"Medicare for All"

[kpete]

.......The conservatives will score a Pyrrhic victory setting the stage for what we really should have done from the very beginning...Medicare for all.

By the time this gets to the Supremes..and especially if they confirm today's ruling with the severablility aspect negating the ENTIRE ACA...they will step in a huge pile of dooty. Overnight all those people back to square one...pre existing condition..sorry charlie...contract a truly bad as in expensive illness..hello rescission..able to still have health insurance despite sky rocketing college tuition...tough darts trying for a graduate degree...at least while still maintaining insurance...

In short the Supremes could toss hundreds of thousands off the roles of those who have insurance back to square one. How do you think that will go over?

.......................

Anthony Weiner...Sherrod Brown and others are just waiting for an excuse to cut the crap and simply plunge ahead with "Medicare for All".

Rep. Weiner 'still pissed' about public option
By Michael O'Brien - 01/31/11 04:38 PM ET

On the heels of a federal judge's ruling on Monday striking down the entirety of President Obama's healthcare law as unconstitutional, Weiner expressed regret that his party abandoned a government-run health insurance option.

He tweeted:
We know this: the public option is constitutional.
http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/141315...

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/happy_hour_roundup_175.html#comments

...............
What happens if conservatives succeed in undermining the ACA?
By Ezra Klein
The resulting policy isn't too hard to imagine. Think something like opening Medicare to all Americans over age 45, raising Medicaid up to 300 percent of the poverty line, opening S-CHIP to all children, and paying for the necessary subsidies and spending with a surtax on the wealthy (which is how the House originally wanted to fund health-care reform). That won't get us quite to universal health care, but it'll get us pretty close. And it'll be a big step towards squeezing out private insurers, particularly if Medicaid and Medicare are given more power to control their costs.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/what_happens_in_conservatives.html

[jannyk]

1. Medicare for ALL!! k&r

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[sharesunited]

3. Medicare for All, fully funded for fairly established fee-for-service reimbursement rates!

And how about one thousand full scholarships per year for lucky med school and nursing school students? (With a post licensure service obligation of course.)

[newtothegame]

26. You're the only person on this post that got this right...

At least from observation, most of the calls on DU for "Medicare for All" come from folks who do not work in the health care industry and have no idea just how broken the current Medicare system is. It's just a pretty slogan to them that SOUNDS like it should work.

At our Cancer Center, we get somewhere around $.51 on the dollar for our costs from Medicare and much worse than that from Medicaid. "Medicare for All," without meaningful adjustment that actually REIMBURSES CARE, would bankrupt every hospital and clinic in the country.

[shimmergal]

28. This COULD work too.

If hospitals and clinics go bankrupt, what followed would be a real government takeover, and we'd get a National Healtlh Service rather than just single payer, with some sort of broad-based taxes making up the difference. This is NOT my favorite scenario, but it wouldn't mean the end of the world.

But--"what pays for what" is largely a problem in accounting anyway. Presumably those charges for expensive equipment use, etc. don't go down even after purchase of the equipment in question has been fully amortized, anyway.

And while what you say might be true of Medicare and Medicaid, presumably the reinbursement rates paid by private insurance are profitable. They're usually about 1/10 of what a patient with no insurance is charged. Why not a level playing field here?

If a nightclub owner in New York can be barred from charging male & female customers different prices for drinks (the rationale was because of the state's involvement in regulating liquor), why doesn't this rationale apply to medical charges? I wisho some lawyers would weigh in on this principle.

[Recursion]

35. And in the year or two in the interim during which there are no health care providers?

What happens during the transition?

[bluethruandthru]

49. We need to build on what Medicare has in place and switch the country to a

Single payer system. Doctors, labs, hospitals, etc. need to be fully and fairly compensated.

[JDPriestly]

65. Hospitals and doctors lose a lot of money on patients who do not have the

means to pay or who declare bankruptcy on huge medical bills. It will even out to a certain extent. The main problem is getting everyone covered and paid for. A percentage of people who have insurance pay for everyone. Medicare for all would eliminate the waste in the portion of our medical costs that goes to profits for insurance companies and bloated salaries for insurance executives as well as large staffs of insurance companies who specialize in denying service to insureds in order to increase insurance company profits.

