The Nation: Three Words Mr. President: "Medicare for All"

[seafan]

Three Words Mr. President: "Medicare for All"

By John Nichols
September 8, 2009

As President Obama prepares to deliver a Wednesday address to Congress that must reframe the debate about healthcare reform, he is getting plenty of advice and counsel with regard to messaging.
Plenty of folks will tell the president that he cannot change course, that he simply needs to offer a better explanation of what's on offer.

Wrong.

The fact is that the president must change course.

And the wisest counsel on how to do so has come from New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Don't try to explain the "public option" one more more time.
The cure for what ails a healthcare system that leaves close to 50 million Americans uninsured and at least that many underinsured is not an "option."
It is genuine change that makes sense to Americans who are anxious and confused about what might be buried in a 1,000-page House bill or, worse yet, in the backroom where Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, is busy bartering away the public interest.

Instead of listening to the White House aides and advisers -- and congressional compromisers -- who have so ill-served the reform initiative that it is now imperiled, the president should consult a legislator who "gets it."

That would be New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, the Brooklyn Democrat who has emerged as a smart, steady advocate for a change that is realistic and comprehensible.
"As President Obama prepares to address the nation about his vision for healthcare reform, we should not overlook the last, best truly transformative change to our healthcare system: Medicare," argues Weiner, who explains that:

.......

Weiner is not merely offering Obama and Democratic leaders a practical proposal. He is telling them how to get out of the political corner in which they placed themselves by trying too hard to satisfy Republican legislators and their insurance-industry paymasters.
"Medicare also provides us with a case study in the hypocrisy of our Republican friends who have built their party on a 44-year record of undermining this popular program. And now their Chairman sees no irony in ripping 'government run' healthcare while publishing an op-ed opposing changes to Medicare, argues Weiner.

"If Medicare has been such a success, why not extend it? Why not have single-payer plans for 55-year-olds? Why not have one for young citizens who just left their parents or college coverage?"

.....

[FLDCVADem]

1. No thanks

Medicare for those that want it.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. I think they mean "available for all"

which would be the same thing in practice.

[FLDCVADem]

14. Not the same

As not everyone wants it. In fact, I don't know anyone IRL that wants Medicare.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. It is if it's opt-in.

I believe they're talking about expanding availability, not mandating everyone take it.

[FLDCVADem]

16. Ah yes, got it

Yes, if it's opt-in, great.

[bobbolink]

22. Which of course, then effectively sets it up to fail.

Because most of those who, according to you would want it, are those who are already very sick and need more care than others, so the cost wouldn't be spread over a large pool.

Your statement that nobody you know wants it is very curious.

[FLDCVADem]

25. Why would it fail?

First, I'm not saying that we shouldn't all have to pay into it via taxes, just as we pay into Medicare now. But I believe that just like Medicare, we should have the option of actually paying premiums and using it or paying premiums into a private plan and using that instead.

Second, not sure why my statment about not knowing anyone that wants to use Medicare is curious - most of my friends and family have insurance and are happy with what they have, as am I.

[bobbolink]

27. I explained why it *could* fail.

[Doremus]

32. I find it curious too, as in curious WHY.

Why most of your friends and family have insurance and are happy with what they have, as are you ...?

If you don't mind some questions:

Is your/their insurance paid, in full or part, by your employers?
Have you/they had to use your/their insurance for anything major?


As someone who has paid $1000/mo. for the last several years for insurance coverage and spends at least $15K annually for medical expenses, I can't imagine *anyone* being satisfied with status quo.

That's why I'm so curious. Thanks.

[FLDCVADem]

42. No, I don't mind questions at all

I currently pay about $5000/year for family coverage, employer pays about $6200 of the bill, so I pay a bit less than half. It's a PPO (Aetna), so we have a network, but it's huge in this area (metro DC).

No deductible, 100% covered for preventative care, $15 co-pay for office visits, $25 co-pay for specialists (self-referral OK). $5,000,000 lifetime cap per family member. $100 ER payment if not admitted, $100 co-pay for outpatient surgery.

