We already have single payer national health (Medicare). With tweaking, why couldn't this cover

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

at a minimum, those without employer health plans?

Or, why could Medicare not be tweaked and provide coverage for any and all that need it?

The system is in place already. Why don't we use it?

[depakid]

1. That's essentially what Howard Dean was saying

Exand Medicare and Medicaid eligibility incrementally until they cover everyone.

[rurallib]

3. I believe that has been Ted Kennedy's position for years also.

[sandnsea]

4. He proposed what Obama is proposing

At least the creation of a federal plan that everyone can participate in. Obama's plan includes more state regulation, children's requirements, and subsidies that Howard's plan didn't include.

[depakid]

11. I remember him disussing the expnsion of Medicare and Medicaid

during a health forum in the summer of 2003.

[sandnsea]

12. Edwards proposed a Medicare buy-in

I just don't remember that ever being part of Dean's plan.

[depakid]

14. Everyone under 25

Was the incremental deal to expand Medicare/Medicaid

[sandnsea]

16. That was SCHIP actually

I consider that different from Medicaid because it often requires a premium, and it certainly isn't part of Medicare. Different point of view I guess.

[defendandprotect]

20. Cheers again for Howard Dean ...

[PSPS]

2. It could

Medicare is our de-facto national health care system. The only thing stopping your logical and necessary suggestion is our criminal health insurance industry. If we were to do what you suggest, how could their billion-dollar CEO's afford that new island?

[area51]

5. k & r

Great post. Since we already have a form of single-payer, one which the nazi party dares not get rid of, all that needs to be done is to fix it, make the pay decent for medical providers, get rid of the mofoing "donut hole", and expand it. Where are the so-called pro-lifers on this life-and-death issue? Every day, 273 people die due to lack of healthcare in the U.S.

We need single-payer NOW.

[Cleita]

6. There is a bill in Congress that does just that, H.R. 676, but

the congressional leadership won't bring it too the floor. It's sitting in committee not even being heard nor debated. Of course, if it passed, dumbya would veto it.

[The Magistrate]

7. This Is, Actually, Ma'am, Far And Away The Best Proposal For Dealing With The Matter

While it would require an increase in taxes, probably through the pay-roll tax, it is certain this would be much less than the amount paid in health insurance premiums by employers and individuals, so there would be a net savings in aggregate. Administrative costs of Medicare are far less than those of insurance companies, and of course, those need to extract some profit as well from their incoming payments.

We both know the reason this eminently sensible and practical solution will not be enacted, or at least not be enacted without a tremendous fight: it would put the whole health insurance industry out of business....

[morillon]

13. I don't think it would put them OUT of business...

...but it would change the WAY they do business. And the outrageous profits that a very few get would be a thing of the past.

[tritsofme]

15. There are a lot of good paying jobs in the health insurance industry.

Now I don't think that in itself is an argument against your proposal, however it is something to think about if the entire industry goes out of business.

[The Magistrate]

17. True Enough, Sir

The vultures in management do not concern me for a moment: they can flip burgers with the people they drove to bankruptcy by denying claims.

The medical people they employ to second-guess doctors at great remove can perhaps find real employment actually providing care to patients.

It would be hard on the clerical staff, without question.

[Nipper1959]

18. Work for Medicare

A lot of those insurance clerks could work for Medicare. With the huge expansion of Medicare there would be a need for more clerks.

[The Magistrate]

21. An Excellent Point, Sir

[anigbrowl]

24. To a point, but we should consider the productivity of those jobs

It's a sad fact that an employee in that business will advance their career and earn more money in proportion to the amount of money they keep with the insurer, rather than the amount they pay out. Unfortunately, that is more easily achieved by denying customers' claims than by negotiating with health care providers to limit costs and improve clinical productivity.

The health insurance market doesn't function as well as other forms of insurance (say, auto or home insurance) because the risk factors are significantly different and customers have less control. Obviously if you smoke or drink a lot you're storing up medical trouble, but you could lead a healthy lifestyle and still rack up huge medical costs. Furthermore, if you don't qualify for auto insurance then there are alternatives to driving, whereas if you can't get medical insurance the resulting liability can be fatal.

[Union Thug]

8. Thom Hartmann often speaks to this...and I agree; it's the best plan out there. n/t

[Buck Laser]

9. Medicare works....from personal experience!

I've been retired since 2000, and have had excellent and timely coverage from Medicare--much better than from my supplemental insurer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Exactly right. I assume your question is rhetorical, however. n/t

[defendandprotect]

19. All you have to do is change age restrictions .. Clinton tried to make it 57 years ...

BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO KEEP GOP FROM STARVING AND DESTROYING THE MEDICARE SYSTEM ...

ould include everyone overnight --

[Liberal In Texas]

22. There's nothing wrong with the idea, I think it could be expanded to work for everybody.

The cons think that we want state run hospitals and doctors hired by the government. We absolutely do not need that.

[Greyhound]

23. HR 626. Ask the "leadership" why they have crushed this?

The answer you, sure as hell, won't get is, "because we get huge donations from the industries who's profits would be hurt by competition".
:grr: