�鶹Ů��

For months I have worried that Capitol Hill legislative deadlines would all but guarantee more governing by crisis, a theory, of course, reinforced by standoffs of the past few years. But I’m starting to think that deadlines may provide an opening–or forcing mechanism–to get a few things done. For example: Cuts in Medicare payments to doctors are set to kick in March 31; Congress usually avoids these reductions with its “doc fix.” The Highway Trust Fund is set to expire May 31. Funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) runs out in September, and funding for the federal government ends Sept. 3o. The big kahuna is the debt limit, which will need to be extended again this year, most likely in the fall. The hyper-partisanship that has gripped the Hill in recent years meant that nothing got done until the last second of the last minute before deadline. But could things be changing? (Jim Manley, 3/24)

Like bickering siblings who keep quibbling over childhood slights, Republicans and Democrats keep finding new ways to fight over abortion. The latest episodes involve Republicans' attempt to apply the long-standing limitation on federal funding for abortion - known in Washington as the "Hyde amendment" after its author, the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) - outside its usual turf. In particular, some Democrats balked when the restriction turned up in bills to create another federal fund for victims of human trafficking and a wide-ranging proposal to amend and renew Medicare and other federal health programs. ... The problem with the two bills in question is that they would simultaneously authorize and spend money. That shift from the norm set up the fight over abortion. (Jon Healey, 3/24)

Here’s some interesting accountability journalism: CNN’s Dana Bash asked Sen. Ted Cruz, a freshly announced 2016 presidential candidate, how his family would get health insurance now that his wife has taken an unpaid leave from her job at Goldman Sachs. “We’ll be getting new health insurance and we’ll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange,” the Texas Republican told her. (Erik Wemple, 3/24)

The Families USA study illustrates the people left behind when Gov. Bobby Jindal opted not to accept the federal Medicaid expansion. They aren't covered on the job. They make too much money to qualify for Medicaid currently in Louisiana, but not enough for the insurance tax credits that are part of the Affordable Care Act. So they are caught in the middle without health coverage. Maybe they will be lucky and stay healthy, but people shouldn't have to count on that. ... The Legislature or the next governor could reverse the decision and accept the Medicaid expansion, which covers families earning up to 138 percent of the poverty level. But the state has missed out on the first of three years of the program when the federal government is paying 100 percent of the cost. (3/25)

Virginia Democrats, along with their editorial supporters in the state’s major dailies, champion a Medicaid expansion they say could cover upward of 400,000 needy citizens currently without health-care insurance. They decry Virginia Republicans’ opposition to this proposal as immoral, if not racist. That’s strong stuff. And it may also fail to heed some sage advice from the late Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Let’s assume your opponent’s position is immoral. As King pointed out, this doesn’t mean your position is the moral one. (Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman, 3/24)

The Senate Republicans' different approaches to Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA may be because the first is a widely popular universal program that benefits all Americans regardless of income; if they try to restructure Medicare, they know they will be accused of seeking to “end Medicare as we know it.” ... With the 2016 elections looming and a number of senators thinking of running for president, Senate Republicans are acutely aware that people who benefit from Medicare vote at a high rate and often base their votes on Medicare. (Harris Meyer, 3/24)