If the Senate thinks that "US Americans" will be happy about paying $865 a MONTH for Medicare @

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

then they are DUMBER than Miss Teen South Carolina!!!

The quote from Schumer was paying "the full unsubsidized cost". Politico says that figure from the CBO is $865 per person per month. An uninsured couple over 55 would be paying 1730 a month or almost 21K a year!!!

This is a f!@#ing OUTRAGE if they think this is accessible, affordable healthcare for Americans. It will help essentially NO ONE except those that are wealthy enough so that it is not a concern anyway.

I am beyond disgust.

Not to mention that limiting the buy-in to just those over 55 was a farce in the first place, but then to make the buy-in have absolutely no value to the majority of Americans is a farce of a farce of a sham of a charade.

Thank you FOR NOTHING, you worthless, spineless Senate shills!

[senseandsensibility]

1. That is insane

I am beyond disgusted.

[dysfunctional press]

2. it's fun to watch all the people who have been swooning over 'opening up medicare to those under 55'

wait til they get the bill.
:rofl:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Opening up medicare to those (actually it was OVER) 55 has been suggested

since Bill Clinton and it has always been an obvious way to expand coverage to a sector of the population that is often unemployed or underemployed and having a majority of previous or chronic conditions, so yes I was happy to see this proposed.

But, I think in every single post where I thought this was great, I always noted that confining it to just this population was wrong and that it should be opened up to anyone with prior conditions, or anyone who did not have employer provided coverage.

What I did NOT anticipate was that this move would cynically open up coverage that turns out to be EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than what is available on the open market! I say this from a position of knowlege because right this second my husband and I are covered under what many considered to be a very expensive COBRA plan that will expire at the end of this month that costs $900 for both of us.

Our "reform" will cost us TWICE AS MUCH!!!!

The SENATE is filled with a bunch of ignorant, out of touch, insane corporate buffoons who HAVE NO CLUE what the average American earns, lives on or is concerned about. If they think this is an acceptable "REFORM" they really should all be run out of town by an angry mob with torches and pitchforks.

NO ONE could do a worse job if they tried.

[dysfunctional press]

10. it would be another HUGH giveaway to the insurance companies...

just like medicare was to begin with.

take their MOST EXPENSIVE group of customers, and have them become the responsibility of the taxpayers.

good plan! :thumbsup:

[unc70]

36. After COBRA, $ for individ. policy? Often much more expensive

Individual and small group policies for those 55-65 (like me) are much higher than what you are paying under COBRA. For a policy with benefits roughly equivalent to plans provided and partially paid for by government and large companies, the insurance companies have really reaised prices in recent years.

For example, in late summer 2008 quotes for covering a male age 60 (in a small group) were in the range $1,000-1,450 depending on deductibles, limits, exclusions, etc. This was only about 5% more than the previous year and the smallest increase in years, making me suspect it part of their election strategy. Female 60 approx $100 less than male; male 30, $150-300; female 30, $400-$650. A couple ages 30-35 with 2 or more children, $700-$1100.

Rates for women age 25 are much higher than for men 25, this difference becoming less with each older age bracket, though rates for each are increasing significantly with age. Depending upon the policy, somewhere between age 50 and 55 the rate for men becomes the larger, and by65 the gap is larger than at age 30 with men now higher. These rates reflect that NC law requires certain coverages and benefits of all policies and has some additional consumer rights and protections. These vary a lot by state, and I fear that much will be lost in allowing out-of-state insurance preempting -- almost the same as happened with credit card "reform".

A year later in 2009, the ranges jumped to $1,550-$2,200 for renewal from the same company. This might have been in part because our group had increased claims during that year, but others report similar increases. Don't be misled into thinking that we could find a lower cost supplier in the marketplace. If there is anyone with a significant pre-existing condition, it becomes difficult to get a binding quote without its exclusion. While proposed laws supposedly prevent denial of insurance because of an existing condition, I see no limits on the cost.

Yes, Medicare allows insurance companies to transfer much of their liability to the government. These companies are already doing almost anything to justify terminating or not renewing policies covering people requiring costly care. Allowing a Medicare "buy-in" at 55 would not stop these practices, but at least those facing this nightmare would have insurance without forcing them to buy from the private insurance companies. Given the long lag times for most proposed reforms to take affect, we might with luck already have several years experience with the expanded Medicare and might be able to further expand Medicare and get rid of much of the clutter.

It is so frustrating that there seems no way to ever implement the most efficient, most effective, and humane system to provide health and medical care single-payer/Medicare for all paid directly from Federal general revenues. Individuals might still have co-pays and such, some procedures would not be covered, there could be supplemental private insurance, but everyone can receive quality health care without worry of cost or fear of financial ruin, and without a lot of the day-to-day hassles and frustrations for everyone.

