AHCA has failed – what’s the next step?

AHCA has failed, and with it the Republicans’ efforts to repeal ACA.

Despite President Trump’s threats, cajolery, and bribing the Freedom Caucus, the attempt to repeal ACA is, for now and probably for the long term, dead.

(Please allow me this opportunity to point out that I predicted three months ago that ACA would NOT be repealed)…OK, chest pounding interlude is over…

What does the future hold?  While we all wish Congress would adopt sensible solutions to fix ACA, that’s highly unlikely. Steps such as

  • increasing the penalty for not carrying insurance to levels originally recommended by the Heritage Foundation,
  • fully funding the risk corridors and co-op support measures
  • fixing the “family glitch”
  • require insurers to operate in broad areas so they don’t cherry-pick only the most profitable locations, and
  • requiring full transparency from all medical providers

would help a lot, and that’s not even adding a Medicare-for-all option. As I noted in a previous post, Democrats helped fix G W Bush and the GOP’s Medicare Part D plan when it was cratering.

Unfortunately, it’s more likely the administration will do everything it can to hamstring ACA – refuse to enforce the mandate, end premium support, defund the federal Exchanges, you name it.  In the process, they’ll likely blame the prior president, or Democrats, or whatever. And in so doing, they will hurt businesses, taxpayers, individuals, patients.

What’s most likely is a concerted and persistent effort to defund Medicaid.  This will be described as allowing states more flexibility, as refusing to use federal funds for abortions, as reducing the federal deficit, but make no mistake, the real priority is to shrink funding for the poor, elderly, kids, and disabled.

Lest you think that’s harsh, recall that those are precisely the people Medicaid helps.  It remains to be seen if Republicans will be successful, or if they will come together and heal the fractures so visible within the party.  If they do, they will likely find Democrats willing to work with them, perhaps using the Cassidy Collins bill as a starting point.

There’s been a lot of energy focused on blocking or passing AHCA.  Let’s take a few days to let the smoke clear, and then try to get Congress to work together to fix ACA.

Because it isn’t going to be repealed.

ACA Deathwatch: Damned if they do…or don’t

GOP Representatives are being strong-armed by President Trump and wooed by House leadership, and nowhere is the stress more intense then where I live – upstate New York.

While Trump blusters and leadership cajoles, wheedles, and bribes, Katko, Tenney, Faso et al (upstate GOP Congresspeople) are facing furious constituencies livid at the possibility that they and their neighbors will lose coverage – and that their state is being held hostage.

photo credit WSKG News

New York is the only state that requires counties to pay a chunk of Medicaid expense – 13% to be precise.  In my home county, Onondaga, that amounts to just over $100 million, and costs the average  homeowner about $600 annually in property taxes. In an effort to bribe/force upstate’s Republican Representatives to support AHCA, the bill was modified to specifically force New York to eliminate counties’ financial requirement and shift it to the state.

In Onondaga, 80,000 people, one out of six residents, is covered by Medicaid.  There are 26,000 healthcare jobs in the county paying $58,000 each.  If the AHCA passes and Medicaid expansion funding disappears, we’re going to lose over a thousand jobs – and $60 million in wages. Sure property taxes will go down, but state taxes will have to increase.

Syracuse – the biggest part of the county – has the highest minority poverty rate in the nation, and the lowest economic opportunity of any municipality as well.  Other upstate communities are better off – but not much.

If AHCA passes, an already desperate economic and health situation will get immeasurably worse.  That’s why Katko won’t hold town halls and is avoiding any and all public appearances; he knows that a NO vote on AHCA will cause a tweetstorm while a YES vote will likely cost him his seat.

That’s the dilemma facing all House Republicans, even those in “safe” seats. While Freedom Caucus members don’t know it yet, passing AHCA would cost many their seats. Voters HATE losing things they already have, and now that they have health coverage, and were promised the replacement will be better/cheaper/with lower deductibles and more access, when that proves to be false they are going to be really pissed off.

Medicaid cuts will result in their parents losing coverage for nursing home stays, neighbors’ disabled kids losing medical care, friends losing jobs in healthcare, and hospitals in rural America closing.

Fortunately, it’s extremely unlikely AHCA will pass, as several Republican Senators are strongly opposed to AHCA and will not be intimidated by Trump tweets.

What does this mean?

