Young Voters entering middle age

 

I’m 37. I’m not quite a Generation X’er and I am definately not a Millenial. I bought my first cell phone my junior year of college and I am profoundly aware of the sound of a 1200 BAUD modem connecting to the UMass Lowell Unix servers as well as having many memories of yelling at my sister who wanted to talk on the phone as I was reading soc.history.what-if.

My first presidential vote was for Al Gore. By 2006, I was a super-voter. Since 2004 I have missed one election (Pennsylvania 2017 primary) as I had moved to North Carolina by then and was in the process of switching my registration. I am weird. For my cohort, I had a much higher probability of voting than my matched control peers.

My peers and I have always leaned Democratic as a cohort. We are now entering into prime voting participation ages. The cohorts behind me still don’t vote their numbers yet but they lean even more heavily Democratic than my cohort. Some of it is a function of race/ethnicity confounding age but there is still a dramatic implication that their political formation was Bush-Obama-Trump.

It won’t matter too much in 2018 or 2020 but there is a massive python lump of voters coming through who lean Dem but will begin turning out at higher rates just as Republican base voters decrease in numbers due to differential age related mortality.



Six Cassidy-Graham State Funds Flow Analyses

The post below is an inventory of six separate analysis of the flow of funds between states under Cassidy-Graham-Heller-Johnson in 2026 compared to current law as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. I am collecting and collating the information.

Center for Budget Policy and Priorities is a liberal think tank. They use the 2016 budget baseline and attempt to approximate eligibility through the Current Population Survey. They analyse state funding swings in millions of dollars.
The New York Times uses Census, Kaiser Family Foundation, CBPP and CMS data to estimate per capita changes in expenditure by state in 2026.
Manatt is a program design and evaluation consulting firm. They are using 2017 as their cost baseline year with 2015 Medicare spending variations to simulate state level risk adjustment.  I am using Table 1-A. They are evaluating just the change of federal flows to the state due to the block grants and not Medicaid. CBPP looks at both so it is an apples to kiwi fruit comparison.

Avalere is another consulting and analysis firm with their own estimates.  They are looking at total cumulative swing with billions of dollars as their unit of account.  Data is extracted from figure 1.  I will just show direction as I can not merge that data consistently.  If there is a figure of under $1 billion dollars, I am using $500 million as a placeholder.

Kaiser Family Foundation released their analysis on September 21. I am looking only at Table 1, which measures the change in ACA coverage elements (Medicaid Expansion and Exchange subsidies) for the time period 2020-2026.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Office of the Actuary released their numbers on Thursday night. I am just looking at the calendar year 2026 one year net swings in millions of dollars.

My data is here. I show direction and size for CBPP, Manat, Avalere, Kaiser and CMS and direction only for the New York Times .

More analysis below the fold:

Read more



Five Cassidy-Graham State Funds Flow Analyses

The post below is an inventory of five separate analysis of the flow of funds between states under Cassidy-Graham-Heller-Johnson in 2026 compared to current law as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. I am collecting and collating the information.

Center for Budget Policy and Priorities is a liberal think tank. They use the 2016 budget baseline and attempt to approximate eligibility through the Current Population Survey. They analyse state funding swings in millions of dollars.
The New York Times uses Census, Kaiser Family Foundation, CBPP and CMS data to estimate per capita changes in expenditure by state in 2026.
Manatt is a program design and evaluation consulting firm. They are using 2017 as their cost baseline year with 2015 Medicare spending variations to simulate state level risk adjustment.  I am using Table 1-A. They are evaluating just the change of federal flows to the state due to the block grants and not Medicaid. CBPP looks at both so it is an apples to kiwi fruit comparison.

Avalere is another consulting and analysis firm with their own estimates.  They are looking at total cumulative swing with billions of dollars as their unit of account.  Data is extracted from figure 1.  I will just show direction as I can not merge that data consistently.  If there is a figure of under $1 billion dollars, I am using $500 million as a placeholder.

Kaiser Family Foundation released their analysis on September 21. I am looking only at Table 1, which measures the change in ACA coverage elements (Medicaid Expansion and Exchange subsidies) for the time period 2020-2026.

My data is here. I show direction and size for CBPP, Manat, Avalere and direction only for the New York Times .

More analysis below the fold:

Read more



Four Cassidy-Graham State Funds Flow Analyses

Cassidy-Graham-Heller is a real threat. The post below is an inventory of four separate analysis of the flow of funds between states under C-G-H in 2026 compared to current law as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. I am just collating and collecting the information.

Center for Budget Policy and Priorities is a liberal think tank. They use the 2016 budget baseline and attempt to approximate eligibility through the Current Population Survey. They analyse state funding swings in millions of dollars.
The New York Times uses Census, Kaiser Family Foundation, CBPP and CMS data to estimate per capita changes in expenditure by state in 2026.
Manatt is a program design and evaluation consulting firm. They are using 2017 as their cost baseline year with 2015 Medicare spending variations to simulate state level risk adjustment.  I am using Table 1-A.