The biggest thing we've had to use it for was my husband's back injury and follow on treatment last year, and we had no problems whatsoever. My total out of pocket was less than $600 for 6 months worth of treatments, including an ambulance trip to the ER (not admitted).

Most of our friends have the same or better coverage through their jobs, in spite of the fact that most of us are retired military and could use TriCare. So no, I don't know anyone that wants to use Medicare instead of what we already have.

[raccoon]

43. You and your friends are exceedingly fortunate. I haven't had group insurance

since 1993. Neither of my sibs has group. One has it through her husband, other has a private insurance. As I do, FWIW.

I know lots of people who don't have any insurance. Most of them couldn't afford a private plan.

[FLDCVADem]

44. Absolutely, and I'm incredibly grateful for it

I'm 100% in favor of making Medicare the "public option" for anyone that wants to use it, but I'm happy with what I have and have no desire to go into Medicare.

[Doremus]

45. Your benefits are good but Medicare is every bit as good, and in some ways better.

My mother was in the hospital the last month of her life, most of the time in ICU. Between Medicare and her supplemental policy, total out of pocket was $600, $200 of which was for the ambulance ride.


Low monthly premiums
No preexisting conditions
Free choice of doctors
No lifetime cap


I never understood the mindset that "if it costs more it must be better." Medicare is proof positive.

[FLDCVADem]

51. Nope, not interested

I had government healthcare for 20 years in the military, and it sucked. I want no part of it now.

[kctim]

58. Totally agree!!!

[mike_c]

67. why do you call medicare "government health care...?

Most folks I know on Medicare get their health care from the same places I get mine. It just costs them a whole lot less.

[FLDCVADem]

69. Because it's funded and run by the government n/t

[mike_c]

71. that just doesn't make sense to me....

Lots of things are genuinely "funded and run by the government." If that's sufficient reason to oppose them, then life must be hard for you.

But Medicare is not much more than a means of providing insurance coverage for the elderly who insurance companies don't want to cover. Medicare patients are the folks sitting next to you at your doctor's office, or the folks in the bed next to you at your hospital. They don't go to some substandard or different "government health care." They're getting the same medical care you and I are getting, from the same doctors and hospitals. What's not to like about that?

[Doremus]

72. You made that clear before and I answered I never understood people who want to pay more for less

Is there some sort of prestige in paying more than necessary for something??

No matter. I pointed out the benefits of Medicare mostly for the benefit of others who might not realize it ... not because I thought you would be interested.

You've already made it abundantly clear you have no interest in anything but status quo.




To recap for other readers, Medicare has everything this person's policy has PLUS

Lower monthly premiums
No lifetime cap
No preexisting conditions
Free choice of doctors

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. FYI...That $6200 your employer pays is in lieu of wages/other benefits.

Your true out-of-pocket is $11,200 a year.

[FLDCVADem]

52. You're assuming they would pay me the $6200

which is not a given by any stretch.

Medicare would cost me the premium plus a 20% co-pay. No thanks.

[harun]

57. People are happy with their Insurance until they decide not to pay a 30k bill.

It hasn't happened to you yet, but it will.

You think you are paying them for coverage but you are paying them to figure out how to not have to pay you.

[FLDCVADem]

61. I'm sorry that you think insurance sucks

I don't, and I won't have a $30,000 bill to pay.

[harun]

64. Well then maybe you could at least show SOME empathy for those

who have had bills that big and have gone bankrupt because their insurance wasn't as good as they thought.

But hey you have yourself all set so screw everyone's beefs with the system right? That's the American thing to do right?

You're a pig.

[FLDCVADem]

70. I call bullshit

I'm all for a government option that is just like Medicare, available for anyone of any age that wants to buy into it. I don't, however, wish to be forced into it myself. I'll be happy to pay an increased tax to make it available for others, but I don't want it for myself or for my family.

How exactly am I saying "screw everyone's beefs with the system"?

[bvar22]

48. Thats odd.

"I don't know anyone IRL that wants Medicare."
???

I don't know anyone who has Medicare that would give it up to buy For Profit Health Insurance.

[FLDCVADem]

53. And I'm glad they like Medicare

I just don't know anyone that would be willing to give up their current insurance for Medicare.

