Resolution Urging that the Senate Adopt the Rockefeller Amendment --

[eridani]

--Opening Medicare to Retirees Over 55

WHEREAS people between the ages of 55 and 64 are being particularly hard hit by layoffs, involuntary early retirement and subsequent age discrimination when looking for new employment; and

WHEREAS Democrats will be campaigning for state and national public offices in 2010 and 2012; and

WHEREAS should a health care bill pass with no visible benefits for anyone until 2013, Democratic PCOs will be charged with the task of explaining through two election cycles why our health care system is still a major disaster for the unemployed and uninsured with continually escalating costs and decreasing benefits; and

WHEREAS Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has proposed an amendment to the Senate HELP bill to open Medicare to early retirees over age 55(1); and

WHEREAS a large and visible cohort of people undeniably benefiting from health care reform initiated by Democrats will benefit not only those people but also the political prospects of the Democratic Party; and

WHEREAS adoption of this amendment should once and for all spike the Republican lie that Democratic health care proposals will harm Medicare; and

WHEREAS an increase in the number of people benefiting from Medicare (a program which is so popular that even older demonstrators against health care reform are insisting that reformers should not mess with it) will create a demand for its further expansion;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 11th Legislative District Democrats ask that President Obama endorse and Senators Murray and Cantwell cosponsor and publicly advocate the Rockefeller amendment to expand Medicare to early retirees.

Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the King County Democrats Central Committee, the Washington State Democrats Central Committee, President Obama, Senator Harry Reid, Senators Murray and Cantwell, and State Senator Karen Keiser.

Submitted to the 11th Legislative District Democrats for consideration at the meeting of October 20, 2009.

Disposition:
Date:

_______________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
(1)Rockefeller Amendment #C26 to Title I, Subtitle G (Role of Public Programs) to America's Healthy Future Act, p. 260. This amendment would add the option for early retirees between ages 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare using language consistent with the concepts included in the Medicare Early Access Act (S. 960).

[tblue]

1. Okay......This is progress. Yeah.....Yeah. I'm listening.

Hmmm. I'm liking this.

[sandnsea]

2. Not at the expense of the 25-55

Sometimes I think people's goal is to get any kind of new govt health care, they'd take it for 60 year olds if they could say they expanded public health care. Even if it meant the rest of the adults got no help at all. It's crazy.

[eridani]

3. I favor opening Medicare to anyone of any age

However, this is the only amendment in either House or Senate so far that even approximates this policy. I have, of course, written to my senators asking for a more inclusive amendment. Hope you have as well.

[sandnsea]

4. Public Option is the more inclusive choice

Focus.

[Selatius]

7. I favor the public option ONLY if it is open to anyone to enroll. If it is very limited, no.

I would rather see the public option that is crippled go down in flames than to accept something that is not only not a solution but one that will simply bankrupt the US much faster than otherwise.

[sandnsea]

8. I'd rather not just help people over 55

and say to hell with everybody else.

[Selatius]

10. On that, I agree, but opening up Medicare is an unrealistic possibility given our politicians.

What we have is the possibility of a public option. If the public option is a crippled one, it deserves to go down in flames rather than allow it to bankrupt this nation, and another attempt should be made to pass a good one rather than let it slip off the table for another decade like it's 1993 all over again.

[sandnsea]

21. We should move EVERYBODY forward

That's the only way we'll ever get everybody health care. If we pass a plan that isn't sustainable, once everybody has lived with affordable health care, they'll make sure we do whatever it takes to keep it, including single payer. We will never get there if we don't get everybody an affordable plan now. I don't care how they get their coverage, as long as they do get it. Everybody.

[eridani]

24. There IS no affordable option on the table

Single payer at $125/month is affordable and sustainable. And you want me to be forced to give up $450/month at gunpoint to worthless shitstains who retain the right to turn down any claim I might submit? Explain how that moves anyone forward, let alone everyone.

[sandnsea]

28. $125 month isn't on the table, where do you get this shit from?

Medicare is subsidized. SUBSIDIZED. The Public Option will be SUBSIDIZED. It is not only private insurance that will get subsidies.

Why do you oppose subsidies for EVERYBODY so that the lowest income people WILL pay $125 a month or less?

Why do you want to lose the chance for that in order to only cover a handful of people?

[eridani]

39. Medicare expansion can be implemented NOW. The public option will cover FAR fewer people

--and not until 2013. Right, both are subsidized. So, what's the problem with having the subsidies go to a program we already know has only 3% overhead? And yes, the $125 would be subsidized as well for those who can't afford it.

