet match the
surreal “repeal and replace”
window dressing of the last
Congressional session?
Is there a need for some-
thing different to be fairly and
intelligently examined?
Some claim the U.S. health-
delivery system has been co-
opted by investor interests,
such as insurance, pharmaceu-
ticals and bio-device manu-
facturers.
Perhaps we should consider
at least some version of a
“Medicare for All” system,
similar to what all other devel-
oped countries have adopted.
Back in 2009, Congress and
the media rejected out-of-
hand any such broader discus-
sion. A “public option” red
herring was floated briefly —
but no actual hearings
approached the improved
equities, cost-savings or
administrative benefits of a
single unified risk pool.
So the recent remarks of
former Sen. Max Baucus
merit examination. Baucus
chaired the Senate Finance
Committee in its two-year
lead efforts, through scores of
hearings, to assemble the
ACA from all current market-
driven, private insurance-
industry options.
This September, on NBC,
he said, “Back in 2009, we
were not ready to address it. It
would never have passed.
Here we are nine years later,
and I think it’s time to hope-
fully have a very serious
good-faith look at it."
Baucus was speaking about
a “single risk pool,” all-for-
one-type of health coverage
system — with a risk pool
concept based on math, not
optics.
(Rand Dawson is a Siltcoos
Lake-area resident and retired
Alaska trial attorney who repre-
sented consumers and various
insurance companies.)
theshedd.org/JazzKings
Keep Your
Sunny Side Up!
The music of De Sylva, Brown & Henderson
Sunday, October 29, 2 pm matinee
Florence Events Center 541.997.1994
Free Jazz
Tickets for
Students
program