Elections have consequences – and so do votes.

If upstate Republicans vote to overturn ACA and the bill doesn’t pass the Senate, they are going to pay a very heavy price from voters on both ends of the political spectrum.  

Three-legged horses can’t run

If you cut a leg off your horse, it’s not going to run far or fast.  If you cut two legs off, it’s going to fall over.  And if someone else cut your horse’s legs off, you wouldn’t help them fix their horse.

Common sense, right?

So why is Paul Ryan et al complaining about ACA?

He and his fellow Republicans chopped not one, but two legs off that horse, and now they scream loud and long that that horse won’t run, so they need to shoot it and replace it with…what?

I bring this to your attention because it explains why there’s so much reluctance on the part of Democrats to work with their Republican colleagues on an ACA replacement. Put bluntly, Congressional Dems believe they got screwed and are really pissed off about that. So pissed off that they are more than happy to let the Republicans shoot themselves in the head all by themselves.

Here’s a quick summary of steps Republicans took that harmed ACA. (more here; a LOT more here)

  • Removed funding for risk corridors which kept co-ops and other plans alive
  • Didn’t expand Medicaid in 17 states
  • Hobbled ACA marketing efforts in multiple states
  • Sued the Obama Administration to block premium supports

I’ll leave aside the things the GOP could have done to help fix ACA, common sense stuff such as:

  • increasing the penalty for not carrying insurance to levels originally recommended by the Heritage Foundation,
  • fixing the “family glitch”
  • require insurers to operate in broad areas so they don’t cherry-pick only the most profitable locations, and
  • requiring full transparency from all medical providers.

If they had, ACA would be operating a lot better today, but Sen McConnell, Speaker Ryan et al weren’t interested in fixing ACA.  (In contrast, Democrats helped fix G W Bush and the GOP’s Medicare Part D plan when it was cratering)

The result of the Republicans’ successful efforts to hamstring ACA were made public earlier this week when President Trump did a photo op with several “Obamacare victims” including a Colorado woman who claimed her health insurance costs had tripled under ACA (note there’s no independent corroboration of her claim). Ms Couey said she’d had to switch insurers multiple times – while there’s no detail on this, it is likely more than one of her previous insurers went belly-up for one of several reasons.

(Warning, this gets pretty wonky) A big reason for Ms Couey’s issues – ACA had provisions specifically designed to help new insurers develop, grow, and become viable competitors – in local markets – in an industry dominated by behemoths. These provisions included “risk corridors”; financial vehicles designed to help health insurers entering markets by offsetting initial losses by transferring profits from their wealthier competitors.

The idea was to force competition into and help sustain that competition in a market where size is all that matters, where it is all but impossible for new, entrepreneurial competitors to start, much less succeed.

Those provisions disappeared, killed off by a Congress ostensibly interested in the competition and the free market.  Specifically, Sen Marco Rubio inserted the clause in the Cromnibus bill that prevented the Feds from moving money around to cover the Co-Ops’ losses in 2014.

Let’s remember that the risk corridor payments were to be budget neutral over the three year lifespan of the program.  The Rubio amendment (Section 227) forced CMS to shift that to a “pay as you go” model.

What does this mean for you?

If someone had chopped the legs off your horse, would you be eager to help them fix their’s? 

 

AHCA, CBO, and Workers’ Comp

There’s lots of news out there about the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Republican healthcare reform bill known as AHCA; we’ll narrowly focus on what passage of AHCA would mean for workers’ comp – and highlight what’s missing from every other analysis of the CBO report.

Briefly, I’d expect case-shifting and claims-shifting to workers comp to increase significantly, resulting in higher work comp expenses for employers, and more business for the work comp service industry.

Here’s why.

The expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate covered about 13 million more workers than pre-ACA; 81% of Medicaid recipients’ families have at least one member working. When workers who have health insurance get hurt, they are less motivated to claim it was on the job. And, if they are hurt on the job, work comp doesn’t have to pay for non-occupational medical conditions (e.g. dealing with hypertension before doing surgery).

The newly insureds are also working in jobs with higher claim frequency than average.

Some argue that the high deductibles and copays common in some insurance plans negates my argument; I respectfully disagree.  That’s because the newly insureds are poorer than average, thus they are much more likely to either:

  • get premium support payments from ACA which also cover deductibles and copays or
  • be covered by Medicaid, which has no cost-sharing (except in Indiana).