[bvar22]

60. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6500579

NOW, you know people who would drop their For Profit Health Insurance "in a heart beat" if allowed to buy in to Medicare.
You should get out more often and meet more people.

[FLDCVADem]

62. These are names on a board

not people I know.

[DemReadingDU]

66. I would gladly give up my current insurance for Medicare

Current insurance costs me $500 per month, and I have to pay all prescriptions from my own pocket.

[mike_c]

68. me....

I would. In a skinny minute. Why should I want to continue helping corporate execs and stockholders profit by not providing care for American citizens?

[DemReadingDU]

65. I do, I want Medicare!

[Dark]

49. Medicare for any american. That's what they should say.

n/t

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[mmonk]

3. Weiner should deliver the speech.

[OwnedByFerrets]

4. Medicare for ALL...easy to define, easy to defend.

There isnt but ONE problem. Their corporate masters wont like it, so it wont happen. Just like ANY public option isnt going to happen.

[ddeclue]

5. Weiner TOTALLY shut down Joe Scarborough with this a few weeks back

The Scab himself was speechless and admitted that Weiner had him. It was an awesome display.

[seafan]

6. '...insurance companies skim 30 percent profits from the current system .. to satisfy shareholders.'

Rep. Anthony Weiner:

"The real reason we haven't seen the Democratic Party embrace the obvious and simpler idea is that it boils down to pure beltway politics. We've been reluctant to tackle the real inefficiency in the current system, namely, the very presence of the private insurance companies. Too many in Washington would rather stay friends with the insurance and drug companies when real reform probably can't be achieved in a way that makes these powerful institutions happy."

Noting that insurance companies skim 30 percent profits from the current system in order to satisfy shareholders, Weiner says: "Let's leave it to the Republicans to defend those actions. I, and most Democrats, should not join the chorus that sounds like we care more about insurance companies than taxpayers.
"The same is true for Big Pharma. If Wal-Mart can pool its customers to be able to offer the $4 prescriptions, why shouldn't the federal government drive the same hard bargain on behalf of the tax payers so they too get the best prices under Medicare? I pose this exact question at every town hall meeting I attend and if my colleagues and the President did the same on Wednesday night, they would mix good policy with good politics. Instead we have watched a puzzling dance as policymakers have effectively limited the savings we would find in the enormous drug expenditures that are a fixture in our current system. Is it any wonder citizens are confused?"


Weiner is offering the president a way to address the confusion and to win the biggest domestic policy battle of his tenure:

I have no delusions about the muscle needed to overcome resistance from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. But I believe that for every American we may lose to a slash-and-burn TV ad funded by these businesses, we will gain five among those who are looking for a clear rationale for what we are trying to accomplish and an example for what it may look like.

We also achieve something else: realignment of the political universe. Democrats understand the role of government and are proud of our signature achievement: Medicare. The Republicans care most about big business.

I'll take that fight any day. And I'm hoping that the president will tell us on Wednesday that he is willing to do the same.


Anthony Weiner's right.

This is a fight that Barack Obama can win -- not for himself but for the tens of millions of Americans who need healthcare and for the hundreds of millions of Americans who need a better healthcare system.

But he won't win it by taking advice from George Bush: "stay the course."

He will win it by taking the wise counsel of Congressman Weiner and offering America what the people understand and want: "Medicare for All."

Medicare For All.

People understand it. People like it. And, Mr. President, the people want this.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seafan]

29. Robert Reich summarizes the 75-year history of the drive for universal health care in this country.

The battle for universal health care is older than most of us.



The lessons from history on healthcare reform

.....

Universal healthcare has bedeviled, eluded or defeated every president for the last 75 years. Franklin Roosevelt left it out of Social Security because he was afraid it would be too complicated and attract fierce resistance. Harry Truman fought like hell for it but ultimately lost. Dwight Eisenhower reshaped the public debate over it. John Kennedy was passionate about it. Lyndon Johnson scored the first and last major victory on the road toward achieving it. Richard Nixon devised the essential elements of all future designs for it. Jimmy Carter tried in vain to re-engineer it. The first George Bush toyed with it. Bill Clinton lost it and then never mentioned it again. George W. expanded it significantly, but only for retirees.

