House Dems want Medicare for everyone

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

House Dems want Medicare for everyone
By Mike Soraghan - 10/20/09 08:27 PM ET

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.”

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

The idea has bubbled up among House Democrats and leaders in the past week, most prominently in a caucus meeting last Thursday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64029-medicare-for-everyone

[xchrom]

1. ...

:applause:

[joeycola]

5. Pelosi Whipping House Health Care Plan--Including Robust Public Option

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/pelosi-whipping-house-health-care-plan--including-robust-public-option.php?ref=mp




:thumbsup:

[WriteDown]

2. Finally! Make sure doctors (specialists) aren't getting ultra

wealthy off medicine. Should be a good, but modest living!

[bertman]

16. Why should being a doctor be a modest living? I don't get that. I have no problem with

my doctor making a VERY GOOD living, in fact, I want him/her to do that. And, if he/she chooses to be a specialist whose skills require more training and whose risks are greater, then he/she should make EVEN MORE MONEY.

Personally, I want my doctor to be one of the smartest, most dedicated human beings on the planet. If it takes paying them lots of money so they'll endure the years of training, plus having to deal with looking at naked, fat, old guys like me, then so be it.

[WriteDown]

17. Because going into medicine for the beamer and the trophy

wife does not produce caring doctors. We need doctors who do it for the love of healing sick people and not for a the big payday. Your version of doctors sound like CEO's.

[bertman]

19. Wrong. I know lots of doctors. They are all very smart people. They all care for their

patients and for improving the quality of their lives. They all make very good money doing that.

But why would we want only those who are doing it for the love of healing sick people when we could have lots of smart, dedicated, caring people doing it for that AND for the good money it pays?

Doctors have to do things and see things and expose themselves to things that the average person wouldn't think of doing, would turn away from if they saw them, and would never expose themselves to. For that, they should be paid very well.

Your view of doctors as all looking for trophy wives says more about you than it does about doctors.

[WriteDown]

23. So do I....

Great guys and girls, but to say they didn't go into it for the money is disingenuous.

They weren't all the "smartest" people either. What's sad is that although they are my friends they often remark on how they don't take Medicare patient because it DOESN'T PAY.

Well regardless of what you say, A NEW DAY IS HERE and those reasonable medicare payments are going to be all there is.

[bertman]

25. I have doctor friends who freely admit that they went into medicine for the money, but

that does not make them any less stellar at their profession.

As far as "smart", here I am referring to the "smart" of academic achievement. Being able to grasp organic chemistry seems to be a bit of a challenge for most of us, but it's something that medical professionals have to be able to comprehend.

The fact that Medicare doesn't pay is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. If the reimbursements are inadequate, maybe not having to pay for an insurance company CEO's multi-million dollar salary, plus dividends to stockholders, will allow us to pay more for Medicare recipients.

I'll say that a new day is here when the last "aye" vote is cast, the legislation is signed by the President, and the Republicans are defeated in the mid-terms so they can't repeal the good work. Until then, it's the same old, same old.

[WriteDown]

33. Sounds like we have similar experiences...

What I meant by not the smartest is that I've had friends go to 2nd or 3rd tier schools who got into medicine. They were probably the equivalent of a C student at a 1st tier school. In fact, I had one friend who couldn't get into medical school in the US so he ended up going to the University of the Caribbean or something like that.

I remember one conversation recently with a urologist friend of mine who was saying that medicare only paid so much for some surgical procedure. He said something to the effect of "It pays me 500$, which is okay, but c'mon. I can get 3K by not going through medicare." The problem is not low medicare reimbursment. The reimbursement is just fine. The problem is that doctors have gotten used to the high insurance reimbursements.

I agree with you that we have to wait for the vote.

[kestrel91316]

70. Medical schools are chock full of people who couldn't get into veterinary

school to save their lives, because they simply weren't good enough. Ask me how I know.

[dflprincess]

105. Which runs contrary to the old idea that vets are people who

couldn't get into med school. The fact is your internist is more apt to wish s/he was treating dogs, not you - rather than your dog's vet wishes s/he was a treating humans.

Of course one reason for this is because, compared to the number of (human) med schools, schools of vetinary medicine are few.

[kestrel91316]

125. Yeah, in my class in vet school, none of us were there because we

couldn't get into med school. That was laughable even then. One of my classmates did go on to become a pediatric neurosurgeon but he never intended to go into clinical vet practice. Last I saw him, he was off to get a PhD in comparative neuroanatomy, lol, and that eventually led to med school.