Since ACA was fully implemented in 2014 we’ve seen historically-low work comp medical trend rates, a strong indication that ACA is a major factor in lower work comp costs.

The CBO has projected:

  • 14 million will lose health insurance next year
  • 7 million more by 2020
  • another 5 million will lose coverage by 2026
  • most of those losing coverage would be older
  • deductibles and copays would be higher than under ACA

(credit Washington Post)

All of these projections are bad for work comp; older workers’ injuries are more expensive, and the higher deductibles and copays, along with a big drop in Medicaid coverage, would financially motivate workers to “claim shift.”

(credit Washington Post)

So, those losing health insurance would be:

  • much older
  • more likely to be employed in higher-risk jobs
  • more likely to be currently covered by Medicaid

What’s missing

…from all of the press reports and analyses of the CBO report is a discussion of how providers would react to passage of AHCA. That’s in part because the CBO report (full copy here) doesn’t address the issue.

Insurance coverage is just part of the story; doctors, hospitals, pharma and other providers are going to be hugely affected by a big decrease in their customer base.

More on that tomorrow.

What does this mean for you?

For work comp payers, higher claims and higher medical bills.

 

ACA Deathwatch: Republicans should hope AHCA doesn’t pass

I’ll stipulate to this – ACA needs major fixing. See below, and multiple past posts, for my take on what’s needed.  Unfortunately that doesn’t look likely.  The internecine warfare among Republicans over the American Health Care Act was inevitable, and will not be easily resolved.

That’s because there’s no consensus among Congressional Republicans on what healthcare reform should look like, who should pay for it, or what the priorities should be – access, coverage, cost control, less government intrusion, lower taxes, budget deficits are all in play, and many conflict. There’s also palpable and well-justified fear of the conservative infrastructure, a force including media outlets, think tanks, consultants, donors, and fringe groups that is extremely vocal, very powerful, and critical to the political future of individual Republicans.

Outside the reliably Republican world there is even more danger lurking.

What’s not being reported is this – If AHCA passes, the Republicans are in deep trouble.  10 – 15 million Americans will lose coverage (and loss aversion is powerful indeed).  Insurers will drop out of many markets overnight.  Hospitals, especially in rural America, will get crushed due to lower reimbursement and higher bad debt. Trump voters who believed him when he said he’s lower costs and improve insurance are going to be disappointed indeed. Deficits will go up.

Thus Republicans are in a can’t win situation; they have to deliver on impossible campaign promises, and if they do, voters will blame them for loss of coverage, higher prices, and anything and everything related to healthcare.

While Republicans battle amongst themselves, the medical provider community – AMA, AHA, American Nurses Association – just about every national interest group has come out firmly against AHCA. Insurance companies are warily walking the fence, not willing to provoke a tweetstorm but concerned indeed that AHCA will pass and their risk pools will crater. Seniors are up in arms, outraged that they’d have to pay more (!) for insurance if younger people don’t subsidize their needs.

There is a possible compromise bill, Cassidy Collins does offer some hope as it would likely garner support from both sides of the aisle if it gets any attention – and a lot of modification along the way.  But that is a very big “if”.

While all have different and specific issues, the net is this: AHCA will not lower the cost of care, and will increase the number of Americans without health insurance by at least 10 to 15 million people at the outset.

If AHCA passes, that number will inevitably increase as insurers’ risk pools experience worsens when fewer young people enroll, driving up costs for older folks. The death spiral in the individual markets will accelerate until…something happens.

There’s no question ACA needs fixing.

  • An excellent start would be to re-fund the risk corridor program killed by Sen Rubio in 2015 when he was able to force thru defunding of risk adjustment in the budget agreement.
  • Adding a public option to markets with limited choice would provide an insurance backstop, much like residual markets in workers’ comp.
  • Increasing the penalties for failing to carry insurance is another wise step.
  • Replacing deductibles with co-insurance requirements would help ensure people could afford the care they need while making sure the high-utilizers think long and hard about their medical care.
  • Requiring all to take greater responsibility for personal behaviors that increase health risks should be front and center. Obesity, substance abuse, medication adherence and failure to utilize preventive medicine should all be addressed

The intractable problem is cost. AHCA focuses on insurance markets, subsidies, eligibility, and credits.  It does nothing to address what drives cost – the massive waste due to unnecessary care and inflated prices for drugs, services, devices.

