Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't need health insurance reform. I just want Medicare expanded to all.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:14 AM
Original message
I don't need health insurance reform. I just want Medicare expanded to all.
as we can have with 51 votes in the senate through reconciliation. I have a feeling that this just may be Teddy Kennedy's legacy and the one thing he would like over any other.

If I could have this I would praise Obama to the heavens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Beat that dead horse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. It's not dead. It hasn't been tried yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
33. I think the country would embrace it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. So you prefer to hold the American people in servitude to the for-profit health industry
and topping it off by having the IRS acting as a goon squad for the CEO's of Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

This sounds like a winning campaign slogan for 2012!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Makes me wonder what they want to fight for.
They actually have convinced themselves that nixons plan is the way to go over a public option. Isn't that depressing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Werx for me too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'd like for Haiti not to have had an earthquake.
Too bad that nothing is exactly about what we want,
or what we wish would happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. You guys are sad.
You don't even dream about a public option any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. If Obama was for it they would.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 03:11 PM by timeforpeace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Yes, if Obama were to say, "I support expansion of Medicare to anyone
who wants to sign on" or "I will sign only a bill that contains a strong public option open to every American," then the Usual Suspects would suddenly think it was the greatest idea since ice cream.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama has nothing to do with reconciliation
I'm sure he would sign that kind of a bill if it gets out of the Congress, but it will NEVER happen.

Reality is reality.

Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Chris Van Hollen thinks it can.
Wouldn't he know better than some here would?

And frankly if it's the only thing with a shot to pass they'd have to try it to salvage this whole situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
41. I hope Chris can get this through
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #41
58. Since when is Van Hollen in the Senate?




He's trying to get the burden off the House. Minus 60 senators, one plan appears to be to have the House pass the Senate bill intact. They don't want to do that but they also don't want the blame for killing health reform. So he's saying the Senate should go the reconciliation route (as best they can.) They'd have to exclude many provisions. No control over insurance company practices, either. And everything would expire in 5 years.


IMO it's just a ploy on his part.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. Fine. Who are the 51 Senators you KNOW would vote for it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. From open left
Public Option Support Breakdown
Yes-43; Maybe-16; Unknown-2; No-2
Among the twenty Senators who are still left to target (only 63 total Senators are even potentially reachable on this issue), they break down into the following groups:

Conservadems (11): Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Tom Carper (DE), Herb Kohl (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Pryor (AR), Mark Warner (VA). Overall, eleven of the fifteen Senate "conservadems" are either on the fence, or publicly opposed.
Other Democrats (6): Max Baucus (MT), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (NF), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Jon Tester (MT), and Ron Wyden (OR).
Republicans (3): Susan Collins (ME), Johnny Isakson (GA), and Olympia Snowe (ME).
With 43 supporters of the public option, we only need seven of these twenty Senators to flip in order to pass the public option through reconciliation. Even amid the din of right-wing astroturf protesters and a media giddy at the prospect of health care reform failure, meaningful health care reform is very doable in 2009.

http://openleft.com/diary/14574/latest-public-option-wh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac83 Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Not talking about public option
Talking about Medicare for All. It's not the same. Very few Senators are on the record in favor of Medicare for All.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. It might be the only thing available through reconciliation.
It could be that or nothing. Senators who are open to a public option would be open to medicare for all. What is the difference after all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Not true. Many who were open to public option are NOT open to single payer,
which is what Medicare is.

But even if they were, you were only able to site 43 votes for a public option. We're not even close to 51.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. They stopped counting after Lieberman threw his tantrum.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 09:30 AM by dkf
But Van Hollen says they were and are prepared to go with reconciliation if need be. They can't create new programs so the only option IS expanding Medicare and Medicaid. It must mean Medicare for all to expand coverage to millions of people. A cutoff at 55 won't cut it.

I'm using the process of elimination to conclude they must be talking about Medicare for all. But as an option not a mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. He's probably saying it to try to put pressure on the Republicans.
Just because he's saying it doesn't mean he could actually do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac83 Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. The difference
is that Medicare for All is a structural upheaval of the entire health care system - I personally am of the opinion that it would be a good upheaval, not a bad one. The public option is merely another choice in the exchange. But it's a bad mistake to assume anyone who is for a public option is also for Medicare for All, although the converse is true, generally. Lawmakers that are for Medicare for All are also generally for a public option as a first step, but it does not hold in reverse. Sort of like, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. That Open Left article is dated Aug 12, 2009
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 03:57 AM by Lasher
More recently, not a single Republican Senator voted for the incredibly compromised HCR bill.