I know $125 is not on the table. What is on the table is $450/month for me. I should be happy about this because why?

[sandnsea]

42. The choice is not Medicare or the Public Option

But that makes you happy to pretend it is, for some peculiar reason.

What makes you think you'd pay any less than $450 for Medicare or a Public Option. The entire fight against the public option is to keep it from being taxpayer funded like Medicare. It is expected to be 10% cheaper than private insurance. It is STILL going to cost a lot of money.

So why would you keep all these people away from a doctor for your fantasy?

[eridani]

50. I know I'd pay less because I can do math

If the public option, available in 2013, stays in, I don't care one way or another. I just want Medicare expansion that can happen right now, as alternative that I can choose right now.

Under Medicare buy-in, the current Medicare monthly payment taken out of salaries is 1.75%. I'd have to pay an extra 1.75% on top of that, amounting to $60 a month.

"All these people" are getting nowhere near a doctor until 2013. At that point, they can choose to be robbed of 10-12% of their income, which will cover only 70% of their medical expenses. 5% may have a public option for only 8% of income. Some, like me, would get a subsidy which leaves the premiums still far too expensive compared to $125/month. BTW, that drops to $50 for those already on Medicare.

[eridani]

22. Anything not scheduled to happen for FOUR YEARS is totally worthless

We have two election cycles to go through before that.

[eridani]

19. I'd rather not just help the 5% who would be allowed into the public option

--and say to hell with the other 95%. The limited incrementalism of the Rockefeller amendment would help hundreds of thousands more people.

[sandnsea]

23. Oh good lord, everybody will get help

EVERYBODY. All I can figure is people just don't know what it is to pay $50 a month for health care they can depend on. I do. I simply do not give a shit if dumbasses want the premium subsidy to go to privat insurance. I Don't Care. I have health care and I want everybody else to have it too. I do not care how they get it. That's all that matters.

[eridani]

26. So now you all of a sudden don't give a shit about sustainability?

You are fucking right that nobody knows what paying $50 a month is like, because you are fighting like hell against the only way of providing cheaper coverage for everyone. If you want to put another trillion into the system, why not into Medicare instead of into the pockets of the people who are killing us and bankrupting us for profit?

[sandnsea]

30. It Isn't On The Table, hello????

What the hell is wrong with people. Medicare for all isn't on the table. It's not going to be. 26 states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, many with Democratic Governors. Why haven't any of them passed single payer, including Mass? Gads.

I HAVE $50 PREMIUMS. Get it? Everybody can have premiums based on their incomes.

Is it sustainable? Probably not. Newsflash. Nothing passed this year is going to be sustainable. Whatever it is will have to be tweaked or overhauled. So let's just get everybody health care for chrissake. I Don't Give A Shit About Rich People. I don't care, let rich people pay taxes to fill the pockets of other rich people. I Don't Care.

Health Care. That's all I care about.

[eridani]

34. Hello? The resolution was not about Medicare for All.

The public options now on the table get NOBODY WHATSOEVER any health care AT ALL until 2013. Not one single fucking dime's worth. Nada. Bupkes. Capeesh?

And bully for you and your fucking $50. Guess what my premiums would be according to the Kaiser Family Foundation calculator for HR 3200 (the best of the lot), which include both the age discrimination that you would force on me and the offsetting subsidy? $450 a fucking month!!!! If you want to force that on me, you can go straight to hell.

If you are going to force me to pay something, I want that money to go into a program with THREE PERCENT overhead. The one with the bureaucratic apparatus already in place, not one that takes four years to establish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. By the way, I should be impressed about the fifty you pay a month how?

I am lucky... I KNOW THAT... and I pay less by the way... do 20 in the military... but that is another story.

Here is what matters, how is TRICARE funded? Well it is subsidized, part of DOD... but those who are retired pay as well, minimum rates. It was, last time I checked, a 3% overhead, just like... Medicare.

Granted some payments to docs will have to be adjusted, but it is time the medical system changes from testing to treating... which is what the INSURANCE companies love a doing. And this is what you seem to want...

Now if this is the final bill we get... as it stands RIGHT NOW, no more sausage making, mark my words, it will be a disaster. I am counting on reforms in the reconciliation process that will make it workable, even if this still sucks... but if this sucks less... well the better.