In addition, universal pre-natal care and pediatric care would save a lot of medical costs later on. I lived in Europe for years. Their life expectancy is longer than ours although they have, with the exception of obesity, a lot of very bad dietary habits especially in German-speaking countries and in the UK. Medical costs in Europe are lower than ours. The insurance is private non-profit for the most part. I imagine that is what we will bet here. The current system does not work. Also, I spoke to a nurse from a European country. She said that the nurses do a lot more of the work there now than they do here. I think the nurses in Europe are very well educated and trained.

[midnight armadillo]

76. Fee for service is a failure

Massachusetts is seeking to replace it with a global payment system, paying doctors a flat fee based upon the number of patients seen monthly, with adjustments made for patients' ages and health conditions.

Another key part of real insurance reform will be to pay specialists less and general practitioners more...are doctors ready to take one for the team?

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Statistical]

5. Sadly I think SCOTUS will help the corporations out.

What corporation would be against mandated profit streams.

[chimpymustgo]

22. You can take that to the bank.

[defendandprotect]

44. +1000%

[Maine_Nurse]

6. Medicare (with some fixes) would be ok, but skip the Medicaid part.

Many states have problems properly administering Medicaid (not paying the bills for years and denying way to much stuff). Increasing the Medicaid rolls is a bad idea.

[Recursion]

32. At the risk of being a broken record, that's why I'm anti-public-option

Because unless it has dedicated revenues it becomes another Medicaid, a program that is somehow managing to bankrupt both states and health care providers.

[RegieRocker]

7. K&R

[jtrockville]

8. I'm all for it. The sooner the better!

[BlueDemKev]

9. What scares me....

...is that the entire question of whether or not the health care law will be declared constitutional or unconstitutional all but lies in the hands of ONE person--Justice Anthony Kennedy. We all know how everyone else on the Supreme Court will vote. Talk about tyranny of one person. So far the 2 judges who've voted to uphold the law were appointed by Clinton and the two who have voted that it's unconstitutional were appointed by Bush II and Reagan, respectively.

Our judiciary is supposed to be independent and "above" the politics of the legislative process. Instead, they are just as divided as the rest of this nation. Our country is going to come apart at the seams if we can't find a way to at least TRY and work together.

[dotymed]

23. "Citizens United" removed all doubt

that our SCOTUS is non-partisan. The majority of citizens want Universal Healthcare. We need to show the guts that many other countries have shown in the past months and revolt against the PTB so we can get a government for and by the people instead for and by the corporate "persons."
History is written by the victors. If ordinary citizens revolted (non-violently) against our "for the elite" government, then the present times will be viewed by historians as some of the darkest hours in American history. If not, it will be viewed as the natural progression toward a great Fascist, Imperialist government, with never ending wars.

[onpatrol98]

71. Which is so ...BS!!!

"So far the 2 judges who've voted to uphold the law were appointed by Clinton and the two who have voted that it's unconstitutional were appointed by Bush II and Reagan, respectively."

I agree with you...it's unfortunate. Unconstitutionality ought to look the same to every one. Not one way for Dems and other way for Repubs...especially judges. Me personally, I thought from jump it was unconstitutional. I was floored as heck when our President was pushing the whole mandate thing. He laughed at Hillary Clinton when she mentioned it at a debate and I laughed with him. After all, he was a constitutional law professor. If they can make you buy one thing, they can make you buy another and I know good and gosh darn well, that's not the road I wanted to travel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceOG90OCCRw&feature=related

I thought he was spot on during the debate in the link above.

[slipslidingaway]

72. Good video of the candidate vs. the elected official who makes backroom deals. n/t

[kudzu22]

10. The individual mandate should be overturned

If the feds can force you to buy health insurance, what else can they force us to buy? Imagine what a Repub congress & president would do with that power. What if they pass a $1000 tax unless you subscribe to cable TV? What other corporations can they pay off by forcing people to buy their products?

