72% of voters want "a public plan like Medicare" for all...yet only 34% think current bill is....

[Faryn Balyncd]

......."better than passing nothing."




So......"Did Democrats lose by being too progressive or too corporate?"

(I guess we need to call in Sherlock Holmes to figure out that one, eh?)






:kick:



"72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed."


"Just 34% Say Passing Current Health Care Bill is Better Than Passing Nothing. . . . . Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress. . . . "




:kick:






"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform...."

- Howard Dean

[sandnsea]

1. Nationwide poll, not in the heat of election lies

It has no bearing.

People believe the lies. It happens every election cycle.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. I certainly believe that running on Medicare for All would be a winning formula

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. I agree 100%.....

[Lugnut]

4. I agree.

K&R

[leftstreet]

10. Agree

[doc03]

5. I seem to recall a couple weeks ago someone come up with the

idea of expanding medicare to cover people over 55. That idea went down like a lead balloon. I certainly don't want Medicare at 62, my company plan is much better. When I am 65 I will get Medicare because my company will only pay for the supplement then.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. Joe said he would support a filibuster, so Rahm ordered Harry to cave. Harry promptly complied.

[doc03]

8. I will tell you myself I am 62 and have company insurance

that is far better than Medicare and I don't want to be forced on Medicare. At 65 I will take Medicare for one reason my company will only pay for a supplemental plan then. If medicare is so good why do we have to purchase a supplemental plan if we don't want to be forced in to personnel bankruptcy?

[Faryn Balyncd]

12. It is my understanding that the Medicare Buy-In option that was momentarily.....

...in the Senate bill would have allowed those 55-64 to buy in to Medicare if they so chose, but would not have forced anyone to do so.

As a physician, I know of many who would jump at such an option.

An example:

A self-employed couple in their early 60's carries a catastrophic policy, $20,000 deductible, for which they pay over $16,000/year in premiums. They are unable to purchase other insurance, having been rejected despite having no claims which have exceeded their deductible in over 2 decades. Consequently, insurance only fuctions to protect their modest home and retirement savings from bankruptcy. Despite thus having to pay cash for mediocal expenses, the bills they receive are not in the same ballpark as the bills most insurance companies negotiate. Specifically, one of these individuals recently had an outpatient thallium stress test. In their metropolitan area, the Medicare payment for the technical portion of the stress test (for the use of the machine, maintenance, depreciation, technician's time , etc, but NOT including the contrast agent, the radiologist's professional services, or the cardiologist's services) is $1100. Hospitals within their area have contracts with various top-line, non-HMO insurance plans for amounts ranging from $1700 to approximately $3500. This couple was asked to pay $6,300 for the same service. The discriminatory and opaque pricing system (all of this information is closely guarded by both insurers and providers, and obtained by patioents only with great difficulty or with professional or legal assistance.) The other outpatient tests this individual had were similarly priced, in line with the 200-500% price premium often charged to un-insured, or "self-pay" patients, who are often depicted as being non-payers. Perhaps some might defend such a system as being just, but many consider such a system to be predatory at best. as a physician, I am embarrassed and offended that such price gouging is institutionalized within medicine.

This couple, and many I know, because of this predatory, discriminatory and opaque pricing system, rightly fear bankruptcy much more than they will when they will be under Medicare. They would jump at the opportunity to purchase Medicare coverage, and to purchase Medicare supplemental coverage.

[doc03]

13. In my case I get excellent coverage through a Union

negotiated health-care plan, no premiums and minimal co-pays. I am 61 years old and plan on retiring when I reach 62 and I will keep my same coverage with less than $200 a month premiums until I am eligible for Medicare. Then at 65 they drop our insurance and I have to pay out of pocket for a Medicare supplement. I have been around long enough to know if they opened up Medicare for buy-in at 55 the first thing that will happen is the company will try and dump us on Medicare. Then there is the "Cadillac Tax", I am not sure but I figure we would also be subject to that. Of course everyone then says well it's a tax on the insurance company not you. I don't think that is true, two things would happen either the premiums my company pays will go up and I would then have to pay the difference or the services will go down. The health-care billing is crazy, the hospital bills my insurance say $6000 for a procedure then because it's in network it is reduced to say $2500 then it may say there are $500 in write offs whatever that is. The insurance pays 90% of the $2000 left over and I pay $200. I asked the person at billing once who actually pays the $6000 and she said really nobody does except when it is billed to Uncle Sam.

[doc03]

14. Deleted duplicate post

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. a buy in proposal for Medicare for those 55 was shot down by the usual "centrist" Democratic

senators - but certainly not from the public.

Frankly, although I am convinced that a phased in Medicare for all program - could generate such grassroots support - it would be hard to oppose in the court of public opinion. Except for the unfortunate reality that the power that the insurance lobby wields could make it very difficult to even get it on the table.

The whole approach of the Democratic leadership has been to start at the table with not even a weak public option proposal even solidly on the table and then to end up without even that.

The battle cry before the process began was, "Health Care for all". Now the battle cry is "well, the proposal isn't that great, but its better than nothing".

Still Medicare enjoys such broad support from the public that an upfront campaign to extend Medicare to all - such as proposed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy - could have strong support and possibly overwhelming support from the public.

Medicare for All Act - Amends the Social Security Act to add a new title XXII (Medicare for All) under which: (1) each eligible individual is entitled to benefits which include the full range and scope of benefits available under the original fee-for-service program under parts A (Hospital Insurance) and B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) of title XVIII (Medicare), with parity in coverage of mental health benefits, subject to appropriate cost sharing; (2) each enrollee is free to choose his or her own doctor and private health plan; and (3) benefits are not less than the benefits offered to Members of Congress and Federal employees under FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Establishes the Medicare for All Trust Fund.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose: (1) on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.7% of wages received; (2) on every employer an excise tax equal to 7% of the wages paid to each employee; and (3) on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the self-employment income for such taxable year.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/26/772564/-Kennedys-Medicare-for-All-act

[sabrina 1]

7. You're right. Only 34% of Mass Voters supported this

Health Care legislation. Maybe because they've already seen it in action. They have Romneycare in Mass and they've seen the rising costs of premiums in just three years, also those punitive fines have doubled and still not everyone is covered.

Capuano would have probably have done better as he was very much for a far more progressive bill. 22% of Dems voted against the Democrat? If that's true it's very possible they were voting, not for Brown, but against he Health Care bill.

It was not a good state to be running on the Senate Health Care bill.

I completely agree that anyone running on Medicare for all would probably have won in a landslide.

I don't know what is wrong with the Obama administration on this. He WAS for a more progressive bill. They are dooming us to a Republican majority with their policies.

If Brown manages to kill the bill, he might be doing Dems a favor. They can go back and start again this time without catering to Private Ins and Big Pharma.

[Luminous Animal]

11. This should be posted every day.

It is ridiculous that we are fighting for a Senate seat over a bill that few of us want.