[Selatius]

37. We're gonna get crap for health care reform, I strongly suspect.

As it stands, I have no health insurance, so I'm totally adrift.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Oh I expect crap.. like SS in 1936 and Medicare... or SCHIP

Just depends how crappy it is... how fast it can be made better.

US History is not just a straight thing... after all we need to please them "moderates" in this right of center nation that hates them commy ideas....

[sandnsea]

40. So you have subsidies and that's fine

And Medicare folks can have subsidies and that's fine. And portions of that money go to a variety of corporations, including insurance corporations.

But to insist that EVERYBODY get an opportunity to have a reasonable premium like you do - well, no. We can't have that.

Makes no sense at all. You'd sooner see people die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You get subsidies too, fifty dollars a month YOU GET SUBSIDIES

by the way, I calculated my cost one day, knowing a little about this.

MY COST would go UP, not down, if we HAD SINGLE PAYER. And you know what? I am fine with that.

But this health care reform bill, if Finance remains the backbone, is not a good bill. Hoodwinked much?

I do have a clue as to how you pay for health care. And the insurance companies ARE INEFFICIENT on purpose... so you want a company with a 30-50% inefficiency rates to remain in charge? You kidding me right?

By the way if our costs went down to Canadian levels, which are too high still... we would be spending 1500 \per patient per year, instead of 3000 plus... why is that? A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. That is why Medicare is that MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, as well as TRICARE...

[sandnsea]

48. I know I get subsidies, that's my entire point

And I have health care. Voila!

I said I would rather have everybody get subsidies than have Medicare expanded to just a few. I think that is morally wrong, will infuriate young people and increase divisiveness, will infuriate seniors on medicare and increase divisiveness, and the details would prove impractible anyway. It's not a solution worth getting people worked up over.

Letting everybody buy into Medicare, with a subsidy, fine. Anything less than that is a can of worms we do not need.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Finance's bill IS A CAN OF WORMS

That will come back to hunt this party for decades to come.

Once MOST people NOT paying attention realize that THEY DO NOT GET ACCESS to the PO, since they are not in the 5% and have to pay CRAZY rates... they will reach for the pitchforks and rightly so.

[sandnsea]

52. Then fix it with the Public Option.

Did you miss that post?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. THEY DO NOT WANT ONE

did you miss that too? Have you been asleep at the switch?

Rockefeller's plan is actually a good fix that POLITICALLY might be acceptable to the idiots in the Hill, and that includes BOTH PARTIES. Oh and one that the PEOPLE not paying attention WILL accept as a good one... and also part of the tradition of EXPANDING KNOWN programs that they TRUST.

[sandnsea]

56. Oooh, you quit fighting for the public option

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Never mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I have not, but tell me

where exactly is hte PO in the Finance Bill?

NOWHERE.

Will Harry Reid put in there? NO... we don't have the votes.

Rockefeller is trying to do an end run.

Mark my words... the Insurance Industry won that round... we have a MINORITY making the policy... same problem we have in Sacramento regarding the budget.

oh and I fault Harry Reid for that by the way... as well as Obama... but they have been wishy washy ALL FUCKING SUMMER.

[eridani]

62. Or fix it by amending it to allow universal Medicare buy-in n/t

[eridani]

60. Pay attention. NOBODY gets subsidies untll 2013

You want everybody to be able to buy into Medicare with a subsidy? Fine. Me too. Then whythehell aren't you bugging your congresscritters about it? I have been. I am backing the Rockefeller amendment as an inadequate substitute ONLY because no one, despite my efforts, has proposed a universal buy in amandment. It's only virtue is that putting at least some extra people into the Medicare system will help to CREATE A DEMAND for universal buy-in. What could possibly be MORE practical than working within a system that already exists? Fucking around for four more years creating a parallel one entirely from scratch is "practical"? How?

You want to really piss off young people? Make all the waiters and baristas and retail clerks pay 10-12% of their income to private insurers. Then wait until they find out that they only get 70% of their expenses paid if they get in a car wreck. Maybe. Some will find out that the private insurance shitstains STILL retain the right to turn down claims. Guess what? No Medicare bureaucrat ever gets a bonus for turning down claims.

My husband, already on Medicare, is hardly going to be pissed that our total household expenses will be less if I can buy in to Medicare.

[eridani]

44. But current proposals do NOT give me a reasonable premium like you have

I am going to get a "reasonable" premium (INCLUDING subsidy) of $450 A FUCKING MONTH!!!! You are the one who is cheering the option of forcing me into bankruptcy (or at the very least total obliteration of any discretionary income) or dying. Please cut the crap of pretending that you are advocating anything else.