And without anyone skimming money off the top in a protection racket, criminal extortion, with corrupt officials and cops on the take, and most others in fear of harm to their families and property.

[AndyA]

3. Insanity in good times; a death wish during a recession.

Where do they think people without jobs are going to get that kind of money?

That's almost a house payment for some.

That's the difference between food on the table and starving.

Congress is out of its frickin' mind if they think this is going to pass the sniff test. Every single Congress person who votes for such a thing MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

[Obamanaut]

7. None of them will be removed from office. None. Not for this or for

any other reason - well, except for retirement.

We reelect incumbents at a rate greater than 90%, and they know it, so they don't care. We elect on the basis of "the name you know."

[OregonBlue]

32. The rates are going to subsidized. So those without jobs will not be paying. At least that's what

was proposed originally and I don't believe it's gonna change just because it is Medicare and not the public option. I think everyone needs to calm down until we find out what the facts really are.

[MercutioATC]

4. I'm not doubting you, but do you have a reference for that quote?

...and not somebody's spin on what Schumer said, but the actual quote in context?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Here is my source

December 7 Politico -

Officials- Medicare Buy-in on the Table

Google and you will find it. (my mouse just stopping being able to right click so I can't paste the link- weird)

[MercutioATC]

11. Thanks, but here's what I get...and no quote from Schumer:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Officials_Medicare_buyin_on_table.html

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Sorry, you're right, the quote from Schumer isn't in that Politico article

but if you google "full unsubsidized cost of Medicare" the Schumer quote will pop right up. (I can't believe I can't copy and paste, I guess I have to go get a new mouse)

[MercutioATC]

17. Thia is the only Schumer quote I can find:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a liberal public option supporter and member of the Senate Democratic leadership who has been a central player on the issue all year, also described the talks as productive.


“There’s very good feeling in the room. We’re not there yet, but, you know, we’re getting there,” Schumer said. “There’s push and pull and we have to find the right balance that satisfies the party as to how much government involvement there should be and how much private-sector involvement there should be.


“Each side realizes to get something, they’re going to have to give something.”


Schumer confirmed that liberals are looking for concessions of their own, particularly related to the Medicaid program for the low-income and the Medicare program for retirees.


One proposal would allow people between 55 and 65 years old to enroll in Medicare, currently available only to those over 65 or with a disability, by paying the full, unsubsidized cost of the premiums. Another would raise the income limit for Medicaid benefits in the bill from 133 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty.


The Medicare proposal, Schumer said, is not favored only by the liberal wing of the party. “The Medicare buy-in is something that has broader appeal than just progressives,” he said. “I think people like Medicare and would like to see it more available.”

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. Search for Clio the Leo's post from yesterday "Schumer- the Medicare buy-in

has broader appeal than just progressives" that has a link to an article from thehill.com

Schumer appears to be saying he is in favor of the proposal discussed in the article of people paying the "full, unsubidized costs" but those actual words are from the writer of the article. I probably should not have called it a Schumer quote and will edit that if I am able to (but that does seem to be what he is referring to). (update - couldn't change it, editing time over)

I hope that my outrage at the proposal of anyone paying full, unsubsidized costs is premature - but I am certainly going to let them
know that proposal is dead on arrival.

[MercutioATC]

21. Got it...but I don't think it says what you think it says.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x45509

I don't see anything in there that suggests Schumer saying that people would be happy with paying the full unsubsidized premiums.


I'm not trying to call you out, I just don't see it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

24. Well, he said that people like Medicare & would like to see it more available

***The Medicare proposal, Schumer said, is not favored only by the liberal wing of the party. “The Medicare buy-in is something that has broader appeal than just progressives,” he said. “I think people like Medicare and would like to see it more available.”***


So he used the word "like" twice which seems to denote to me that he thinks people will be happy with the Medicare proposal. My point is that people may indeed like Medicare and may indeed like seeing it opened to more people, but the liking stops with a price tag of 21K a year for a couple.

I have admitted that I might be inferring something he is not actually implying, I don't know what more I can say to you.

I guess we'll have to wait for further details.

[Statistical]

22. Ctrl +C, Ctrl+P.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

25. Thanks for that. I will bookmark. I used to know that stuff but forgot all of it. nt

[OKNancy]

5. article

If there was immediate access to Medicare, the unsubsidized monthly premium could cost $600 a month, according an official briefed on the negotiations. But senators could shift money around to offset part of the premiums in the lead up to 2014. This would still mean lower premiums after 2014, but not as low as they would be if the senators decided to delay the buy-in until 2014.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/How_much_would_the_Medicare_buyin_cost.html

It will fail unless it is subsidized

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. The Politico artlicle from yesterday used the figure $865 and said

that came from CBO. Link in post 11

[eomer]

42. Politico doesn't say $865 in that link. A Reader Comment by BobbyG says $865.

Am I missing it somewhere in the Politico article?