All the while, the ideal of universal care has revolved around two poles. In the 1930s, liberals imagined a universal right to healthcare tied to compulsory insurance, like Social Security. Johnson based Medicare on this idea, and it survives today as the “single-payer model” of universal healthcare, or “Medicare for all." The alternative proposal, starting with Eisenhower, was to create a market for healthcare based on private insurers and employers; he locked in the tax break for employee health benefits. Nixon came up with notions of prepaid, competing HMOs and urged a requirement that employers cover their employees. Everything since has been a variation on one or both of these competing visions. The plan now emerging from the White House and the Democratic Congress combines an aspect of the first (the public healthcare option) with several of the second (competing plans and an employer requirement to “pay or play”).

Devising a plan is easy compared with the politics of getting it enacted. Mere mention of national health insurance has always prompted a vigorous response from the ever-vigilant American Medical Association; in the 1930s, the editor of its journal equated national healthcare with “socialism, communism, inciting to revolution.” Bill Clinton’s plan was buried under an avalanche of hostility that included the now legendary ad featuring the couple Harry and Louise voicing their fears that the Clinton plan would substitute government for individual choice -- “they choose, we lose.”

Universality is not a plan *just cooked up* by Barack Obama.

[lib_wit_it]

38. Well, for one, I did.

[Hutzpa]

7. An excellent point

he should not let his advisers boxed him in, instead fight to hear from all sources
as you have always done.

[RoccoR5955]

8. Eliminate corporate greed -- MEDICARE FOR ALL!

These corporate ganifs are making way too much money. It's time to reel them in, and make them have to suffer a little. They have already made enough to fund all of their employees for most of their lives.
We should get rid of these corporations, whose only purpose is to rip you off, while they deny you the coverage that you paid for!

[crsteiny]

10. We can't pay for Medicare now!

We can't pay for the Medicare we provide now, how are we going to pay for it for everybody? Well...with much higher taxes and much less healthcare coverage especially for older people since people are living longer and the baby boomer generation is retiring. Medicare is unsustainable at this rate and this is only going to become a bigger issue...which is a main reason for this healthcare reform. As for these corporations that you recommend we get rid of, that would be a disaster to the economy when all of those employees no longer have jobs. Hey, they can all go work for the federal government then we the people can pay for their salaries and healthcare benefits for the rest of their lives! Where the heck is all this money going to come from????

[bobbolink]

11. You're new to this discussion, aren't you?

Or maybe you just like being shafted by your insurance company.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. We can just take the funding we need from the DOD budget.

[midnight armadillo]

28. AMEN!

And that's coming from someone who works for a DoD contractor.

[RoccoR5955]

13. We CAN pay for Medicare for EVERYONE now...

We just have to cut the defense department's budget, which is 1/2 of all the money on the planet spent on defense!
Put that into healthcare, and we wouldn't have to pay a penny for any healthcare!

[crsteiny]

17. I agree too much money is spent on...

the military and war. We need an exit strategy NOW. Too much of OUR money is going to OTHER economies. But anyway, seriously, in the case that the DOD budget isn't cut (which is most likely won't), really think about where the money is going to come from and if we can swing it realistically. Also, before this administration brought this reform about...I ask you guys to honestly respond to this...how many of you thought that universal healthcare should be a pressing issue for America? I'm not talking about healthcare reform, I'm asking about universal healthcare.

[PHIMG]

18. Low post count, demagouging against taxes and government spending....

I'll take the bait.

If we pumped into medicare system all the money that know goes to bloated premiums and is wasted on unneccesarily billing and paperwork you save $400 billion a year.

Private Insurance = 30% overhead.
Medicare = 3% overhead.

Providing everyone with health insurance is one of things government can do better than the private market.

The problem with Medicare is that the Congress has taken money for it and spent it on bullshit like wars for oil and other stuff.

Medicare costs are rising slower than costs in private insurance market.