Reid & Pelosi should have passed a single payer or nothing at all.

[grahamhgreen]

12. +1

[grahamhgreen]

13. K&R, let's get er done!

[Kurovski]

11. K&R. (nt)

[TreasonousBastard]

14. And screw over the 150-200 million or so people who now have coverage...

they like better than Medicare?

No matter-- play into the hands of companies and unions perfectly happy to dump their healthcare obligations on the government where it will be at the mercy of politicians.

[dotymed]

19. You're right.

We'd be MUCH better off "in the hands of the for-profit, corporate insurance companies". BTW, you can still purchase extra coverage.....

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Just fiy. People I know with Medicare like it

Those with private insurance, none of them are happy. None of them. They overpay, they have high deductibles and co-pays, paperwork hassles, and again, they overpay, I repeat it because they overpay 12 times each year.
What aspects of your health coverage do you like better than Medicare? Be specific. You claim tens of millions are content and in fact 'like their insurance better than Medicare'. Show some proof of that, stats, specifics.
If you can.

[Mimosa]

40. BlueNorthwest, you're describing me.

And at $12,000 a year we still have 70/30 $10,000 ann deductible, no Rx coverage until deductible is met. It's like paying $12,000 but not having real coverage. And this year I just found out I can only have 6 doctors visits a year, no matter what. When I went to my doctors I had balances of $140 each doctor to pay!

Each month my partner and I are falling behind, being self-employed. We can't afford to save for retirement or 'rainy days' because of this ruinous Blue Cross Blue Shield. The gov offered plan for people with pre-existing conditions in GA is administered by BC/BS and has higher monthly premiums.

I suspect come 2014 our premiums for health insurance will be the same or higher, but we'll each have some piss ant 'deduction'. As self employed people we already have some deuctibility. Trust me, that helps NOT AT ALL!

[TreasonousBastard]

74. Of course they like it-- the alternative is dire (and they get free scooters). But...

although we can all find examples of happy Medicare patients and miserable HMO clients (or ridiculously expensive private plans) the point is to find something that will provide universal health care to 300 million people that will not reduce care to those who have it.

Since Medicare now has at least four parts, depending on how you count, medigap coverage is required to fill in the holes for the occasional denial and copay, and costs are skyrocketing, it behooves you "Medicare for all" types to prove this slapdash program is the way to fix our admittedly broken system.

Full-time government employees at all levels, cube rats in large companies, and many union employees have good coverage now-- tell them how Medicare would be better.

[lonestarnot]

15. K & R! 1000+

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. K and R

[Mimosa]

17. Medicare for all is what should have been done in the first place! n/t

[dotymed]

18. That would be so great.

The ruling elite, of course, will strike it down.
Maybe that could be the catalyst for us, Americans, to take to the streets, Egyptian style....Walk like an Egyptian...lol.

[Vinca]

20. Absolutely. This whole exercise would have been less painful

if they had started with Medicare For All. People know what it is and it's not some scary "Obamacare." (Pity the dumb and witless have to be catered to in this country.)

[cali]

21. setting the stage for single payer? and when will this happen?

another decade? at least.

[Overseas]

24. K&R ! Yes Please !! //nt

[Yavin4]

27. It's The ACA or Nothing

We're not getting Medicare for All. We're not getting the public option. We're not getting anything other than being able to buy shitty de-regulated insurance from some shitty company with a postal box in Guam.

De-regulated insurance will be great until you have to use it, and they can declare BK and absolve them of their obligations.

[Statistical]

29. Then I would rather have nothing.

The ACA isn't free. Granting forever and always the federal govt the ability to mandate any economic activity is way to powerful.

The tradeoff of a crappy bill vs nearly limitless power by federal govt to mandate economic activity is not a good trade.

American's keeping cars too long mandate they buy new ones after 5 years.
American's cutting cable in too high of numbers mandate they subscribe to an authorized news provider or pay a penalty.
American's getting to fat. Mandate they join a gym or pay a tax.

