Thom Hartmann persists to endorse a Medicare-for-all system

[flakban]

Of late, Mr. Hartmann and others have been emphasizing the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of a Medicare-for-all healthcare system for America. Since the Medicare system is already in place for retired and disabled folks, only minor modifications to existing legislation would be needed for it to include everyone. Of course some logistical and administrative changes would be required. But such modification to Medicare would be far less complex and expensive than a separate brand-new program.

It may be that the expansion of such an existing program is a political impossibility at the moment. However, I'm curious as to what DU'ers see as the merits and caveats in this concept.

Although the idea hasn't gained much traction, a Medicare for all Americans system has been described by numerous individuals throughout the healthcare debate and, as highlighted in Berni McCoy's thread yesterday (at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6397655), Senator Kennedy in fact drafted a bill called "Medicare for All" in 2007. I think the matter deserves serious consideration and I'm just wondering what everyone here thinks.

The alternative is described here: http://www.squidoo.com/realdeathpanels">Lets Just Keep Fattening the Wallets of Insurance Executives

[Greyhound]

1. Of course it does. We've been talking about it here for over two years (where does it go?)

Look up HR. 676.

There is an open conspiracy to keep this rational plan off the radar.

[Laelth]

2. Kennedy's 2007 "Medicare-for-all" bill is excellent.

It's much better than even the most liberal bill under consideration in Congress (HB 3200). "Medicare-for-all" would be a much easier sell in this political climate. People love Medicare.

I say, go for it!

:dem:

-Laelth

[polichick]

3. +1

[redqueen]

4. It would be a MUCH better deal for taxpayers!

But it would impinge more on profits for private insurance... which is why it's a non-starter with parasites in DC.

[jody]

5. Great but Congress needs to solve two major problems, funding and low fee schedules for primary care

that dissuade MDs from entering family medicine, internal medicine and pediatrics.

[DCKit]

7. The difference in payments is largely the cost of Doctors and Hospitals administrative fees...

fighting the private insurance corporations for every penny. Medicare, not so much.

On the insurance side, well, it costs a lot of money to deny care on the scale they do.

[jody]

9. My friends who are primary care physicians tell me the same story discussed in article below.

Family doctors: An endangered breed

[flakban]

10. So what's the answer?

Regardless of which healthcare coverage reform package is implemented, all currently uninsured Americans will still require quality medical care. This means that any way you slice it 46 million Americans are going to need access to primary care doctors. So what's the fix? Certainly not allowing the health insurance corporations to continuing raping the masses with harsh risk exclusion measures. That only serves to keep healthcare from lots of people.

Since the physicians' payment structure isn't likely to get revamped, perhaps a reward incentive for primary care doctors should be somehow implemented.


Thoughts?

[jody]

11. Answer is simple, pay primary care doctors more. Medicare needs to increase fees for primary care

and insurance companies will follow.

[flakban]

12. So...

a Medicare-for-all bill including an appropriately increased reimbursement scale for primary care doctors powered through with 51 votes via reconciliation?

[jody]

13. If such a bill is properly funded IMO it should be a viable competitor for HCR. n/t

[flakban]

14. Yes, funding would especially become a critical point. I hope for a bill like this...

Recent events and attitudes considered, though, I'm less than encouraged.

[jody]

15. I'm less than encouraged also. n/t

[flakban]

16. However...

if the money that's currently going to the private health insurance industry's 30% overhead were instead applied to fund a single payer all-inclusive system like Medicare, considering that there'd be no insurance executives sucking multiple millions of $ (to over one billion $) per year out of that overhead, I bet it could be done for even less money than the collective of medical insurance consumers are now paying for coverage.

[Festivito]

6. Good. How to divert 1.5T$/yr from Insurance Co's?

About 3% of work earnings currently goes into medicare. About 20% of work earnings and rising goes to insurance companies.

How do we get that? Only some companies supply health care to workers. So, if everyone gets taxed, they'll have to START paying. Be certain we'll hear screams of taxation!

Plus, the insurance company/hospital clerical armies will have to go the way of the American auto worker. Ouch. Jobs gone.

Doctors will make less -- suddenly. The shortage will be blamed on the pay. (Won't be true, but that won't stop our media.)

The actual cost of all health care for all Americans for all procedures could go as low as 1T$/yr. (From 2.4T$/yr ... a huge savings for all of US.)

Long term. Companies will look at Medicare and say, why do I need more than that, and drop separate insurance as unnecessary, leaving Medicare fully funded and our workers earning more money.

Win win and win.

[Cleita]

18. When the public option was first conceived of, the idea was to make

the insurers compete with Medicare and give people and companies an affordable choice. I think the idea was to get them out of the business. When health care stops being profitable for them, they will. This means we have to get every corrupt and bribed by the industry politician out of office to begin with so meaningful legislation can be passed. Second, we need to stop buying their product. In order to do this we need another choice. I hope Medicare will be that choice.

[flakban]

19. makes perfect sense to me (nt)

[Mr Generic Other]

8. single-payer, universal health care coverage is the only acceptable

answer to the problems associated with our current system of paying for health care.
there is no sane reason for us to subsidize (at high cost) insurance corporations which have demonstrated "bad faith" in the delivery of their product.
of course, some of those in the industry will need to seek new employment but they are not unskilled and could easily be employed if we required other corporations which feed at the national trough to discontinue outsourcing jobs.
besides resulting in a more healthy population a single-payer model would promote the idea of equality and probably lead to a renewed community spirit.
my message to the elected officials, whose phone lines i haunt, has been that since the public option was a compromise to attract support from those who would not bargain in good faith, and they have rejected even the compromise, then the single-payer model should be rammed through.
while i think its a great idea it has not been received well by my senators or my congressman.
humm?

[Cleita]

17. You pay into it. Shouldn't you be able to benefit from it?

Also, if everyone has to be in it, for basic care anyway, the quality of the program will increase because the elitists will demand it. The hospitals will be cleaner, better staffed and better equipped. The doctors will have to be on their best game because the rich will demand it. So the rest of us will benefit from the improved quality of medical care. It seems to be what has happened in other countries of the world who have universal health care.

[flakban]

20. great points! (nt)