Reid: It Was A Waste Of Time Dealing With Olympia Snowe

Source: Talking Points Memo

Reid: It Was A Waste Of Time Dealing With Olympia Snowe
Brian Beutler | January 13, 2010, 1:21PM

Hindsight's 20-20, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now thinks he and leading Democrats--Max Baucus, Barack Obama--flushed months down the toilet courting Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) support for health care reform.

"As I look back it was a waste of time dealing with (Snowe)," Reid is quoted as saying in a forthcoming New York Times Magazine piece, "because she had no intention of ever working anything out."

That's a harsh but understandable assessment. The White House was banking on Snowe's support for months, both as a means of securing conservative Democrats' support for the bill, and as a failsafe, in case Reid came up short on votes in the Democratic caucus. But after supporting the Senate Finance Committee's reform proposal, Snowe was hesitant to support major changes to the legislation, which Reid needed to make to keep the progressive wing of his caucus from defecting.

Still, that's unusually blunt language. It could easily raise eyebrows.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reid-it-was-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac83 Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. Can you name the 51 senators
who would vote for Medicare for All, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Welcome to DU, deaniac83!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac83 Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Thanks, pnwmom!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. Which means you want SINGLE PAYER...so do I
It is the only REAL healthcare reform.
All people in ONE pool, contributing based on ability to pay,
and take the profit out of healthcare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I don't care if health insurance companies exist. I just want to not have to use them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
17. I can't afford Medicare.
Where will I get the money for the $200 premium, the supplemental premium, and Part D.

That's if there is a massive amount of tax money applied to the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. the money is already in the cost of insurance. Take the ~30% overhead
out, and it would be affordable with the repeal of the Bush tax credits for the very rich.

Apply the money going to all the fragmented programs--Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.

There's no need for supplemental and Part D, it's included in an improved Medicare.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. Sounds like you don't need health care reform as much as a subsidy.
You don't need this bill with a mandate shoving you into private insurance. You could get a better deal if they use reconciliation to open Medicare then tackled funding separately. I'm thinking that we mostly need an expansion of Medicaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. I Have A Subsidy For Private Insurance
I pay $30 a month for it. I would not be better off with Medicare.

Medicaid For All, you bet. That'll never happen because the Medicare For All people have been duped into believing Medicaid is terrible health care and are skipping obliviously into a plan that would be worse than subsidized insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Why shouldn't you get a subsidy for medicare for all too?
Make it the same as any old health care option.

Why do you think Medicaid is better than Medicare? I'm very curious at your statement. Is it related to coverage or the funding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Ah, so it's about the amount of the subsidy
And whether the subsidy will be enough to make a monthly premium affordable, whether that premium goes to the government, a nonprofit insurance, or a for profit company. If the subsidy isn't enough, or if the premiums skyrocket and the taxpayers can no longer afford to fund the subsidy, then subsidized health coverage won't work.

Medicare Part A deductible is $1,100. That's more than my deductible. Part B premium is $110 per person. If someone doesn't have 30 quarters in, a Medicare premium is $461 per person. Hmmm, not very cheap.

Why do I prefer Medicaid? In most states, it pays nearly 100%, no deductible. You might have a couple of dollars for a medication or co-pay, but there is no way you can go bankrupt with Medicaid coverage. It's way better than Medicare. It's unfortunate people have been bamboozled into believing it's second class medical care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
22. Great - why don't you accomplish that for the rest of us since it doesn't involve any reform?
or the senate or congress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Leadership in the house is ready to move on this if need be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. Did you take
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 08:38 AM by ProSense
the poll?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
25. So do I, but I doubt there are even 51 votes for it
Sadly, I think HR676 would get maybe 25-30 votes in the Senate and maybe 150 in the House. Obama did not push for it because he knew there were nowhere close to enough votes for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. I don't think that's the reason why he didn't push for it. He's
concerned about the withdrawal of big Pharma and insurance "contributions" for Dems in future elections. Look who Coakley spent time with rather than her intended constituents--"Too cold" to meet and greet the people of MA in Fenway? Park, she spent time in DC with big Pharma and insurance folks.