Sorry no dice. If ACA is as "good as it gets" then keep the parts that don't rely on a mandate and call it done.

[Yavin4]

30. The Mandate Is The Key To Everything

You cannot keep the good parts without the mandate, and if you have nothing, then never, ever get sick or need health care because if you do, it will bankrupt you. Also, the GOP wants a bill that won't let you discharge your medical debts in BK.

[Statistical]

31. Sorry I don't believe that.

Insurance companies have no right to charge more for pre-existing conditions anymore than a meth dealer has a right to sell meth.

Congress could simply make it illegal to charge more for pre-existing conditions.
Employer based plans have restrictions on prohibiting pre-existing conditions and yet both employers and insurance companies are profitable.

Many other elements have nothing to do with mandates. Subsidies for working poor, expanded medicaid, allowing children to remain on parents plans, etc.

"Also, the GOP wants a bill that won't let you discharge your medical debts in BK."
Which has nothing to do with this bill.

[Yavin4]

46. If Cong, Made It IIllegal, Then Ins. Cos. Simply Won't Issue Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions

Employer based plans have these restrictions because they're bringing a large number of customers which spreads out the risks.

Believe whatever you want, but without something to spread out the risks, insurance companies simply won't cover you if you have a history of medical needs.

[Statistical]

47. Congress could prohibit denying for pre-existing coverage.

Congress could prohibit an insurance company offer the same rate to everyone in a state. They can make it any rate they want but whatever rate they chose it would be universal (including employer based plans).

[Yavin4]

56. They Could, But They Won't

Congress does not give a damn about you or your health, and that includes Dems and Repubs. They care about campaign contributions. That's why, given the context, this bill is actually pretty good. At least, it attempts to get more people health insurance and that alone is major step forward.

[ThomCat]

64. All of your BS answers ignore the facts that

every other industrialized nation succeeds in delivering healthcare, to greater shares of their population, less expensively, without mandating that anyone become customers of any private corporate product.

They have proven that it can be done, and can be done well, and can be done for far less less money that what we are throwing away.

The only reason we are having these BS discussions is because people are committed guaranteeing huge profits for insurance companies. If you were not so damned committed to being the insurance industries best friend we could have real access to health care.

[Yavin4]

69. You Just Are Not Getting It

It does not matter what other nations do or not do. Our Congress flat out does not care you or me. They only care about getting money for their campaigns. End of story.

[ThomCat]

73. Yes, that is very true.

Which is why all the dems who voted for this crappy bill are afraid to stand up to republicans and industry lobbyists and defend it.

Which is why it is getting watered down and eroded as we speak by republicans as we speak, and will continue to be eroded until there is little or nothing left even if the courts don't take it apart. In the follow up sessions to create that federal oversight department over insurance companies, republicans are going to make sure the department is even more toothless than the bill already mandates. And the bill already starts from a toothless position.

Most of the enforcement is left to the states, and republicans are going to make sure that at the state level rules are made in most states that make sure Nothing positive happens, and everything that does happen benefits corporations, not customers, regardless of the intent of this bill. In most states Republicans have too much strength for democrats to get any good insurance over-site or regulations passed. And even where democrats do have power, in many states they are conservative dems, bluedogs, and won't do anything that lobbyists don't want them to do.

So the idea that the this bill is great, we just need to protect the mandates, is ridiculous. This bill has some small good points too it, but they help very few people. Mostly though, it is more flaw than benefit. It is a prime example of shoddy legislation that is guaranteed to fall apart over time and not endure.

All that talk about this being the first step in a positive direction is BS, because we are already seeing several steps in the OTHER direction, and our government is allowing it.

• Insurance companies are being allowed to cut coverage for kids entirely in order to avoid provisions in this bill.
  
• They are being allowed to jack up how quickly they increase their rates to ensure record high profit margins by the time when they might have to maybe slow down their (not stop or reverse) their rate increases.
  