You wouldn't shut down the insurers over night. You'd lower the eligibility age by 10 years every year or so. Some of these people who be needed in an enlarged HHS service. HR676 provides for extended unemployment benefits and extensive retraining opportunities.

I love how right-wingers hearts bleed for displaced Health Insurance employees but never shed a tear for the loss of industrial jobs to China and Mexico.

We can't afford the Private Insurance Middlemen. It's time for HR 676 - Medicare For All.

[crsteiny]

19. Gotcha

But, those percentages you quoted are skewed because of volume. That's why it's best to look at actual numbers rather than percentages.

So, did anyone think that universal healthcare was a pressing issue for America?

[ipaint]

31. Yes.

And I'm not alone.


Poll: Majority Would Pay Higher Taxes For Universal Health Care

"A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll – though many worry that the nation’s economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.

The poll also finds that health care is a major domestic concern for Americans, second only to the economy.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml

People are concerned about the cost mainly because every time someone wants to take a serious look at universal care or single payer the screaming chorus on both sides of the aisle shout them down with ins. industry memes like "it will never pass", "it's impossible", "there are no votes" etc, etc.
Even with the negative nellies and right wing hatemongers like Beck, the majority of americans support universal care for all even if their taxes increase. With a little knowledge and a serious public discussion that number would go up.


Whether we get a weak public option or no public option, for profit private ins. premiums are predicted to double in the next decade. At some point in those ten years you or/and your employer will no longer be able to afford the cost to cover you. That means you get to risk suffering and death along with the rest of us uninsured.

So unless your a trust fund baby or independently wealthy you too will eventually be without access to care.

Do we really need to wait until another quarter million americans die for lack of access to care in the next decade for you to come around to the idea that health care for everyone is good for the country and you.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. The answer to your question is YES !

[crsteiny]

20. I didn't mean...

Sorry, I didn't mean "gotcha" as in I'm catching you out on anything, just trying to say that I understand what you are saying. :)

[sharesunited]

24. Smile when you say that, pardner.

[lib_wit_it]

39. Funny, I don't recall your side telling Dubya that we couldn't afford the Iraq war. If you had,

we'd have all the money we need for Universal health care, and for many other social programs and far overdue infrastructure projects.

[blindpig]

59. Take it from the Pentagon, two birds with one stone. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

21. Opening up Medicare would be the most logical, productive and politically astute achievements

to come out of Washington since they opened up the Internet for the people.

Thanks for the thread, seafan:thumbsup:

[eminentcreativity]

23. Change the name of a single-payer system from "Medicare" to "AmeriCARE"

If you wanted to keep Medicare around and add some special benefits for senior citizens not in AmeriCARE, I'd be fine with that.

[RoccoR5955]

30. I'm more for calling it Teddycare, or Kennedycare myself n/t

[strategery blunder]

37. Teddycare has a nice ring to it. eom

[bertman]

33. Hip Hip Hooray!!! Recommend.

[Libertas1776]

34. Medicare for All

one would hope, but at the way things are going...:eyes:

[colsohlibgal]

35. Agreed John But....

....The odds of hearing that tomorrow from Obama are approximately the same as someone actually getting that 65 million from the prince in Nigeria.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. +1

:evilgrin:

[Desertrose]

36. Read HR 676...its worth a few moments...universal single payer healthCARE!

"Public option" is a joke...won't help the ones who need it, only helps the insurance corporations.

Healthcare for all is eminently do-able....it it inexcusable this country does not provide for the basic healthcare of the people who live here & pay taxes.

[Liquorice]

40. Maybe they should call it "Expanded Medicare." That sounds good. nt

[avaistheone1]

41. Keep the message simple: Medicare for All

[glinda]

47. If I hear "how MN. health care" can be a model I will puke.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[druidity33]

63. Or Massachusetts... nt.

[Faryn Balyncd]

50. K&R - Will OUR Democratic Party beget the mother of all Corporate Welfare, Bait & Switch scams?....

(pass a bill the lobbyists could only dream about under Republican rule?)



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6498666&mesg_id=6498666






Or will we stand up & fight for Medicare-for-All?

[slipslidingaway]

56. knr nt