Why don't they just let everyone buy into Medicare?

[GOPBasher]

This would be the simplest option for universal health care. Keep Medicare, and let everyone buy into it on a sliding scale according to their income and wealth (poorest -- free, richest -- pay all, etc.). Absorb Medicaid as part of Medicare, so their is only one government insurance rather than two or more, which is more complex and therefore ultimately more expensive. Require that everyone gets health insurance. Keep all the cost-saving measures being discussed in the current bills. I bet in ten years, we'd be along the lines of European countries, who spend far, far less on health care than we do (typically 10%-12% of GDP, compared to our 17%) and cover everyone.

[pnwmom]

1. Too simple. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

2. because the purpose of "reform" is to destroy medicare.

[bvar22]

25. I am very worried about that.

HR 3200 (The House Bill) claims that 50% ($500Billion) of their Bill will be paid for by "savings" in Medicare, but I've seen NO details about those proposed "savings".

Cutting Medicare by $500 Billion dollars would destroy it as a viable program.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. Yep

Free marketeers want to destroy all public systems.

Obama states quite clearly he is a lover of the free market and a true believer in capitalism. So all of this hoohaw about what Obama "should do" forgets the fact that Obama on principle stands against the people and for the markets.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. It's a great idea...

I don't know why we don't do that.

And in fact, that's what Medicare was supposed to do.

It was supposed to gradually be increased to cover everyone.

What a shame that it didn't get there.

[DJ13]

7. Your post illustrates why the thinking that a public option is a stepping stone

......to a single payer system is wrong.

If we want single payer we cant afford to let the politicians stall us for another 40+ years by offering us a panacea of a public option.

[old guy]

9. Great point.

This is why we must get a single payer/Medicare type system now because whatever we get is what we will live or die with. The idea that we can take some now and gradually make it better down the road is a policy doomed to failure. It simply won't happen.

[redqueen]

4. Because that would threaten the private insurance industry's profits.

Seriously, that's the reason.

That's why they kept talking about making the public option "fair" for private insurance companies to compete with... can't have the public option offering such a savings... how would the private companies keep making their profits?

It's in-your-face corporatism... and too many of Dems are sold out to put a stop to it. Or they could be cowardly rather than sold out... doesn't really matter.

[JuniperLea]

11. That sums it up nicely...

Wouldn't you rather have a CEO between you and your doctor than the government? Don't you want to see billions of our health-care dollars going into the pockets of said CEO's?

Remember, it's called The Health Care INDUSTRY... they are making a killing off killing. That's illegal in most states, btw, that killing stuff.

I'm so tired of making other people rich.

[dflprincess]

15. Not just the industry's profits -

but all those campaign "contributions" it makes to Congress.

[redqueen]

20. But of course... if nothing were in it for them, no selling out would be involved. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

5. Or some variation

Kerry was suggesting something similar when he ran. Basically letting small employers buy insurance for their employees through the government, either medicare/caid or as part of the federal employee insurance program. He suggested that the government could probably charge more than it would cost them, and increase the economies of scale. It scared the hell out of the GOP because "small business" really liked the idea.

[mamaleah]

6. If it's too obvious or simple, elected officials aren't into it.

They need to feel like they have important jobs to do. Like arguing and thinking and complaining that they don't have support or that they need to think and argue some more. That way you think you really have a good representative because they spend so much time in committee meetings arguing and thinking.

Awesome scam if you can get the job.

[stopbush]

8. One problem would be with your "richest - pay all" end of the bargain.

The highest premium payments for rich people would have to be capped to undercut private insurers. Otherwise, why would rich people sign up for Medicaid if they can get a private plan for the same or a bit less than Medicaid? The private plan would offer them more bells and whistles as well.

If the richest don't buy in, then that hurts the cash flow to fund the poor who are getting it for free, and the middle-income people who are getting a discount compared to a private plan. There needs to be a balance reached, where the rich aren't soaked and everybody else pays something.

There's no simple solution.

[GOPBasher]

10. That's a good point.

We can still cap the premiums for everyone, including the richest. Any shortfall in the system can be made up through the general treasury. Remember, we already have a huge shortfall in the coming years in Medicare and Medicaid; I can't imagine that my scenerio would make it worse. With all the cost cutting measures, it can only make it better, despite covering everyone. If Europe can pay far less and cover everyone in the process, we can too. We just need a more rational system.