These are unfortunate decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
29. yep! Think of all the support he'd have from all the citizens... but he's
apparently scared of losing the big Pharma and insurance "donations"/bribes. Terribly sad and dangerous for the country's representative style of governance.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. That poor animal is dead. Stop beating it already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Chris Van Hollen referred specifically to this if we can't hold the 60 senators.
It is not dead. This could be the only workable option left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
36. It's a simple enough concept
Most people would know what you are talking about when you say this. Most workers already pay into Medicare. It might be more palatable for some if it was a Medicare for Anyone Option. Opt in or keep what you have now, or purchase something that works for you. No mandates either way might bring more people on board for a more solid voting pool in the senate. :shrug: Just a thought. The goal would be to make this available to anyone who needs/wants it, while not dismantling the existing system. The two exist side by side. People can choose public or private plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Exactly. And it protects us from the abuses of the insurance companies.
No one in the government will personally benefit from my death. I can have faith I will not be forsaken on a whim or for a bonus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. This would also be a safety net for those who lose jobs
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 05:34 PM by GinaMaria
or can't work, or can't afford cobra. There would need to be some changes to the current system. For obvious reasons Medicare doesn't cover things like Labor and Delivery or Cystic Fibrosis, generally anything that does not impact a population over 65. There is certainly enough information and experience on managing these services that they could be added and Medicare expanded. There would need to be tweaks made to coding for claims processing, but again much of that already exists. Insurance companies already compete for Medicare contracts. This would make their government business divisions bigger. Another poster months ago called this Medicare part E which would stand for Everyone. The simplicity of the whole thing makes it easy for people to understand. Gotta tell you the excise tax business was getting more confusing with each passing day. It's simple and for health coverage that says a lot. Let the people decide what they want for themselves and their families, but in order to do that they need options.

Peace,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
40. I'd take it
Not going to threaten revolt if it doesn't happen (since the chance is nearly 0%), but I think expanding Medicare to all would be a good solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Do you really trust private insurance over government insurance?
After seeing sicko and following this health care debate I don't understand why anyone would prefer private insurance. There are too many shenanigans that would take too much regulation. This is not fixable without more overhaul than I can imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. No
But regulation & preventing them from "cherry-picking" who they want to cover is a good first start. They do tend to behave better when they know they are under the microscope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Financial companies are under the microscope but they are simply adapting around the laws.
I saw a report that some second mortgage holders were refusing to release the lien on short sales without getting cash from the buyers. That is so illegal. They are under scrutiny and they STILL do this.

Money making entities tend to put their bonuses over your life. I don't want to put my life into their hands. I'm younger now and healthy ad far as I know. I'm fighting for the future when I will be adding ailments. And I know it is the right thing for this country.

This is what drives my scorn for the hcr bill. We cannot build everything on a private system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
43. Would you take it without subsidies?
because that might be possible as a solution to "save" it from insolvency.
Could be done by reconciliation.

Of course, it's not cheap that way. Some estimated it would be about $5000/year (for the basic 80% coverage).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Subsidies could be tackled later.
They wouldn't have been implemented til 2013 anyway. But what you would get with Medicare is a promise of no bad behavior from the person reviewing your claim. That is worth a lot. As it is health care insurance cannot give the peace of mind that you expect from insurance. Decisions aren't transparent and known. Oversight by state regulators is spotty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Then I think it could be passed through reconciliation in 2010
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 09:13 PM by andym
The biggest problem is that the physician and hospital lobbies will strongly oppose it.

After the current HCR bill's fate is determined, I think a push should be made by the grassroots for this.
It should be pitched as a way to save Medicare and perhaps the cost should be slightly above cost (5% ?) so that it would actually bring more money in and make it solvent.

There would be a need to create a family plan as well, not sure if it can be done via reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
44. Same here.
I will never support "reform" that forces us at gunpoint to go buy insurance with no public option available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
48. so fuck all those folks with pre-existing conditions, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. More people will be left behind than people who have pre-existing conditions...
what about those people.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Medicare has no preexisting conditions clauses.
Otherwise it would be pretty useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
M155Y_A1CH Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. I wonder where that came from?
I agree with you whole heartedly.
The structure is already in place.

Why do I need some insurance company in between me and my health care provider? That whole set up reeks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
56. You'd need about ten more progressives in the Senate for that
and it would still be a hard slog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
59. If it doesn't inconvenience you too awfully much, I'll keep the insurance I Have, thank you.
Like tens of millions of Americans I have large group insurance which is much better than Medicare. Unlike Medicare, my insurance has a reasonable limit on coinsurance, and thus an effective limit on out-of-pocket cost. Also unlike Medicare, my insurance has full prescription drug coverage without purchasing an additional policy, and it has no donut hole. Also unlike Medicare, it covers an annual physical, and covers other preventive care with the only cost to me an office visit copay, rather than 20% coinsurance like Medicare. But best of all, my insurance is accepted by virtually every doctor in the state, while many new Medicare enrollees are unable to find a primary care provider within reasonable driving distance, or at least to find one without having to pay him or her extraabove the usual coinsurance.

With so much of our healthcare system totally disfunctional, I continue to be baffled by the passion of "progressives" to take those of us in the part of the system which is functioning well aned force us into one of the broken parts (Medicare). The goal of the bills currently under consideration is to make the benefits of large group insurance available to those who cannot afford decent coverage. That makes a lot more sense to me than throwing everyone into Medicare, which is a horrible mess which nobody can figure out how to fix now, without shoving 200 million more people into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC