Question About Possible Medicare For 55-64... Will These People Who Become

[ChiciB1]

eligible actually "go" for this thing? I first must admit that this is not an original question from me, just a question on C-Span this AM!

Many people in that age bracket may still have a job, many still have wives and children that will need coverage. Perhaps the husband/wife is UNDER 55 and this bill won't cover them, will THOSE PEOPLE decided okay I'll buy Medicare, but WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF MY FAMILY?

Has this been addressed, will it be addressed or is this just a silly question? I think too many will have to think long and hard to "opt into" this thing, then have to go out and buy "extra" insurance for their families!

It is an important question, I think!

[old mark]

1. There are a lot of people who would love to retire "early", that is

when they feel like it rather than when the Government says it's OK. This would be a real help, and would end the that much of the slavery to employers for those in that age group.

I know there are people who want to work till they are in their 80's or whatever, and I hope they enjoy it, but I retired at 57 and never looked back. It would be very successful, IMO, and it's about time it was done.


mark

[dysfunctional press]

2. a lot of it will depend on the cost...

but just because one or two people in a family are covered- it doesn't mean that everyone is.

i'm 48 and on medicare due to disability. my wife is 51, and not disabled, so she's not on medicare.

[ChiciB1]

5. What Does She Do For Health Care? I KNOW That When You Go On

disability that after a certain length of time, you are REQUIRED to switch to Medicare, which can be a plus, it depends on whether you have to buy a supplemental or not.

One of my doctors who I've been seeing for YEARS just recently told me that he will no longer take ANY Medicare because of low payments! Because of HMO's & PPO's I can only see certain doctors and he was on my plan, so now I will go out of network and pay his fee. Because of going out of network, it was my assumption that I would get paid the difference for the 100-70% difference. What I FOUND OUT is that I got paid ONLY a portion of the difference because of what each plan offers. So for this doctor I go to on a monthly basis for medications, he only charges $90.00, but I got a check for $33.14 as my difference. That's not what I thought the 70% meant.

Fortunately this doctor has agreed to see me every THREE months now instead of requiring me to come in every month, so it balances out. Still the "devil was in the detail for me" and I was unaware of how that 100-70% worked. I know now!

The $90.00 I pay is for about 5 minutes of his time, long enough for him to write scripts that I need for a condition I have. So, even though a doctor visit of $90.00 seems cheap these days... I'd take $90.00 for 5 minutes and be happy! But I DO understand why he did it... he said he had to hired 3 extra people to do the paper work where now he only has ONE!

This may be a trend, I don't know!

[dysfunctional press]

12. i wish that i could buy a supplemental policy- but nobody will sell me one...

and they aren't required to until i turn 65. until then, i'm on the hook for 20% of everything.

my wife has blue cross/blue shield- a private policy.

back when her job still existed, she had a plan thru her job, and i was on the policy as my supplemental coverage....once that went away, i was shit-outa-luck- and there's no requirement that anyone sell me the coverage...and since i can't afford the 20%, i can't get the colonoscopy that my dr. wants me to get. :shrug:

[ChiciB1]

15. This Thing Is STILL A Mess To Me, Even IF It's Not Fully Done (Cooked) Now! n/t

[dysfunctional press]

16. i wonder how many people cheering for 'medicare for all' realize that it only covers 80% of costs..?

and there's no dental or vision coverage- and prescription coverage is extra.

[ChiciB1]

18. Depending Upon The Procedures... There Is Even Less Coverage!

My husband had cataract... They only paid $250.00! That may be a "vision" part of the plan, but it was medically needed for him! He had difficulty with his sight for some time and the only option was to have it fixed!

[laughingliberal]

22. True. Just as with any insurance there are some limits & some things they don't cover, and

That said, I found them a lot easier to work with than private insurers for the most part. And, needless to say, a helluva lot better than nothing.

[ChiciB1]

33. I'm NOT Disputing That At All & I'm Really Not Complaining About MY

insurance coverage. I was replying to the person who needed a colonoscopy. FWIW, our insurance is through an employer based UNION plan which is MUCH better than most. I consider myself one of the lucky ones (for now) because my co-pay is $5.00 and I need NO referrals for tests, etc.

The premise of my question in the beginning was about how good adding 55 year olds would be, or how many people it would assist. I realize there are limitations, but it did surprise me that cataract surgery wasn't considered necessary. It is what it is.

But for me, with what I have now... I'm happy if it stays the same because we have prescription drug coverage in our plan too with NO extra cost! Again, OUR family insurance works quite well for us, but it's just too bad that all too many others don't have the same OPTION!