[sandnsea]

49. Then I guess you make a really good salary

Consequently, you would be paying that much in taxes in any other system.

[eridani]

55. Not hardly. For me and my husband, our total income is $41,000/year

Anyone who wants to rob me of $450 a month out of that can go fuck themselves.

[sandnsea]

58. I think you misunderstand the sliding scale

You wouldn't pay that much with any of the plans, and you'd pay the least with the HELP Plan. But we already ripped that one to shreds in June.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2922

[eridani]

61. Maybe, but it isn't my misunderstanding. Blame the Kaiser Family Foundation.

It's their calculator. I plugged my numbers in, and $450 came back out. None of the number in your reference account for AGE DISCRIMINATION. The private insuranse shitstains are allowed to multiply the base premium by a factor of 2 to 5.

[sandnsea]

64. That's because young people will have a shitstain

If their rates go up enough to cover the cost of lifelong health care.

I think Mary Landrieu was more right than I thought she was. She said she thinks people believe a public option will be free or nearly free. If they knew they had to pay almost as much for it as they do for private insurance, they wouldn't be so thrilled about mandating any of it. Sure sounds like that would be true of you. Or is it okay with you if you pay $450 a month for a public plan that doesn't cover everything either.

[eridani]

67. That will not happen if we cut private insurance out, or strictly regulate it

Paying $450 a month is exactly why I don't support ANY of the legislation as it stands. Congress has the option of forcing cost controls on the insurance industry like those of Germany, the Netherlands or France, but they won't do it. If we have to spend a trillion on subsidies, then fucking SUBSIDIZE Medicare! If the youngsters don't notice or care about the 1.75% Medicare they now pay, They aren't going to notice the 3.5% required for buy-in.

There is not a single good reason why mandated private insurance has to cost more than 100 euros a month, as is the case in the Netherlands.

[eridani]

15. It doesn't get bankrupted if the "reformers" aren't allowed to steal from it

Also, there would be more money coming in from voluntary buy-in, and we could start taxing unearned income above a certain threshold.

[eridani]

11. With 95% of the public FORBIDDEN to use it?

Jeebus!! Not to mention being postponed until 2013. That last is an electoral disaster for Dmes in the making.

[Oregone]

47. Check your math

CBO estimates vs this retired group (and many more will retire once they have healthcare)

Its about the same. A firewalled public option wont be inclusive. We will see what is finalized

[JDPriestly]

63. Health care for 25-55 is usually very accessible and cheaper.

That is because the big demand for health care starts at sometime around 50. People over 50 increasingly become difficult to insure. By the time you are 55, you probably have a couple of pre-existing conditions although the conditions may be pretty silly or unimportant. A huge percentage of people have higher blood pressure, maybe not dangerously high, but high enough to be considered a pre-existing condition. Gradually, more and more people get arthritis, tend to fall, develop circulatory or heart problems, diabetes, Type II, and many other things.

If you remove the burden of insuring people over 55 from the health care market, insurance becomes much more affordable for those in that market. So, this bill would benefit people of all ages. The question is how to fund it. And that is the big hurdle. At least now. People over 55 are especially likely to be unemployable in this job market.

[eridani]

69. With up to a trillion in subsidies proposed, funding is a problem? WTF??

The problem with putting that money into Medicare with 3% overhead instead of private insurance with 30% overhead would be what, exactly?

[JDPriestly]

70. Oh, I agree that full Medicare for all would be the ideal.

But, at the very least we should have Medicare for everyone over 55 with those under 65 paying into it or, if they are unable to pay their way, enjoying subsidized healthcare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. If this is on top of a STRONG PO... sure I like that

[sandnsea]

9. Wouldn't it be better to pay for more subsidies

so that the public option really is strong, rather than put it at risk with an amendment we can't afford.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Medicare for all is realistic and this is a move in that direction

but hey... perhaps we should do nothing.

As to fail... well all will fail we have been told by Baucus, all except what his buddies in the insurance industry tell him to put in there.

I am tired of politicos doing nothing. This is a good step IMO, and yes, I am keeping my eye on the price. Ultimately that is single payer.

[sandnsea]

17. We sure as hell shouldn't do this and fuck everybody else

God I can't believe people's selfishness sometimes.

[eridani]

20. You mean like standing up for the 5% who will be allowed into the public option

--after they wait for FOUR FUCKING YEARS, and telling the other 95% to go to hell?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. So let me get this straight

getting MORE people into a system they know and trust would be wrong how?