[bluethruandthru]

12. Yes there is....Single Payer! n/t

[stopbush]

16. Single Payer may be philosophically simple, but it it not politically simple.

When I said there was no simple solution, I was thinking globally, not in a vacuum.

I would back single payer in a heartbeat...unless it somehow cost me more per month than the expensive and worthless insurance I have now (it's complicated). While no one assumes single payer would cost more than private insurance, who knows? An enterprising private insurer could undercut a government program if they wanted. They'd just need to drastically curb their profit margins and their shareholder dividends.

[Xithras]

19. The "richest" generally don't buy insurance at all.

The truly wealthy don't buy health insurance of any sort, because insurance is often looked upon as a bad investment. You ONLY purchase insurance if you DO NOT have the resources to correct an issue if it occurs. To the richest, with millions available via cash or credit line, doctors and hospitals are cheap.

Health insurance is used by the poor to the upper middle class, but that's it. Insurance, in general, is a hedge against disaster. People only insure against events that would be financially disastrous.

[stopbush]

27. I work with a lot of millionaires and billionaires in my role at a non-profit,

and I can assure you that they ALL have medical insurance, and great insurance at that.

They have it because they know that even the most-expensive plan is cheap to them, and that they will save money each and every year by having medical insurance. It makes no sense to roll the dice on this when top-quality medical insurance IS an excellent investment, especially as many of these people are over 50.

Yes, they have plenty of money to spend on medicine if they wish, but they spend it on elective procedures that aren't covered by their insurance, like liposuction and botox and having their teeth made to look perfect. They'll also go out of network to see "the" specialist in a field because they can afford to pay the difference from what their plan would pay for an in-network Rx.

Truth be told, my experience has shown me that billionaires are more frugal with their money than the Average Joe, that they appreciate a bargain as much as the next guy, and that most of them didn't get to where they are financially by winging it and rolling the dice on how they were going to pay their bills, both expected and unexpected - and medical expenses certainly fall into both of those categories.

[izquierdista]

21. They would still buy in

Especially when they know the probability of a private plan not covering a procedure or treatment or denying coverage altogether when Medicare would be required to pay for it.

[madrchsod]

13. it took 11 months from the signing of the medicare act to pay the first bill

trivia-harry truman was issued the first medicare card

they will not allow medicare for all because the insurance companies would lose 100`s of billions in profits.

[mmonk]

14. Because people would.

[spin]

17. We have to preserve the profits of the medical insurance companies...

because they support the politicians we elect.

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. Medicare For All has been a goal for a long time.

Big money from big money interests to our elected representatives is the reason why they refuse to institute it.

Medicare For All should be the rallying cry. It should be on bumper stickers and on bumpers all across the Nation. Forget the phrase "public option". Forget the phrase "single payer". Whenever any other phrase is floated, the 72 percent of the population that wants a single payer plan should shout "MEDICARE FOR ALL".



But we can not all get on board one idea and ride it to victory. Epic fail.

[elocs]

22. I heard on the latest Bill Moyers program the suggestion the Medicare could be expanded gradually.

Drop the age down to 55, 45 and so on until everyone is covered. Then insurance companies will have time to get out of the primary healthcare business.

[teachableseconds]

23. Guess.

Yeah, even 'our side' in bed with Big Business,' AKA the INSURANCE RACKET!!!!:mad:

This is why, during the Primaries, I wasn't gaga over POTUS' plan. I felt that unless it was single-payer, it was half-assed at best. I was talking to an Obama volunteer two weeks ago and she was trying to get signatures for her bill. When I told her my concerns, she countered that there was a single-payer option on the table. Hope springs eternal...

[librechik]

24. If only

our failure to do this simple thing has made me lose faith in my country. Why do we allow ours4elves to be enslaved to these greedy pigs in the insurance industry? (and elsewhere)

SIGH!

[Captain Hilts]

26. Bubba wanted to lower the Medicare age to 55. nt

[glowing]

28. That would be a HR that's already sitting around collecting dust now..

Also known as a single payer system. AND I would be the first to switch.. we cannot afford to have another increase like this year.. It went up $100/ mo., changed providers, and covers less.

[Hubert Flottz]

30. We need "Means Testing" for folks who register to run for any

national political office! And also for any politician already in Washington. Too rich to be normal, or to relate to normal people's problems? GET OUT!

The "OWNERSHIP Society" means that the big corporations own our federal Representatives.