B-)

[laughingliberal]

19. Well, I certainly know that. Then again I never had any insurance which covered more than 80%

and I had one which only covered 70%. Yes, Rx coverage is an additional expense and, until they passed Medicare part D, there wasn't any. It is an issue. However, the patients who had Medicare, even before they had any Rx coverage, were certainly better off than if they did not have it.

[dysfunctional press]

21. there are people here who think that 'medicare for all' = 'single payer'....it doesn't.

medicare is not a single-payer system, except for the first 80%.

[laughingliberal]

24. Huh! I'm not sure I see the point here. Are we saying there are people who think single payer would

have covered 100%? I never thought that. Guess cause I've worked with Medicare for my whole career. I never thought a government run insurance plan would not involve cost sharing on the part of the patient.

[dysfunctional press]

47. 100% coverage- that's how it works in most countries that have it.

'single-payer' by definition is 100% coverage- if the patient had to pay something as well- there would be two payers.

[katkat]

27. prescription

I assume if they can buy into Medicare they can buy into Plan D as well.

However, Plan D is a giant money hole. I would like to see some numbers, but I suspect many people fall into the donut hole, where they pay full price for meds since they pay the Medicare price, and that's what Congress has legislated Medicare has to pay. Plus each of the two meds I take regularly cost $90-$100 each a month in a copay even before the donut hole.

You can also buy Medigap coverage that covers the remaining 20% Medicare itself doesn't cover.

Don't get me wrong, this can be expensive, but it's the prescription part that eats a financial hole.

[dysfunctional press]

48. not everyone can get coverage for the 20%...

i'm 48, and disabled- so nobody has to sell me supplemental coverage until i turn 65. and nobody will.

[katkat]

3. family

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'd think for those still employed by BigBusiness, their employers would be happy to get the employee's costs off their back and would offer a family-only policy as an option, plus probably grant some sort of credit towards the Medicare costs of the employee.

[karynnj]

26. I think if you have employer coverage, you are not eligible

but, like you I don't know the answer. It would seem that even if both members of a couple were over 45, many might still have kids under 26. On exchange plans, their kids 26 and under are covered under their policies, will the kids be covered under the medicare option? Anyone who had kids in their mid to late thirties will have this issue. For that matter, will employer plans be asked to cover up to 26 years olds?

[katkat]

28. karynnj

I think you're right according to what I read in the Times this morning. The Medicare for all only covers people who do not have access to other insurance.

So it helps early retirees and the non-trivial number of older pre-65 people who have lost their jobs and can't find new ones or who work at companies with no coverage (or are self-employed?) , but it is not as great as it sounded originally.

I really get so furious at our bought and paid for Congress, words fail me. We could have really made progress in healthcare, and instead we get 1/8 of a peanut butter sandwich. I am remembering this when campaign time and donation time comes around.

[SoCalDem]

30. Bosses will probably start offering their group coverage ONLY to people under 55

and once they are 55, they HAVE to go with the medicare option.. It would greatly reduce the costs for the group..so watch for younger workers to pressure the boss to do just that.. If that 55 yr old has a wife under 55 and some kids, gawd knows what will happen..

[ChiciB1]

34. THAT Was My Original Question! How Many People Will Be Affected

AND will it be something that sounds "really good" right now, but then when you read the "fine print" you might find it's not what some expected! I've said in other posts that watching this HCR is like watching a Ping-Pong game, I just don't know who wins the game in the end.

Thanks for clarifying this!

[karynnj]

35. Not legal - that is age discrimination

[SoCalDem]

37. since insurance is optional, I'm pretty sure that bosses & their legal teams

will figure something out..something that lowers the overall cost..or they may choose to just drop coverage altogether..

[katkat]

38. karynnj

Not sure about the age discrimination part. I worked for a company that HP swallowed up and I was vested in retiree coverage, mod the we can discontinue the plan at any time that HP added. I got laid off in my late fifties, couldn't find any decent job so I stayedon their insurance (for which I paid a tidy sum), and when I hit 65 bingo my HP retiree medical insurance went away because I was Medicare eligible.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I will

This will give me more choices about if and when to retire.

[tsuki]

6. It will never happen. It begins in 2011. It is the carrot for the 2010

election, and will quietly disappear after the election.

[ChiciB1]

7. That's Even MORE Depressing, But You Know... I'm Thinking You May

just be correct here! HCR as I see it now (and I realize it's NOT DONE) is just a JOKE! But that's just me... I don't see much good in it for those who REALLY need a hand up!!

And to "require" people to buy in when they can't afford it now seem rediculous... doesn't that only give INSURANCE COMPANIES more customers and more MONEY??