What does this mean for you?

AHCA won’t pass, a fate Republicans should be forever grateful for.

 

ACA Deathwatch – (some) Republicans reveal their bill

Good morning all – it’s going to be a busy day in health reform land – so here’s the latest.

Republicans have released their long-secret healthcare plans; don’t get all excited as it’s going nowhere, mostly because Congressional Republicans aren’t all behind it.

This legislation will have to pass the House and Senate.  It will not pass the Senate as is, because four Republican Senators have publicly stated they will not vote for the bill due to concerns over Medicaid coverage.  Three other Republican Senators have expressed concern with the cost of the bill, and appear reluctant to vote in favor.

For the bill to pass, at least 7 Democrats would have to get behind it- which is highly unlikely.

Republicans will not ask CBO to score the bill – thus we don’t know what the impact on federal deficits would be.  There’s also no estimate of how many would gain or lose insurance.

And, Freedom Caucus members in the House are denigrating the bill as “Obamacare Lite”, demanding a “clean repeal” instead of a replacement.

So, this is mostly an academic exercise, but does provide a starting point for the GOP.  Here are the key points from the bills, with my quick take appended:

  • Eliminates subsidies, replacing them with age-based tax credits ranging from $2000 to $4000
    MCM – this does little to help lower-income Americans; the current subsidies haven’t been enough to drive participation, so these lower amounts won’t do much.  Also, these aren’t income-based, so it amounts to a giveaway to wealthier Americans who don’t need the subsidy. UPDATElate change to the bill adds income levels that would change credits.
  • Eliminates premium-support and deductible/copay funding 
    MCM – these subsidies help poorer Americans pay for deductibles; eliminating them is a major concern of insurers, and several insurers have said they will immediately move to end coverage without the subsidies
  • Roll back Medicaid expansion, capping payments to states
    MCM – Anathema to many GOP Governors and several Senators from expansion states.
  • Delays the Cadillac Tax
    MCM – this would reduce tax receipts, leading to higher deficits
  • Ends most of tax provisions of ACA, reducing taxes to wealthiest Americans
    MCM – this will result in higher federal deficits, a key issue with at least three R Senators
  • Eliminates the individual mandate requirement and tax penalties for failure to maintain coverage
    MCM – this would likely reduce the number of young members who subsidize older and sicker people, leading to higher costs for older members.
  • Requires people to maintain coverage or be subject to a 30 percent penalty.
    MCM – Many would likely face this penalty as 24%+ of people 26-64 have a pre-existing condition, and those who lose employer-based coverage would have a tough time paying the entire premium themselves without a job
  • Ends all federal funds to Planned Parenthood
    This troubles some Republicans as PP provides a lot of healthcare to lower-income women.

The legislation is exposing splits among and between Republicans on ACA and health reform.  Republicans opposed ACA, but for diverse reasons; costs too high, mandate, tax provisions, Planned Parenthood.

But there is no unity around a solution.  It’s easy to rally opposition to a complex issue; many Democrats have been pointing out problems with ACA for years. It’s far harder to come up with a new solution because everyone has different priorities and ideologies.

What does this mean for you?

The ACA Deathwatch clock moved forward a bit – but not much…

ACA Deathwatch: Further and further away

The hands of the Deathwatch Clock have been moving back for some time now, signaling that your reporter believes the chances for ACA repeal have steadily receded.

The reason is clear – killing ACA would be politically devastating for Republicans, especially Republicans in vulnerable election districts. Two months ago I predicted ACA would not be repealed due to the political cost; if anything I feel more strongly today.  Here’s why.

  1. The President has acknowledged healthcare is enormously complicated.  Who knew? of course, MCM’s faithful readers knew…
  2. Governors could not come up with any consensus on what a replacement plan would look like, components thereof, funding, or even how to treat Medicaid.
  3. There is no consensus between Republican Congresspeople or Senators, with the Senate’s key leadership expressing notable reluctance to repeal without an agreed-upon replacement plan ready for a vote.
  4. Democratic Senators are – so far – standing unified in their opposition to repeal/replace.  Without at least 8 Democrats, a replacement is a non-starter.

So, what’s going to happen?

Here, in order of likelihood, are my best guesses.  I reserve the right to change the order based on future developments – or the lack thereof.