Here's the link that was in post #11:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Officials_Medicare_buyin_on_table.html

[Statistical]

23. Honest question. If it was subsidized wouldn't employers simply drop coverage.

Say it is subsidized 50% for most Americans. Couldn't employers say "we offer no healthcare" but we are raising your pay $300 employee so no you can get some "free" healthcare.

Massive cost savings for employers. Why wouldn't an employer drop coverage to move people to medicare? Eventually wouldn't they all do it.

[TBF]

33. Of course they would drop coverage.

Either that or they will make the cost so expensive that you really have no choice either way - it's going to cost an arm & leg no matter where you try to get it. That is how it is getting for many already.

[Echo In Light]

8. HC "reform" = find a way to criminally penalize those who can't afford it

What a total douche bag country this is.

[SHRED]

16. Every "mandated" person...

...should refuse to buy.



----

[vi5]

13. "BUT...BUT...YOU DON"T WANT REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE"

I'm getting tired of this excuse. Tired of people on our side telling us to be happy with the shit sandwich we're being fed day in and day out, because at least this shit sandwich has some ketchup on it, and if the republicans are in charge it would just be a plain old shit sandwich.

[CrispyQ]

31. Well, at least ketchup is a vegetable.

:eyes:

Righteous rant. :thumbsup:

[Vinca]

14. Well . . . there goes my hip replacement. 4 more years of pain.

[Echo In Light]

15. That sucks

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. I'm sorry, Vinca

I know you have been following this just as closely as I have.

If the outrage meter goes to 11, they will have to rethink this.

You would not believe how hard it is to find a simple result for the question - hey, how much is the unsubsidized cost, anyway?
I found the link below from Medicare itself. Assuming you pay the full premium for part A that would be 443 plus part B is 96.49 which equals 539.49 and then you would have the advantage/ drug plan on top of that, or so I am assuming and I don't know what those costs. I am just so disgusted I am beside myself.

http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100

[Vinca]

39. It's very discouraging and the boat is overflowing with people

who need access to medical care. I was listening to Thom Hartmann this afternoon while doing some painting and a man called in who had recently had a hip replacement. He was insured by UnitedHealth and said they would only agree to cover $4,000 of the procedure. Since the guy didn't have a spare $40,000 - $50,000 laying around, he went to Belgium and had it done by a doctor who used the latest procedure and got first class treatment. So . . . what's worse than having no health care? Paying a small fortune for insurance that doesn't cover anything. What a country.

[SHRED]

18. IF WE CAN FUND THE WAR MACHINE

We can fund Medicare for 55 and over.

Goddamn MIC/Fascist government of ours has some real fucked up priorities...doesn't it?

:mad: :mad: :puke:

[newspeak]

30. I hope those amounts aren't true

I worked for SSA and I'm a believer in medicare--but hubby and I couldn't pay those amounts in a hundred years. Now, maybe three hundred or four hundred a month, but not those extremes.

[OneGrassRoot]

26. Unless the plan is to create a country of debtor's prisons...

literally (I know we have it figuratively), I can't see how this is even POSSIBLE.

Really.

I know I'm fairly average, and there's NO WAY I could afford anything mandatory that's more than $200 a month, and $200 a month is a real hardship. I'm a paycheck-to-paycheck person, self-employed, no insurance at present, and there's no way I could do this. No way at all.

I know I'm far from alone.

If they are THAT removed from reality, they may finally create a huge shitstorm that gets the average person engaged.

[Skidmore]

27. For most older folks in our area, $21K a year is about their

entire income. Congress needs to live on what the majority of citizens do and not on what the top 1% live on.

[PHIMG]

28. You can only subsdize insurance if the BIG BOYS get a cut

If it's a government program, well then there can be no subsidy.

MEDICARE FOR ALL: ONE NATION ONE PLAN

[Thickasabrick]

29. Politico? I'll wait for something a little bit more believable. nt

[B Calm]

35. It's time to CLEAN HOUSE in the SENATE!!!!!!!

[Karmadillo]

37. It's the stealth route to single payer or something like that. Right?

nt

[SandWalker1984]

38. Well the insurance corporations are thrilled to get rid of these expensive customers

The more that Congress "works" on the health care reform bill, the wealthier the insurance corporations become.

Ed Schultz today on his radio show said passing a bill that's garbage to save someone's legacy is wrong.

He also said the current bill will not reduce premium costs, will not open the door for single payer.

I'm with Ed on all 3 points.