[eagertolearn]

184. Wow this doesn't make sense. If doctors do it only for money why

would they be a vet? I've never met one doctor who tried to go to vet school first. It is very hard to get into medical school. My husband tried for a few years and he graduated from Stanford with a B+ I believe. Most of the doctors we have been around are very bright but some not so people bright because they are nerds. There's jerks in every profession including medicine but being a doctor is very stressful and hard and those jerks are usually the ones that can't hold a job and are constantly moving from job to job.

[earcandle]

221. How do you know?

[twitomy]

174. I talked to my Family doctor about this.

I asked her if she could stay in business if all her patients were Medicare.
She said flat out nope.

I asked my chiropractor about Medicare. He said all time put in for the paperwork does not make it worth it.

Unless the payments/bureacracy improves, "Medicare Part E" will make things worse Im afraid.

[No Elephants]

256. No matter what the topic, you always seem to have friends with first hand, relevant experience and

something to say about it. And everything they say seems to support the RW position on the subject.

Maybe you should try to hang with some progressive folk, you being a Democrat and all.

:-)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WriteDown]

44. We're trying to have a civil discussion...

Not sure what that entails in Arkansas, but please try to keep the profanity and name-calling to a minimum.

[olegramps]

75. What profession are you in that you have extensive conversations with doctors.

Firstly, I doubt if you know that many doctors. Claiming that students from some third rate school are readily admitted to medical schools is a poor attempt to disparage doctors. Firstly, although admission to medical schools varies, they all have stringent requirements since they have no lack of applicants. Perhaps you have never heard of the MCAT. This along with requirements that include biology, organic and inorganic chemistry, and many requiring calculus and a high GPA make admissions very selective. Also consider that no medical school would accept a student that didn't have an excellent chance of passing his boards for certification

I would suggest that you avail yourself of a study guild for the MCAT and see just how difficult the examine is before shooting off your mouth. My son took the examine and I reviewed the study materials and I can assure you that only the most dedicated student will be able to get a high enough score to be considered for acceptance. The study guide that my son used had over 900 pages of examples of questions taken from the MCAT exam.

[WriteDown]

78. Remember the old saying....

Those that can't get into veterinary school, go to medical school.

[tonysam]

199. Because medical schools limit the number of people admitted to those schools,

they can pick and choose who they want. The minute medical schools do away with "spaces" for students and anybody who wants to be a doctor can do it, watch the pay go down.

The ONLY reason medical schools limit enrollment is to create an artificial demand. That is why the pay for doctors is so much.

[whathehell]

208. Yup...

[SharonAnn]

219. You're absolutely right! It's an artificial shortage. We have plenty of talented

people in this country who are capable of becoming doctors and want to do so. But the limited number of "slots" creates an artificial shortage of doctors.

[Psephos]

211. Playing scratch golf is extremely hard for most people, regardless of the effort expended.

It requires a sophisticated cerebellum, able to compute fantastic amounts of trajectory, muscle sequencing, and neuromuscular feedback data in a few brief moments. Some are born with this type of physics supercomputer in the back of their heads, and they are the pool from which professional golfers are drawn. In the complete sense of the word, these are extraordinarily intelligent people - but in a "nontraditional" dimension.

Singing on key, with an innate sense of rhythm, timing, breath modulation, tonality, and harmonics, likewise requires prodigious processing power, but in a different place, usually the right frontal lobe. This same area is also used for spatial reconstruction, and it's no surprise that talented musicians are more likely to test high in spatial ability and drawing/painting skill. This too is a powerful form of (nontraditional) intelligence.

Scoring well on the MCAT requires yet another kind of intelligence, a kind that is predominant in the left temporal and parietal lobes. These centers are adept at speech processing, linear analysis, sequence-based concepts, and the academic ability to absorb meaning from written words, reorganize what has been absorbed internally, and access it rapidly when needed.

The MCAT is hard for most, but not so hard for those with the third kind of intelligence I mentioned above. No matter how dedicated a student is, without the genetic gift of a high-power left temporal/parietal lobe, the student will struggle. Yet that same struggler might be able to sit down at a keyboard and play a song just heard that morning on the radio. Or she might be able to reach the green in three and putt out.

A high MCAT will mostly negate a "third tier" school background. In many ways, medical school (as opposed to internship and residency, where the real medical education occurs) is simply a sieve of tests.

What the MCAT actually tests is one's test-taking ability. Having exceptional skill at taking tests is unfortunately one of the most-selected skills in US medical education...but necessary because that is the skill most needed to graduate from medical school.

In actual medical practice, the test-taking skill is not as important as other forms of intelligence, including emotional intelligence, pattern-recognition, synthetic ability, and keen judgment. Which is why we have variable quality of doctors. The good ones come through in spite of, not because of, the medical education selection process.

[earcandle]

224. Wow! I want to post this on my site. Thanks for the info!

[gorfle]

241. Ah, the anti-test rant.

What the MCAT actually tests is one's test-taking ability.