I admit I don't know the specifics about that last statement, but forgive me for that, this whole thing has been much like a Ping-Pong game to me! My facts may be scrambled, but I wonder if that's really MY FAULT!!

[tsuki]

9. It does not make any sense to delay to 2011, except politically.

You can go on the HHR website and see the costs for Medicare. So, they know how much it costs. Why a year and a half delay?

In 2011, they'll say you can't buy in because the exchange is up and running.

[flyarm]

44. and just wait till you get your new tax bill..

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2009/11/20/cwa-slams-senate-health-care-bill/

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”


By: Michael Whitney Friday November 20, 2009

The Communications Workers of America just put out a statement hitting the Senate health care bill, specifically slamming the regressive excise tax on health care plans. Their statement (emphasis mine):

The Senate bill’s proposal to tax health care benefits would make our health care system worse, not better. This new tax, which is opposed by the majority of Americans, would affect millions of families. Average families who clearly don’t have “Cadillac” health care plans would owe thousands of dollars in new taxes.

Taxing health care benefits is a bad public policy that would hit millions of families hard as employers cut back health care benefits to avoid the tax. The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just wrong.

CWA supports health care reform that is fairly financed, and the House bill has a better approach. It fully funds health care reform by making large employers pay toward their workers’ coverage, adding a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans and including a public option.

CWA will work with Senate Majority Leader Reid and other Senators to produce a bill that will provide the real health care reform that working and middle income families deserve.

Those are strong words from one of the country’s most influential unions, going beyond the AFL-CIO’s tepid praise and SEIU’s lauding of the Senate for the bill. CWA was part of an ad pushed by AFL-CIO member unions last month hitting the same excise tax in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but appears to have gone one step further than other major unions with this statement.

[raccoon]

8. Many of them still have a job that offers NO insurance. Like me. I haven't had

group medical insurance through an employer since 1993---and I've been working all that time.

[ChiciB1]

10. So YOU Will Want To Opt In For That, But If You Have A Family, They

will still have to go without? This is where I think THIS BILL fails! Health care coverage for only "the few" isn't HCR to me!

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. If they thought people would "go" for it, the insurance lobby wouldn't have let them offer it. nt

[laughingliberal]

17. The private insurance companies do not want people that age

especially if they are required to take those with preexisting conditions.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Sure they will. They'll take the older folks. They'll just deny their claims and jack up the rates.

[BonnieJW]

13. I think it's only available to those 55 and over who

don't have health insurance. If you are working and have health insurance, you would not be eligible.

[ChiciB1]

14. So, A Person Who Has Health Insurance Now Through A Company Plan

won't be able to buy into this. That narrows it even more, because as someone said, they would do it because their wife has insurance through her job. He won't be able to take part in this anyway from what you say!

This has gotten way to crazy and it STILL isn't finalized! I wonder what it will really come to, I'm about to give up and say SCRAP IT!

I just don't know, but my gut is telling me this isn't something that will warm the "cockles of my heart!"

[tritsofme]

23. This is the way Medicare works for those 65+ now.

If you or your spouse are working and have group insurance, it is always prime over Medicare.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Military healthcare works the same way. If I was employed and

had health coverage through my employer, I would have to use that first before being allowed to use Tricare.

[flyarm]

43. exactly! and wait till people see their new tax bill..see links here>>>>

firedoglake is all over this.........

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/the-public-option-“deal”-that-does-not-sound-like-it-is-even-a-deal-yet/
Public Option “Deal” Does Not Yet Sound Like It is Even a Deal
By: Jon Walker Wednesday December 9, 2009

What is in this deal that might not be a deal? The answer is that I don’t really know, and it seems like most of the Democratic senators don’t even know yet.

Medicare Buy-In

It sounds like the vague outline of the deal includes an early Medicare buy-in for some subset of people between the age of 55-64. (Whether this is a buy in for Medicare or for Conrad’s fake Medicare is not yet determined.) It at least sounds like this program might not be just a temporary stopgap, and will start in 2011.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized–people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance–and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

Remember, the exchanges, at first, will only be open to roughly 10% of Americans, so it is only a very small group of 55-64 year olds who would have the option of buying in to Medicare. With this provision, the devil really is in the details. It could be done well, or it could easily devolve into a worthless Medicare buy-in in name only.





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2009/11/20/cwa-slams-senate-health-care-bill/

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”


By: Michael Whitney Friday November 20, 2009

The Communications Workers of America just put out a statement hitting the Senate health care bill, specifically slamming the regressive excise tax on health care plans. Their statement (emphasis mine):

The Senate bill’s proposal to tax health care benefits would make our health care system worse, not better. This new tax, which is opposed by the majority of Americans, would affect millions of families. Average families who clearly don’t have “Cadillac” health care plans would owe thousands of dollars in new taxes.