• In response to having to offer insurance to more people they are creating plans that cost more but cover far less, and in fact cover so little for so much money that they are effectively useless but still drive people bankrupt who have to pay for them.
  
• The initial bill required them to charge people with preexisting conditions or disabilities the same as everyone else. They complained. The government caved in, so now they are going to be able to charge us higher rates than everyone else because we use more services. But the whole point of the mandates was supposedly to prevent that from being necessary and keep insurance affordable for us. So much for that. Poof! Gone! The need for Profit has to come first.
  

[dflprincess]

60. Most the bankruptcies filed because of medical bills are filed

by people who have insurance and thought they were "covered".

Having insurance - including mandated insurance - is no guarantee that a person will have access to care when they need it.

[ThomCat]

67. That is true. Because insurance companies have been allowed

to introduce this evil feature called co-insurance. This means that even if you have insurance, you have to pay a percentage of the cost of your Operation, and MRIs, and the specialist's time, and it all adds up.

If you have a 50% co-insurance rate, which is very common, and your 2 day stay in the hospital costs $23,000, congratulations, your personal bill for that after insurance is going to be $11,500. And that would be for something minor. If you had something serious, the bill could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How many people can afford that?

I have been spending $600 per month to continue my work insurance through COBRA. That ends shortly and I will have no insurance. I will be eligible for Medicare early this summer, so I have been pricing individual insurance just for the few months I would need to last to get me through that gap.

Do you have any idea how expensive it would be for me to get private insurance for myself as an individual? I just got quoted insurance today that would cost me several Thousand dollars before I any benefit at all, between the initial cost and deductible. Several Thousand dollars! Then I thought it was $1,000 per month, but I just got the actual application and it's actually $1,800 per month. On top of that it has a co-insurance rate of 20%. I'm supposed to be glad it's only 20%, but after paying several thousand dollars, and then co-payments, getting hit with 20% of every doctor's office fee, every service fee, every expense, this adds up to far more than I could ever hope to pay.

To have insurance for just a few months, this would cost me my entire income every single month, and I would still be left in debt afterward!

[Recursion]

33. That won't work at current Medicare rates

How much are you willing to see your Medicare levy go up? Alternately, how high of a premium are you willing to pay to buy in?

[kenny blankenship]

34. We need a party that wants to expand Medicare, not one that tries to cut Social Security

[bvar22]

36. Amen!!!

"We need a party that wants to expand Medicare, not one that tries to cut Social Security."

When the Working Class & The Poor realize we have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the Ruling Elite leadership of BOTH parties,
we can demand "CHANGE".

[defendandprotect]

45. +1000% --

[peace frog]

52. I heard that

but where and what is this brave, humanistic and insightful political party? Not in the US, and certainly not the Democrats.

[neverforget]

70. Indeed! +1000

[maryf]

37. Medicare for all

K&R

[Shagbark Hickory]

38. Did we suddenly no longer need 60 votes and a majority in the house as well?

There's nothing wrong with day dreaming but the political realities are what they are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Fantasyland.

Republicans in the House will let people die instead. It's what they do. They don't care.

They are far too invested in the idea that government can't do anything right to permit it to do something right.

Your grandchildren will get the opportunity to try again.

[Mimosa]

41. Dems did not even try for a health care program people would like.

Thus, the opposition. Who really liked what they did?

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. When 45% of congress is elected based on their vandalism skills...

... it's unsurprising that the rest can't agree enough get much done.

[defendandprotect]

43. We should all be wearing MEDICARE FOR ALL buttons all the time ... !!

Where are they? Why aren't our Democratic elected officials handing them out?

Where are we organized in any way to represent the 76%+ of Americans who want

single-payer government run health care - MEDICARE FOR ALL.

Are we going to get anywhere without being organized -- united?

Elites/corporations are united in every way possible -- up, down and sideways --

hierarchies of power -- think tanks -- control of medica -- !!

Seniors are NOT orgnaized -- except thru AARP an insurance company!

What's wrong with us -- ?

It's like expecting to win a race we haven't even entered into!