[saracat]

40. Gee. I always said "affordable" needed to be defined.They have zero concept

of the real world.And Obama would sign this, bet you anything. HCR no matter how bad.And why don't the Senate have to pay that much again?

[QC]

41. The average member of Congress is a millionaire.

$21k really is dirt cheap to a person like that, who probably spends that much a year on clothes.

So long as we are being governed by rich people, we will have a government that does not have the slightest idea of what our lives are like.

[mmonk]

43. It sucks but at least premium increases would be limited and

the large deductables. It isn't though, any kind of substitute for something that resembles single payer despite what some progressive talks how hosts have said. We still need the Kucinich amendment to be reattached to any bill.

[ecstatic]

44. I wish people would think before running with rumors like this

Sure, the Senate is comprised of many useless people, but they're not batshit insane. There is no way the Senate would be dumb enough to open up Medicare at a cost of 865/person/month. That's just common sense.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

45. A note about my OP

I was very upset when I wrote it. When I use figures and quotes in an OP, I almost ALWAYS take a lot of time and provide links, shaded excerpts, etc. mostly because I don't want to waste time answering posts that say "link"? as they should when people just put unsourced stuff up.

If you've followed the thread you will see that for some reason yesterday, the right click on my mouse was not working and I could not copy and paste. I was doing my usual morning perusing of the net with a focus on healthcare stuff and that is when I read the December 7th Politico article where the $865 a month figure came from. It has been pointed out that that figure did not come from the article itself, but the comments. IF I had been doing my usual cut and paste job, I would have realized that and not used that figure in my OP. I have since googled, binged, yahooed, etc. to try to verify that figure and have been completely unable to.

Since "they" are bandying about a plan to open Medicare, but at "the full unsubsidized cost" wouldn't you think that some reporter somewhere would have the wit to tell us exactly what that is? The December 8th Politico seems to be the only article anywhere that uses an actual figure of "around $600" per person a month.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71067-two-issues-threaten-to-divide-senate-dems-on-healthcare
(thehill.com article that mentions both Schumer and the concept that the Medicare buy-in will be at unsubsidized costs)
*as I mentioned above, a) since he seemed positive about the plan, and b)the plan is for unsubsidized costs, I made the leap that c) Schumer is in favor of a Medicare buy-in with unsubsidized costs

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Officials_Medicare_buyin_on_table.html
(Politico story with $865 a month figure in 6th comment down)

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/How_much_would_the_Medicare_buyin_cost.html
Politico story with following quote - "the unsubsidized monthly premium could cost $600 a month, according an official briefed on the negotiations"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php
(talking points - confirms buy-in would only be unsubsidized premium AND only starts in 2011!)


Now to update a bit -

http://www.slate.com/id/2237780/
Um ... isn't a Medicare buy-in more "socialistic" than a public option?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM ET

The most obvious catch is that the Medicare buy-in does nothing for people under the age of 55. That's why negotiators are also discussing a Rube Goldberg plan in which the federal Office of Personnel Management would oversee a national nonprofit plan kinda-sorta modeled on the one it manages for Congress, only more expensive. That seems an utter waste of time. (They're also talking about futher expanding elibility for Medicaid, which would be valuable.)

Catch No. 2 is that even though a Medicare buy-in would probably make lower payments than private insurers to hospitals and doctors, it might not charge lower premiums than private insurers—not if it were self-financed, anyway. That's because Medicare would be taking in older customers whose health expenditures are typically much higher than customers for private plans representing a broader age population. If, however, the premiums were discounted (i.e., subsidized) for lower-income people, that calculus could change. It doesn't make much sense to create a Medicare buy-in without subsidies, because the majority of the population between 55 and 65 that currently buys health insurance on the nongroup market earns less than $66,000. (The Urban Institute study cited above assumes generous subsidies.)

There's a decent chance that Nelson & Co. want a self-financed buy-in without any income-based discounts. That would drastically reduce the population it would likely serve, and it could lead to the same sort of adverse selection problem that hobbled the less-robust version of the public option, with a disproportionately sick population opting for the buy-in, further driving premiums up and making the opt-in even less appealing to any but the most sickly customers. The good news is that the plan on the table reportedly would discount premiums. What if the discounts weren't big enough? Hmm. Well, if that were to happen, maybe Congress might down the road stabilize the program by … lowering age eligibility?

So, to summarize -
I apologize for posting a short angry OP without proper sourcing

I still feel the gist of it is correct although I withdraw the $865 a month figure since I cannot verify it. (I think you could get there by using the approx $600 figure for parts A&B and then adding in a drug plan, but that is conjecture on my part)

I still feel that the Senate is filled with buffoons if they think that opening Medicare in a year to a limited segment of the population at an unsubsidized cost that the vast majority of them will not be able to afford, is PROGRESS, that they are MORANS

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. delete, dupe.