"Saving" Medicare by opening it to all via reconciliation

[andym]

I know it's a bit premature since health care, climate, and financial reform have not yet passed. But I think the next big push after these are done should be "saving" Medicare. As we have all heard, Medicare is projected be in financial difficulties sometime within the next decade.

Of course, there is a fairly simple way to help fund it. Open it to everybody by allowing a buy in. It can even be made more financially stable, by making the buy in price a few percent above actual cost. Of course, it won't be affordable to everyone without the subsidies that people 65+ get. But there will be a partial solution, assuming the current health care bill passes, allow it to be offered on the "exchange" with the private offerings. People would then qualify for the same subsidies that are available for the other "plans."

Since it is cost-saving use reconciliation which only requires a simple majority in both houses.

[FrenchieCat]

1. That might have to wait till after the 2010 election.......

hopefully, we'll maintain enough of a majority....
but yes, in the Senate, that would mean 51 votes.

[cliffordu]

2. I'm thinking what might happen is that

they will pass this POS, and a year from now the Prez will instigate opening Medicare to a larger population through reconciliation.

And when that works like gangbusters, they'll open it up for everyone....


This assumes that this bill takes a couple of years to take effect, and there is room, the will, and the effort available.

It also assumes I know what the fuck I am talking about, which is doubtful.....

[still_one]

3. Or maybe people start hiring significantly and the economy improves, in which case

we win by a large majority, and don't need reconciliation

That would be nice, wouldn't it

[cliffordu]

4. That would be nice....

A couple million jobs would make that happen for sure...

[still_one]

8. However, I am still pretty skeptical about the economy /nt

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Wait a minnit...

Medicare is already being financed by a 3% (OK, 2.9%) tax on just about everyone's income, so we're all "bought into" it already.

Expanding it to include more recipients without increasing the tax makes absolutely no financial sense at all.

[andym]

6. You're correct

In fact, the Medicare for all HR676 bill essentially did increase taxes to pay.

What I'm suggesting is only a partial solution. It would make Medicare available before 65, IF one is willing to pay the unsubsidized cost. That would NOT require new taxes. At 65, one would of course still receive the regular {subsidized) Medicare rates based on the taxes that one had paid in to the program. However, if the current health bill passes, the poorer among us would qualify for the same subsidies available to those who buy insurance on the exchange.

As I wrote, if the premiums are raised a few percent above the actual unsubsidized cost, then the Medicare fund would actually get new income (without raising taxes), insurers would get a competitor that might actually force them to keep prices down, and some people would get a well-operated government run health plan.

[earcandle]

7. sounds like hope beyong this bill

[hayu_lol]

9. Raise enrollment by requiring all Federal, State, County, City...

employees to join the medicare system. At the moment, most of these have rather expensive plans. That includes elected officials as well at all levels.

Kill this bill. It is an immediate failure as it stands.

Switch to a single-payer National Health Plan for all.

[Vinca]

10. I would love to see a CBO score on Medicare For All.

Given the fact you need a monstrous number of people with varying ages and conditions to bring down costs, expanding Medicare to everyone would be a "2-fer:" it would save Medicare and cover the uninsured. Big insurance could still exist and sell policies to people who must have a private suite at the hospital with their own nurse and big screen tv. Everyone should be entitled to identical medical care however, excluding cosmetic surgery unrelated to reconstruction.

[andym]

11. They did get one for the Weiner amendment

which basically replaced the current bill with HR676. But made a few changes described here:
http://www.correntewire.com/weiner_not_quite_hr676_amendment

Only problem is that they did not release the CBO score. At least one of those involved stated that the score was not good. Several bloggers claim they heard cost about 1 trillion/year. So that would be 10 trillion for 10 years, the same period as the current bill. So that is more than 12X more than the current bill.

for example look at the comment from "Beowolf" here
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/10/what-should-medicare-for-all-candidates-agree-to/