Taxing health care benefits is a bad public policy that would hit millions of families hard as employers cut back health care benefits to avoid the tax. The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just wrong.

CWA supports health care reform that is fairly financed, and the House bill has a better approach. It fully funds health care reform by making large employers pay toward their workers’ coverage, adding a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans and including a public option.

CWA will work with Senate Majority Leader Reid and other Senators to produce a bill that will provide the real health care reform that working and middle income families deserve.

Those are strong words from one of the country’s most influential unions, going beyond the AFL-CIO’s tepid praise and SEIU’s lauding of the Senate for the bill. CWA was part of an ad pushed by AFL-CIO member unions last month hitting the same excise tax in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but appears to have gone one step further than other major unions with this statement.






xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Public Option Grand Compromise Becomes A Grand Big Nothing
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 8, 2009
snip;
For starters, the Medicaid expansion has completely been dropped, even though it would have been a big money saver for the government:

This afternoon, Jay Rockefeller said that the new proposal to expand Medicaid coverage for those who are 133% to 150% above the federal poverty line was dropped during a meeting of key legislators this morning. “I was sad this morning,” Rockefeller told me and a few other reporters. “We walked in, and it was 133<%> to 140<%>, then it’s staying at 133… So we didn’t get anything.”

Now we are getting reports that the Medicare buy-in is not really a buy-in. . . or really Medicare. Senators are looking at restricting the Medicare buy-in so completely that it will be an option for almost no one. It will likely only be for a very tiny segment of poor and very unhealthy 55-64 year-olds:

Negotiators are considering limiting consumers to those who would qualify for high-risk insurance pools already set up under the Senate’s health care legislation. This would mean primarily those who have been uninsured for a certain amount of time, have a history of poor health or are unable to get insurance because of a preexisting condition.

Adding insult to injury, the “Medicare” this tiny fraction of people could buy in to might end up not even really being Medicare:

Conrad said that he’d propose having the Medicare buy-in be treated as “a separate pool” that could have negotiated rates, rather than those set by the existing Medicare program.


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/08/public-option-grand-compromise-becomes-a-grand-big-nothing/

[Thickasabrick]

20. It will only be offered if you don't have insurance - if you have insurance

through a job - you would not be eligible.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. My dad is 63, took early retirement because of health issues

My dad who is 63 had been working construction his whole life so his body was pretty worn out. He took early retirement at 62, is living off his social security check and is without insurance. He would be a great candadite for Medicare for 55-64. I do worry about him. He's already had skin cancer once before. Luckily he was working at the time so he had insurance at the time. What if he gets cancer again while he is waiting for Medicare? I persoanlly won't be happy with our government until we can all access a government plan but Medicare for 55-64 yr olds would be a great start for my dad.

[Tailormyst]

29. I don't think the medicare route would work for him

They are saying 800+ dollars a month. Perhaps since he lives on SS he would qualify for subsidies for some other kind of insurance.

[katkat]

39. perhaps he qualifies for Mediaid? n/t

In any event, I am hoping he does okay and in two years he can get actual Medicare.

$800 a month sounds incredible for that age group. I hit (I forget exactly) $600 a month, but a major chunk of that is prescriptions in the donut hole. The actual Medicare itself is a lot less.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Try Finding A Job At 55...

Yes, there are many who presently have insurance either through an employer or self-insured, but there is a growing group who are either under-employed (working part time jobs with no benefits) or aren't employable (companies prefer younger people who they can pay less) or have developed disabilities that would make them a liability to employ (especially with today's regressive insurance policies about "pre-existing conditions"). Thus it's 6 of one, half a dozen of another...there are many who will benefit from lowering Medicare to 55, but that's only a part of the affect.

With eligibility lowered it will allow many to retire or drop their private insurance. In some cases it will make older people more employable since the healthcare costs won't be the employer's burden (a benefit of public option as well) and also by reducing the older person's costs and premiums that would free up money for insurance for younger family members (an umbrella plan) as well as for extended coverage that medicare doesn't cover.

Being almost 54, I'd welcome being able to join the system earlier rather than later and I know many others in my peer group would say the same. The hopes are that by opening up the system to the boomers early it will then force down costs on the people hit hardest by medical expenses. Also by creating a "semi-private" "co-op" that is run by those negotiating the government plans, it will reduce costs for those under 55.