UPDATE #1 (1045) MY ERROR — Manatt’s initial data displayed was for 2021 not 2026. Will be making a few changes to the data and post.
UPDATE #2 (1105) I updated the column that pulled the Manatt data from 2021 to 2026. That was me not lining up my column headers correctly when I ripped the data from the PDF and put it into a text editor. The second issue is a point that was raised over e-mail. They are evaluating just the change of federal flows to the state due to the block grants and not Medicaid. CBPP looks at both so it is an apples to kiwi fruit comparison.

Avalere is another consulting and analysis firm with their own estimates.  They are looking at total cumulative swing with billions of dollars as their unit of account.  Data is extracted from figure 1.  I will just show direction as I can not merge that data consistently.  If there is a figure of under $1 billion dollars, I am using $500 million as a placeholder.

Update #3 (11:35)  AARP has come out with some limited state specific analysis.  I am not including it at this time.

My data is here. I show direction and size for CBPP, Manat, Avalere and direction only for the New York Times .

More analysis below the fold:

Read more



Thursday Morning Open Thread: Blindsided!

Once again, Nancy and Chuck privately stroke “President” Manbaby’s tender ego, and come away with a public promise he’ll do something which will anger all the noisiest members of his in-every-sense Base. And the dumb fekkers are blaming Paul Ryan! Could not happen to a more deserving Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver, per the Washington Post:

Democratic leaders announced late Wednesday that they agreed with President Trump to pursue a legislative deal that would protect hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation and enact border security measures that don’t include building a physical wall.

The president discussed options during a dinner at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that also included talks on tax reform, infrastructure and trade. Trump has showed signs of shifting strategy to cross the aisle and work with Democrats in the wake of the high-profile failures by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act…

In a sign of the potential trouble for the president, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hard-liner and early Trump supporter, wrote that if reports of a potential immigration deal are accurate, the president’s “base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair. No promise is credible.”…

Congressional aides familiar with the exchange said that Trump and the party leaders agreed to move quickly on legislation to protect dreamers, though aides did not disclose whether they agreed that the goal should be for dreamers to eventually be offered a path to citizenship.

In a statement, Schumer and Pelosi said they had “a very productive meeting at the White House with the President. The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues in the House, Pelosi said she hoped the deal could be done “in a matter of weeks.”…

Pelosi and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) met earlier Wednesday to begin discussing the broad parameters of the forthcoming immigration debate. Ryan’s team signaled that despite the administration’s eagerness to quickly seal the deal, it will take awhile…

Ryan is already facing growing pressure from House conservatives who have begun to question his leadership and have even floated names of possible replacement as speaker. An agreement between Trump and Democrats on a bill to protect dreamers could potentially put Ryan in the position of having to decide whether to bring it for a vote with the prospects that it might pass with more Democratic support than among the GOP…

Of course the sumbitch doesn’t intend to carry through on his promise — he never does — but now the Democrats have a ‘permission slip’ to wave at all the Repub bigots who just wanna make ‘Murkca white again, like they remember it from 1950s sitcoms. And the more the GOP leaders shriek at him, the more Trump will dig in and insist that he did so intend to hang them up by their tiny thumbs, because they are not the boss of him.

And nothing that makes Paul Ryan squirm in public is a total waste of effort!



An end may be in sight

The dramatic vote at 2:20 AM where all forty eight Democrats and three Republican Senators voted against Skinny Repeal did not kill the bill. It merely killed an amendment in the form of a substitute to the underlying reconciliation compatible repeal measure. Senator Majority Leader McConnell then pulled the vehicle from consideration at that time. He reserved the right to put it back on the calendar.

The big question remained as to when the reconciliation vehicle dies. It will die if it is not passed in the fiscal year for the budget it was created from. That means it is only a viable vehicle until midnight on September 30, 2017. Once must-pass bills are taken care of (CHIP, Harvey, flood insurance, debt limit, FY-18 funding) Democrats must insist on either immediate adjournment until 12:01 AM October 1st or promise to filibuster everything including post office renaming bills to run out the clock.

Once FY-18 begins, the reconciliation instructions need to be written again and it basically forces a choice between tax cuts or the repeal buzz saw for Republicans.



Okay… so this is happening

I’m watching C-SPAN right now as they show a procedural vote being held open for over an hour and fairly happy Democrats.

I don’t know what the hell is happening besides Mitch McConnell currently does not have the votes.

Also Health Policy Twitter gets pretty weird after midnight….

There is still hope

— Update 1:30 Senators Collins, McCain and Murkowski are NO on Skinny Repeal

Know hope … I am pouring myself a finger of 18 year old Scotch now.

Update 2