  • Minor tweaking
    Republicans will futz around with the mandate, premium supports, Medicaid funding, and a few other less-important aspects, call it a huge improvement, and be done. Dems will support these changes, as they’ve been trying to get their R colleagues to do this for years.
  • Nothing
    Attempts to tweak ACA will come to naught as the House Freedom Caucus and arch-conservatives in the Senate will refuse to do anything until their party delivers on its campaign promises to “rip it out root and branch”.
  • Bigger tweaking
    Remember – ACA includes major changes to Medicare reimbursement, medicaid expansion, the individual mandate, a variety of taxes and fees, medical education funding, and on and on.  It does NOT lend itself to big tweaks, but some Republicans are hellbent on doing whatever they can that doesn’t require any Democrats to support it.  For example, use reconciliation rules to block grant or per-capita cap Medicaid

When will this occur?

Next year is looking more and more likely, however insurers selling via the Exchanges will need some assurances within a month if they are going to feel any degree of comfort in setting rates.

Those assurances are anathema to the Freedom Caucus, so we may see a fist fight between that faction and more centrist Republicans in the House.  The centrists will win that fight.

So, expect no practical changes to ACA thru the end of 2018.  There will be much window-dressing as Republicans seek to show voters that they delivered on their promises, but it will be just that – window-dressing.

What does this mean for you?

Likely no major changes till 1/1/2019 – if then.

ACA Deathwatch: Two Immutable Truths

Two immutable truths were behind much of ACA’s original construction. These same truths are giving Republicans seeking to repeal/replace major heartburn.

First, healthcare is the single largest part of America’s economy.  One out of every six (soon to be five) dollars flows thru the healthcare system.

“Controlling cost” really means someone is going to make less money. 

As most of you reading this get a big chunk of your income from healthcare, that’s a problem. For politicians trying to come up with a plan to reform the reform, solving healthcare means some very, very powerful entities are going to get screwed. 

The question is, which ones?

  • Hospitals are often the largest single employer in an area.
  • Pharma is hugely profitable and pharma workers are very well paid.
  • Medical device and equipment companies are similarly disposed and their employees similarly compensated (the largest employer in our town is WelchAllyn)
  • Healthcare professionals enjoy good incomes and generally good working conditions (full disclosure – our daughter and her husband are both ER RNs)
  • Healthplans have generally done well under ACA – remember the Exchanges are just a small part of their overall business.
  • Taxpayers, who don’t want to pay higher taxes

You can’t cut costs without cutting hospital revenues, reducing doctors’ incomes, lowering pharma prices, or slashing profits for device companies. (Healthplans are a bit of a separate issue as their gross income is based on underlying costs, so if healthcare costs go down, so do their revenues).

The power of the healthcare lobby is beyond measure; three years ago the industry spent over a half-billion dollars on lobbying in DC.  Pikers.  Last year,

So, which one of these incredibly well-funded and well-connected stakeholders is going to willingly give up a few tens of billions of dollars to keep your insurance costs and taxes down?

Put another way, are you personally ok with a lower paycheck?

Truth Two – Older people vote, younger people don’t.

(credit US election project)

If you’re trying to keep insurance costs low, you have to get more healthy people (i.e. younger people) into the pool to help pay costs for us older folks.  To get more people to buy insurance, you have to keep premiums low.  The best way to do that is by allowing a big premium disparity between older and younger folks.

Currently, ACA only allows insurers to charge old folks 3 times more than young ones. The result – insurance for younger people is higher than it would be if healthplans could split the population into, say, five “age bands” and charge older people 5 times more than the youngest. Sure, it’s likely a lot more young people would sign up if their premiums were lower – and they would be – about 15 percent lower.

But if they do, the oldest people – who are about 2.5 times more likely to vote than the youngest group – are going to be hopping mad. Estimates are premiums for the older group would jump 22%.

What do these Two Immutable Truths mean for you?

It could mean your income drops a lot, your taxes go up, your premiums go up or down, your stock portfolio suffers…

Net is, to “fix” healthcare someone’s ox is going to be gored.  And pissed-off oxen are scary indeed.

ACA Deathwatch: Where are we today?

The net – we’re further away from repeal and replace than we were even a week ago.