By the way, so you know... I would not be able to join this for a good while, and my MODEL of single payer, you read right, SINGLE PAYER is one we already have in the books. Either expand medicate to cover all, or expand TRICARE to cover all... I am not too choosy which one is expanded. But what is RIGHT NOW, before the rest of the sausage making, in prospect, ignores 95% of the people who NEED insurance... how is that better than opening Medicare to a larger group with the goal of ultimately expanding it to ALL?

Your price should be single payer, universal coverage... that is the only thing that ultimately will solve the crisis we face. the rest are band aids. But given how the US works, those band aids ARE STEPS in the right direction.

[eridani]

29. Yes. This is a bandaid that gets applied in 2010, NOT 2013 n/t

[sandnsea]

Everybody. Health Care. NOW.

Period.

If we can pass legislation to do that, ANY legislation, we should.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. 2013 is now?

Ok, happy 2013... so how did the elections in 2010 go, and did Obama win in 2012 or did we get Palin in?

By the way... not doing something that the people CAN RECOGNIZE as helping them NOW will be quite damaging. Not just short term by the way...

So once again... how does expanding what most who DO NOT watch this already KNOW... is going to hurt?

Your brass ring SHOULD be single payer.

[sandnsea]

31. Everybody. Health Care. NOW.

Period.

If we can pass legislation to do that, ANY legislation, we should.

[eridani]

35. Are you from another planet where 2013 is "now"?

Why not tell us all how the time compression thingie works? And do the unicorns bite?

[sandnsea]

41. Any plan will take time to implement

Why do you pretend otherwise?

[eridani]

45. Wrong. The amendment under discussion gets implemented immediately

--instead of in four years. That isn't pretending anything--that is fact. Or are all the people in the Medicare bureaucracy sending out checks every day figments of someone's imagination?

[sandnsea]

46. It's impossible. Pure fantasy.

Anybody that has ever worked in a large corporation knows that is bullshit. They will have to make an entirely new system to cover people through premiums only because the taxes we currently pay are not enough to cover all of those new people. Then they'll have to have new reimbursements and coverages to comply with the new laws, it'll have to comply with state laws because Medicare pays under its own system. It is not going to be implemented instantly. Absurd.

[eridani]

53. You aren't paying attention. No new system necessary

To open voluntary buy-in to all is simply a matter of changing a number in a spreadsheet from 1.75% to 3.50%. But that is not what the Rockefeller amendment is about--it only opens the system to forced EARLY RETIREES over 55, only 28% of whom have been able to find other work. It took my husband only a couple of months after applying for Medicare to get fully into the system. Why would it take longer for me? I'd be going through the same process that he went through, only with 3.5% taken out of my Social Security check.

[sandnsea]

59. Of course it would be

People will have a fit if they use current Medicare money to expand coverage to millions of people, especially boomers. Medicare is intended for people unable to work and care for themselves. Not 55 year olds.

And there isn't enough money in the system to pay for them. Who is going to pay for these people? Where is the money going to come from? The people buying in will have to pay for it and that means they'll have to have a separate accounting system. It will cost the same as a single payer plan which has been estimated to be 10% less than regular insurance. Regular insurance for someone your age is $600-$1000 a month or more, depending on your health. It will STILL be expensive.

You need a subsidy to help you pay ANY of the premiums.

[eridani]

65. Bullshit. Medicare is intended for people over 65, whether or not they can take care of themselves

My husband is perfectly able to take care of himself, and capable of work if anyone cared to hire a 67 year old programmer, which they don't. The subsidies you are cheering for are $600 billion to $! trillion. Put THAT into Medicare to pay for these people. Why in fucking HELL do you want 30% overhead creamed off by private insurance shitstains instead of the 3% Medicare overhead?

No separate accounting system is necessary. I am on Social Security, and they'd take the extra out of the check the same way they do my husband's Medicare Part B.

I call bullshit on your single payer estimates. Total costs amount to roughly half per capita what we are paying now. Single payer would be $125/month for everyone, except those needing subsidies. The only reason regular insurance is so expensive is because worthless parasites run thousands of different scams, have 30% overhead, and are allowed to dicriminate against older people. Our so called government is willing to aid and abet this giant screw job.