[indimuse]

48. KNR! n/t

[Aaria]

50. Imagine how many people will retire if they gave medicare to all. Perfect jobs bill.

[earth mom]

51. Screw the health care profiteers! Health Care for EVERYONE! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

53. +1000

[kestrel91316]

54. SINGLE. PAYER. NOW.

[Dokkie]

55. K & R

[Swampguana]

57. K&R

[duhneece]

58. My favorite libertarian dr suggested Medicare for all

I nearly fell over when Dr. Singh suggested that we expand Medicare to all Americans as the easiest, best way to provide healthcare for all.

[totodeinhere]

59. It's a good idea, but how in the world are we going to get that through the GOP controlled House?

And they will have more than enough votes to filibuster it in the Senate.

[slipslidingaway]

61. The Dems could start by not silencing not for profit advocates from the ....

discussions and hearing. Also by not confusing and misrepresenting medicare for all which was done during the recent debate... that would be a good start.

Or they could talk about the boomers that will be retiring and how that will strain the Medicare system, but they did not.

The Dems have so many convenient excuses.

:shrug:

They need to at least try, they have not.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. "They need to at least try, they have not."............

And this in a nutshell, has been my problem with the Obama administration all along. THEY DON'T EVEN TRY. Put the best plan out there. If the Repubs shoot it down, so be it, but at least the BEST plan is out there and the people will know who shot it down.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Exactly, this is a big problem as they not only did not try, they actively...

excluded those who would best fight against the for profit system. Beginning with the initial WH summit on HC and then the backroom deal with the Pharma lobby to not negotiate Medicare drug prices. It was in the Obama HC plan that he would have Medicare negotiate bulk pricing for drug like the VA and he made a great speech a couple of months before he made the deal with Billy Tauzin. Unfortunately, unless the corporate media calls him on the inconsistency between the great speeches and what is done, people do not always have the time to connect the dots.

The Dems took a universal not for profit HC system off the table in 1993 and then again in 2009.

:(

How was he consistent when he stated in his speech in late 2008 that ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/362

Exactly, just as in 1993 - It's Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance - by Jeff Cohen
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/359

[bertman]

63. I'd love to think that this could trigger implementation of the Public Option or

Medicare for all except, of course, for the arguments that have been presented in this thread. Such as: the current Medicare reimbursement rates suck and who's going to provide service for all of these newly-insured folks.

In a recent interview with Dr. Andrew Weil he commented on how he'd love to see a universal healthcare system EXCEPT that our current state of ILL health in the U.S. would quickly bankrupt us. Between the piss-poor nutritional choices we make, the burgeoning obesity problem and all of the associated physical problems that come with that, our increasingly sedentary lifestyle, and the HUGE percentage of Americans who are in the heavy health care years, we would quickly overload the system.

His solution was a combination of preventive healthcare, which we don't have any more (except for self-educated and motivated individuals), and effective, universal access to medical care.

Somehow I doubt that there will be a solution to this problem--at least not if Congress has anything to do with it. The Democrats had their chance and blew it. We know where the Republicans stand.

[slipslidingaway]

68. "The Democrats had their chance and blew it..."

Yes they did!

"and the HUGE percentage of Americans who are in the heavy health care years, we would quickly overload the system..."

So instead we should pay subsidies for the healthier segment of our society to buy insurance, not care, from for profit corporations?

This was the perfect time for Dems to make the case that we need to fund HC for all, but as you said the Dems blew it again. We hear talk of SS being attacked, but the real expense is Medicare for the boomers, let's see what they do with that in the years ahead. What does he think the huge percentage of Americans will do to Medicare??? This should be a case for tax funded universal HC where the risk is spread to every citizen, not a case for tax dollars for subsidies for the healthiest segment of our population ... IMHO.

[bertman]

75. Well said, slipslidingaway.

[slipslidingaway]

77. bertman, if the Dems now come back with entitlement cuts to reduce...

the deficit we should be mad that they passed up this opportunity to advance the idea of universal, not for profit HC.

:hi: