Shhhh... Don't tell anyone, but... the Medicare buy-in IS a public option...

[backscatter712]

But don't let the teabaggers know - we've got them where we want them, saying "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Now if only the buy-in could be extended to everyone...

[mdmc]

1. if only it was affordable

--

[backscatter712]

5. The watered-down public option wasn't affordable either.

The CBO said it would cost more than private insurance, did they not?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Wouldn't it be more affordable if it were open to everyone?

Isn't the issue that in possibly expanding the pool too only 55+ they're not letting in the least expensive to insure of the population?

[LynneSin]

7. From what I read it will be affordable around the same timeline Public Option would be made availabl

Public Option was not going to be up and running until 2014. From what I read, subsidies for medicare buy-in would be around 2013.

So I think there is something good happening with this buy-in. And the immediate changes that will happen like a closure in the donut hole, negotiations with big pharma on drug prices and allowing children up to age 27 stay under their parents plans will be a huge help for now.

[kenny blankenship]

40. Or public or optional: you know, something that any member of the public could opt for

I won't be able to.

I guess we're defining public as people between the ages of 55 and 65 now. And they have to meet certain other criteria as yet undeclared. Half the fun is waiting to find out!

[Lochloosa]

2. I see it as a road to single payer. But don't tell anyone. Shhhhh

[backscatter712]

8. Be vewy, vewy quiet...

A few years from now, we ask for the age to be lowered to 45, then ask that children get more coverage, then we expand the definition of "children" to include people up to the age of 35, then we close the gap entirely!

[derby378]

9. Some of us don't have the luxury of waiting "a few years"

I am not reassured at all.

[rucky]

12. +1

Although I'll probably hit 55 by the time it's available to everyone.

[johnlal]

20. Some people saw Medicare as the "road to single payer".

They were just as wrong as you.

[dmallind]

3. And of course the Medicaid expansion to $65K families helps NT

[MNDemNY]

4. The bill should have a "trigger.

One that lowers further the age of eligibility if the insurance Industry does not meet "real" benchmarks. this would be a REAL "foot in the door" . I could give in on a lot for something like this.

[Skink]

21. now that's a trigger.

I've always thought lowering the medicare age or a public option would have to be phased in.

[JVS]

10. Not for the young

[backscatter712]

13. Hardly anyone was eligible for the watered-down public option either.

This one's a net win compared to the public option that had the name.

Now we call it Medicare and get 10 million more people covered!

[Neecy]

16. It won't be close to 10 million

In fact, this Medicare buy-in will probably end up covering less Americans than a weak public option would have. It certainly isn't intended to provide competition, because it won't. It's simply taking the uninsured, pre-existing condition 55+ and not forcing the insurance companies to take them. It's a complete win for the Insurance industry and that's why it'll be in the final bill.

[kenny blankenship]

41. If only it did cover 10 million! oooh if ONLY! Let's pretend it will.

Now let's pretend that 10 million is equal to 50 million, which is the number of uninsured people in this country. What a triumph!

[johnlal]

19. My health insurance is still too high.

Maybe the Democrats in the Senate can do without my vote next election, and count on the votes of people over 55.

[havocmom]

11. What is the monthly cost gonna be? Someone posted a number

and it is more than I net most months. Some option.

[backscatter712]

15. It was something in the $800's, IIRC.

IIRC, the subsidy is still in the health care bill - if you make between 133% and 400% of FPL, you get a sliding-scale subsidy and a hard cap on all out-of-pocket costs.

As far as I can tell, this would apply to either private insurance or the public option Medicare buy-in.

For you, because you're not making a heck of a lot of money, I'd imagine your costs would be significantly cheaper. As low as $20/mo if you were just above 133% FPL (below that, under the bill, you qualify for Medicaid and your health care would be free, though that's from an older bill, the provisions may have changed...)

[havocmom]

24. I am OK. Havocdad has us covered but I realize there are too many in more dire straits

If I were alone (and it could happen any time at our age) there will be problems. I know many people who are surviving on less, but life is not good for them.

People deserve better than working hard, being honest, responsible members of society and getting shafted. Young or old, they deserve more than that from the class that exploits them then discards them if/when they get to sick/injured to be exploited further.

When enough get in dire enough straits, the guns of Goldman Sachs won't be much protection for the abuser class.

[havocmom]

25. Thanks for the info on the sliding scale. Might you be well enough informed to do an OP on that?

Lots of Americans could use hearing some helpful news. Too many are in pain and suicidal. The crap about hospitals HAVING to treat is a lie and the poor know it.

Been there, done that.

[SoCalDem]

37. seeing as how my projected SS payment is around $745, I'll be in a world of hurt

:rofl:

[juno jones]

39. Mine's about $350.

All that taking time off to raise kids and care for elders combined with low wage work, dontcha know.

I'm saving up up appliance boxes for my old age. :P

[dysfunctional press]

14. another thing for people to remember- medicare is NOT a 'single-payer' system...

they only pay 80%- the other 20% is the responsibility of the patient(although private supplemental coverage is available at an extra cost.)