That lack of will to actually regulate insurers is independent of whether we get universal coverage by single payer or by some other means. After all, the Netherlands has mandated private insurance for everyone for only 100 euros/month (~$140). NO AGE DISCRIMINATION ALLOWED!!! But then they have the gonads to actually regulate private companies and we don't. Odd that all civilized countries provide care for everyone for under $200/month regardless of whether they use total government control, single payer, or regulated private insurance, no?

[sandnsea]

66. Originally, Medicare was for the elderly

who could not take care of themselves. Are you seriously going to argue that point?

What does your social security have to do with anything? That system is IN PLACE, of course it worked quickly. You're talking about a new plan that is not in place. I really can't believe you think they can just flick a switch and millions of people will be registered for a plan with no backlog or glitches.

And as for the Netherlands, they only pay half the cost, employers pay the other half. They are mandated to buy insurance from the dreaded insurance companies. But much of the Netherlands care is still through the government, long term care and other expensive care for instance. Canada doesn't cover prescriptions, remember? They all pay extra premiums for supplemental insurance, to cover things we take for granted in our routine health insurance.

And again, if they wanted to pass a Medicare for ALL public option, fine. But I do not support dividing up the debate any further by peeling off groups here and there, which is all this Medicare plan would do. It's the wrong time. Every one of them should be focused on the public option.

[eridani]

68. Yes. I am going to argue the point. You can apply if you are over 65, period.

When Medicare was originally set up, they started with the oldest and sickest first, obviously. That is irrelevant. It was never intended to stay that way.

About 5% of long-term or chronically ill people are supported by the Netherlands. It is actually similar to single payer--the government directly taxes employers and leaves only the individual part to private insurance, where with single payer that would also be a government plan. Prescriptions are the only major extra expense that Canadians deal with, and they can get that through their employers. They pay nothing at all to cover things that we consider "routine." Utter nonsense. Here in the US, "routine" is paying more and more for higher and higher deductibles and copays. Neither the Netherlands nor Canada even has deductibles or copays. And no age discrimination either.

I expect backlogs and glitches in expanding Medicare, but so what? There will be hundreds of times more of that during the process of setting up a completely untested "exchange," with or without a public option. We are ccomparing a functioning program with a hypothetical construct that can't even be in place until 2013? Medicare has only one set of benefits. The useless claptrap that Congress is proposing has FOUR SEPARATE LEVELS of benefits. This is supposed to be EASIER than expanding Medicare? Explain how four benefit levels are easier to run than just one.

If you thing a Medicare for All public option is good, then tell your friggin' congresscritters, ferchrissake! That's what I'm doing. I'm only advocating the Rockefeller amendment as a bandaid. One that gets applied NOW instead of in 2013.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. That was the bill passed in 1965... it has been expanded and improved

over the years. WHY do you think the republicans back then said it was the foot in the door for a "government take over of health care?"

[eridani]

16. This is horseshit. Putting more people in the system would force Congress to fund it better

I can't believe that anyone would advocate putting public money into subsidizing a bunch of useless shitstain parasites instead of into a program with a mere 3% overhead? What in fucking hell is WRONG with you?

I'm all for a trigger option, though, provided that the insurance CEOs are lined up against a wall first.

[sandnsea]

18. How will these people pay for their Medicare premiums?

With subsidies. Good lord I cannot believe people just think money falls off of trees I guess.

[eridani]

27. Yes. The subsidies would go to a program with 3% overhead

Apparently you prefer the shitstains with 30% overhead. Why?

[eridani]

12. Unfortunately, there is no strong public option n/t

[loudsue]

6. Wow! An amendment based in reality! How novel!

The lack of jobs has hurt the baby boomers really really hard: nobody wants to hire us, especially if we're in our late 50's early 60's. The bush years destroyed everyone's 401K's and IRA's, so we have no money to speak of. Medical insurance premiums, copays, and no-pays are KILLING us as we get older.

I wish they would extend medicare to EVERYONE without insurance...no exceptions, and as an alternative to for-profit insurance for everyone else. But if they just have to cave in to the insurance industry, the least they could do is throw us old folks a bone.

[eridani]

14. More than that, having more people in Medicare will cut short attempts to defund it

Not to mention creating even more pressure to let more people in.

[eridani]

32. So, we have elderly TEABAGGERS, ferchrissakes, telling Obama not to mess with their Medicare

--and extending this very popular program, however incrementally, is somehow "not politically possible?" The Dem base would go for it, and a significant fraction of winger teabaggers would go for it (and presumably a majority of those somewhere in between), and it can't be done? Tell me why.