The details

There’s been a good deal of understandable confusion about the fate of ACA; first it was going to be repealed on Day One of the new Administration, then January 27 was the day, now it’s either sometime late this year or early next. Or perhaps, not.

What’s indisputable is this;  undoing ACA and “replacing” it with legislation that will reduce costs, increase coverage options, and not leave anyone with coverage today uninsured is not possible – unless drastic cost-reduction measures are implemented, measures that are anathema to free-market Republicans.

Republicans sought to use the budget reconciliation process to undo much of ACA, figuring that would allow them to kill components such as the mandate that are particularly offensive to the GOP, while working on a replacement bill that might or might not be passed with a final “repeal” bill.  As reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered, the initial step in the repeal process passed easily.

But here’s the problem – the proverbial clock is ticking, and the longer this drags on, the less likely it is a Repeal/Replace bill will happen.  

First, insurers MUST have some idea what will happen in 2018 before they can come up with rates for coverage in the Exchanges. And they need to know this by May 3 – at the very latest.

Second, Governors need to know what’s going to happen with Medicaid. Seniors need to know what their Medicare Advantage costs will be.  Hospitals need to know what they will get paid for Medicare, Medicaid, and in DSH and other payments before they can set prices.

As has been well-documented here, there’s little consensus among Congressional Republicans on what a replacement would look like. And there are a bunch of other high-priority bills that are must-pass; tax reform, budget, spending and the like, all of which will take a lot of time off the legislative calendar.

And there’s this – Once a budget resolution for 2018 is passed, the current ACA reconciliation bill is null and void. While it’s possible Republicans delay the Fiscal Year 2018 resolution as they try to cobble together a replacement bill, this will greatly complicate the legislative process, likely hinder another key priority – tax reform, and as of today there’s no consensus even among Republicans on what “replacement” would look like.

While it’s theoretically possible Republicans pass another reconciliation bill for the FY 2018 budget year to further kick the ACA can down the road, it’s highly unlikely.

Lots more detail on this here.

What does this mean for you?

Yes, it’s certainly possible ACA will be repealed and replaced. Just a little less possible with each passing day.

 

ACA Deathwatch: Healthcare and Snow storms

Happy Monday!  Up here in the northeast we’re still digging out from a major snowstorm that’s a long way from being over.

I’ll make a lousy analogy; that’s pretty much what’s happening in DC.  For local governments, getting the snow off the streets is the political test that ensures mayors another term, or ends their political career.

Healthcare is the national equivalent, with a rather important difference.  Unlike snow removal, healthcare is devilishly complicated.  It’s not just coordination of more plows, salt, drivers, and tow trucks.

Premium subsidies are one example.  About $9 billion goes towards helping poorer folks pay their deductibles, copays, and other costs.  Back when Republicans were in the opposition, they sued the Obama Administration to block those payments. If the suit were to succeed today, insurers would suddenly find themselves forced to:

  • come up with the $9 billion out of their own pockets or
  • terminate coverage for millions of members.

Not surprisingly, Republicans have apparently decided to keep paying the premium subsidies for the time being.

Kicking-the-can-down-the-road doesn’t do anything other than prolong the inevitable, which, stated simply, is this: Congressional Republicans are stuck.  It’s not possible to ensure poorer folks keep their coverage while reducing costs and de-regulating the health insurance markets.

Pre-election promises that voters can “Have their cake, Eat it too, and Not get fat” are coming up against the hard reality that healthcare is really complicated; and insurance companies, pharma, doctors, and healthcare systems are in business to make profits.

For insurers to be profitable, they have to:

  • enroll lots of people by charging premiums low enough to
  • get enough healthy people to join so they can pay for sick peoples’ care, yet
  • set premiums high enough to pay pharma and healthcare providers so those industries make a profit;

Without premium subsidies, lots of lower-income people can’t afford insurance, insurance companies can’t afford to insure those people, and more and more healthy people will drop coverage. Republicans’ apparent decision to maintain premium support will keep things calm for now.  The individual market looks pretty stable – rate increases have stabilized and enrollment, despite Republicans’ efforts to hinder sign-ups, is adequate.

Eventually the healthcare “snow” is going to pile up deep enough that Congress is going to have to start plowing.

Either that, or this…

What does this mean for you?

Don’t expect much REAL progress on healthcare legislation in the next month or two.  Or maybe even longer.

Got your shovel ready?