[backscatter712]

17. Very true, though some of the worst parts are getting handled.

The health care reform bill will be closing the Part D donut hole, IIRC.

[LynneSin]

31. Well 2 things about that

First, being stuck with 20% of your medical costs is still alot cheaper than not having any insurance whatsoever.

Second, it could be the start of single payer. Once we allow people to buy-in medicare/medicaid - it's a matter of revisiting this bill and altering the ages in order to include more people.

HCR is not a one shot deal. There is alot of good in this bill even with the 'bait&switch'. And I feel with the medicare buy-in we could be on our way to single payer much easier than with the public option.

[johnlal]

18. I called my congressman

All of these "Democrats" are talking about what a great deal this is: Give up the "public option" for the Medicare buy-in. Apparently, affordable healthcare for people over 55 is better than affordable healthcare for everybody.

I told my congressman<'s receptionist> that if he voted for any healthcare reform bill that did not mandate affordable insurance prices for everyone in this nation, I would not support him in the next election. I will actively support any progressive challenger in the primary, and I will not vote for him. This is bait and switch.

[Tailormyst]

23. You are right, it is a bait and switch.

[johnlal]

27. It's a ratchet-down

Now, it gives the Republicans a lower target to attack. The Republicans are by no means locked into this, and they won't vote for this even if they get rid of the public option. They will now be attacking "Harry Reid's Plan" to expand Medicare. The "Public Option" will be lost. We won't even hear about single-payer.

[Tailormyst]

34. the million dollar question is : how do we combat it?

[johnlal]

36. Look at what the teabaggers did.

They marched on Washington wearing silly costumes and carrying threatening signs. They brandished weapons and threatened to barge into their congressmen's offices. We are not civilized society anymore. This is "Let's Make A Deal", and the more absurd, loud, angry and unbalanced you are, the more likely it is that Monty Hall will call on you.

[Tailormyst]

22. It's only barely sort of a public option

It's only for 55+, is very expensive, and has no young, mostly healthy group to balance out the costs. The point of a public option was to give people a choice, this really doesn't do any of that. The only people who are going to pay 800 bucks a month for it are middle class people who are uninsurable elsewhere. It will cost more then it brings in. That was not the intention of a public option.

[FailingParachute]

26. Shhhh - it's a choice between privately run insurance plans

who will of course jack the rates up sky high and drive buses through the pre-existing conditions loopholes.

Don't tell anyone - if they ever catch on those "liberal" Democrats may have trouble winning re-election...

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. It'll lead to privatization of Medicare.

Then what? We're all screwed, is what.

Social Security will go with it. And the Mother of All Bubbles will hit Wall Street... unlike anything we've seen yet. And it'll be the Dems' fault. An all-Dem debacle.

Great idea! :sarcasm:


(edit to correct a double negative)

[LynneSin]

30. Not really

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Dec09-s.html#3

Also up in the air is what exactly would the federal option mean. Currently, federal employees can get a health-insurance plan offered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management. Could every American buy this insurance? If so, the OPM would have immense clout in negotiating deals with private companies since it could deliver millions of customers. To the extent that anyone could choose between his or her employer's insurance, the federal plan, (and if older than 55, Medicare), there would be real competition among insurance companies. However, the senators who get large contributions from the insurance companies will do their best to minimize that competition. Thus until the details are revealed, it will be hard to tell what the proposal really means]


__________________________________________________

If people are allowed to buy the federal plan it still falls back to private insurance.

[LynneSin]

29. Actually, it may be better than that - it could be the start of Single Payer....

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Dec09-s.html#3

Conservative senators like this because they know the trigger will never be pulled and there will be no public option. They can live with more regulation of the insurance companies because few voters understand that kind of stuff so it won't come back to bite them. Progressives don't really like the deal, but once people under 65 are allowed to buy into Medicare, they can envision a future Congress dropping the limit to 50, then 45, then 40, and eventually Medicare becomes the single-payer plan they want.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Which future Congress would that be?

Yesterday, we lost Ted Kennedy's seat to the DLC. If a REAL Democrat can't hold a seat in Massachusetts, what fucking hope is there of ever getting a REAL majority in either house of Congress again?

[Deep13]

32. Right, the lack of "extended to everyone" is the problem. nt

[LiberalFighter]

33. They need to require Congress members and their staff to be part of it.

[mikelgb]

38. Unrec for stealth

[backscatter712]

44. Shhhhhh... n/t

[t0dd]

42. unrec for being deceptive. this isn't anything close to a public option

[backscatter712]

43. What's the difference?

The public option is a government program, which some people are eligible to participate in, via arbitrary criteria, which provides medical care to participants in exchange for premiums.

Medicare is also a government program, which some people are eligible to participate in, via arbitrary criteria, which provides medical care to participants in exchange for premiums.

Really, the differences are that the eligibility criteria are different (yet equally arbitrary,) the names are different (I'd say "Medicare" is much more marketable than "public option" in this political environment,) and Medicare has already been established, thus adding participants would be less of a leap than creating a new government program.