I'm still picking up specifics of what's in this bill and what pluses and negatives there are. I think we all need to look openly at what gains are to be had and see if they off-set the sell-outs to the "moderates".

[spanone]

32. i imagine employers who are paying for healthcare will push their employees into it

[flyarm]

42. they can push all they want ..it is only going to be offered to very few! eom

[flyarm]

41. it will only be offered to a very few..in that age bracket..

firedoglake is all over this.........

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/the-public-option-“deal”-that-does-not-sound-like-it-is-even-a-deal-yet/
Public Option “Deal” Does Not Yet Sound Like It is Even a Deal
By: Jon Walker Wednesday December 9, 2009

What is in this deal that might not be a deal? The answer is that I don’t really know, and it seems like most of the Democratic senators don’t even know yet.

Medicare Buy-In

It sounds like the vague outline of the deal includes an early Medicare buy-in for some subset of people between the age of 55-64. (Whether this is a buy in for Medicare or for Conrad’s fake Medicare is not yet determined.) It at least sounds like this program might not be just a temporary stopgap, and will start in 2011.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized–people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance–and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

Remember, the exchanges, at first, will only be open to roughly 10% of Americans, so it is only a very small group of 55-64 year olds who would have the option of buying in to Medicare. With this provision, the devil really is in the details. It could be done well, or it could easily devolve into a worthless Medicare buy-in in name only.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2009/11/20/cwa-slams-senate-health-care-bill/

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”


By: Michael Whitney Friday November 20, 2009

The Communications Workers of America just put out a statement hitting the Senate health care bill, specifically slamming the regressive excise tax on health care plans. Their statement (emphasis mine):

The Senate bill’s proposal to tax health care benefits would make our health care system worse, not better. This new tax, which is opposed by the majority of Americans, would affect millions of families. Average families who clearly don’t have “Cadillac” health care plans would owe thousands of dollars in new taxes.

Taxing health care benefits is a bad public policy that would hit millions of families hard as employers cut back health care benefits to avoid the tax. The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just wrong.

CWA supports health care reform that is fairly financed, and the House bill has a better approach. It fully funds health care reform by making large employers pay toward their workers’ coverage, adding a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans and including a public option.

CWA will work with Senate Majority Leader Reid and other Senators to produce a bill that will provide the real health care reform that working and middle income families deserve.

Those are strong words from one of the country’s most influential unions, going beyond the AFL-CIO’s tepid praise and SEIU’s lauding of the Senate for the bill. CWA was part of an ad pushed by AFL-CIO member unions last month hitting the same excise tax in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but appears to have gone one step further than other major unions with this statement.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Public Option Grand Compromise Becomes A Grand Big Nothing
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 8, 2009
snip;
For starters, the Medicaid expansion has completely been dropped, even though it would have been a big money saver for the government:

This afternoon, Jay Rockefeller said that the new proposal to expand Medicaid coverage for those who are 133% to 150% above the federal poverty line was dropped during a meeting of key legislators this morning. “I was sad this morning,” Rockefeller told me and a few other reporters. “We walked in, and it was 133<%> to 140<%>, then it’s staying at 133… So we didn’t get anything.”

Now we are getting reports that the Medicare buy-in is not really a buy-in. . . or really Medicare. Senators are looking at restricting the Medicare buy-in so completely that it will be an option for almost no one. It will likely only be for a very tiny segment of poor and very unhealthy 55-64 year-olds:

Negotiators are considering limiting consumers to those who would qualify for high-risk insurance pools already set up under the Senate’s health care legislation. This would mean primarily those who have been uninsured for a certain amount of time, have a history of poor health or are unable to get insurance because of a preexisting condition.

Adding insult to injury, the “Medicare” this tiny fraction of people could buy in to might end up not even really being Medicare:

Conrad said that he’d propose having the Medicare buy-in be treated as “a separate pool” that could have negotiated rates, rather than those set by the existing Medicare program.


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/08/public-option-grand-compromise-becomes-a-grand-big-nothing/

[ChiciB1]

49. Thanks For ALL The Information! Now I See A Thread Here Attacking FDL

and Jane Hamsher! These days "my reality" keeps getting shifted! I suppose in time there will be clarity or at least the fine print will be laid out!

:shrug:

[mmonk]

45. All I know is that it is shortening the time I have to pay outrageous

premium and deductable costs if it is passed. The rate of increase I have with BlueCross is not sustainable on a yearly basis from my current age of 53 until I reach 65. I am self employed.

[Better Believe It]

46. It's totally bogus. Hardly anyone will qualify, most can't afford it and it's not really Medicare

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x46292