Every time I hear "Test "X" only tests your test-taking ability" I roll my eyes.

If this were true the test could cover any subject matter and you'd get the same results every time you took the test. Since this logically is not so, the content covered by the test does in fact matter.

You were right about one thing, in that tests do just what you said: They test the "ability to absorb meaning from written words". And of course, what is tested is the absorption of the meaning of specific words, and so infer a level of understanding about a specific subject matter. That's the whole point of a test.

[Psephos]

249. :) Interesting that you chose this angle.

Focus choices are strong signals.

In order to discuss this further, though, would require a bit more work on your part.

The eye-roll and the "Ah, the old (fill in the blank) rant" reply are emotional expressions, but not analysis or argument. They are the grass of any political board. While I am an enthusiastic proponent of emotion, it requires no effort to express, and is not a substitute for a persuasive and reasoned point of view.

On a side note, I am very good at taking tests, including the MCAT. It does not make me feel smart...in some ways, quite the opposite. I think of it more like a parlor trick than as a measure of intelligence. The kinds of intelligence that interest me most, and that prove most useful and beneficial, are not measured well by tests. You have probably guessed that I consider those to be superior forms of intelligence.

In my opinion, the only reliable and diagnostic tests come from challenges undertaken in real life, where the results can be easily read from performance. Standardized tests are, even on their best day, a simulation. Usually, they are not much more than a trompe l'oeil.

[gorfle]

250. On simulations.

On a side note, I am very good at taking tests, including the MCAT. It does not make me feel smart...in some ways, quite the opposite. I think of it more like a parlor trick than as a measure of intelligence.

I think most of the academic world disagrees with you, or else there would be a lot fewer tests.

The eye-roll and the "Ah, the old (fill in the blank) rant" reply are emotional expressions, but not analysis or argument.

Which is why I followed with analysis and argument, which I notice you ignored. Interesting that you chose that angle.

In my opinion, the only reliable and diagnostic tests come from challenges undertaken in real life, where the results can be easily read from performance. Standardized tests are, even on their best day, a simulation.

Could it be that people can't wait a lifetime to assess the skill sets an individual might have? Could it be that instead we need to develop simulations that provide a way to, at least comparatively, judge skills? Yes, yes I think so.

Of course tests are simulations. No doubt some tests are better simulations than others. But to dismiss tests in general as "tricks of the eye" is just bullshit and usually the excuse of people who are afraid of taking tests or who do poorly on them or who are otherwise against measurable metrics that can cut the wheat from the chaff.

[Psephos]

251. Why are you upset?

It's okay if we hold different opinions. :) And I really don't mind being proven wrong - in fact, it's only in such moments that learning occurs.

Generally, when I'm discussing something and the other person gets exercised about it, it signals that we are exchanging beliefs. Beliefs require emotional defense. No one gets heated over, say, whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, or whether water flows uphill.

There was just one sentence in your first post where you "followed with analysis and argument", but to my ear, despite using words like "logical" it was simply an opinion driven by belief. Which is cool, but not persuasive.

I do agree with the need for a shorthand way of assessing abilities. (But I differ with you on testing "skill sets." The idea of entrance tests is to judge how successful one is likely to be at developing specific skill sets.)

I don't dismiss tests in general as tricks of the eye. You've misread the allusion there. What I meant was that the results of standardized tests can create an illusion. The illusion, specifically, that an entrance test can accurately predict superior performance in real-world future challenges.

It doesn't take much observation to see how this is true. I personally have seen only weak correlation between the quality of a doctor's medical care and her performance on MCATs. Arguably, there is a negative correlation in many cases. That applies in other fields as well. Those forms of intelligence that bear most upon successful performance in medical, legal, engineering, and other professional fields are not measured well on tests. They require higher, more sophisticated forms of intelligence, flexibility, and creativity.

In Hollywood and in the music industry, no test can accurately predict which movie or new song will rise to the top. No test can guarantee that only high-rated shows will make it onto television. No test can pick this year's Super Bowl teams.

And on and on and on.

Tests are better than nothing, but in my opinion, they don't test what most people think they test, and while they may be useful for culling those less suited to intense book and lecture study, in the world beyond the academy, that turns out to be a bug, not a feature.

The person I originally responded to was clearly frustrated and shocked by the sheer volume of esoteric material his child was facing in preparation for the MCAT. I wanted to suggest to that person that the MCAT tests a small subset of human ability and intelligence, and one that doesn't even correlate that well with the quality of care a future doctor delivers. It only tests whether one is likely to make it successfully through the perverse demands of medical school and finally move onward to internship and residency, where the actual medical education is acquired.

It's a pity there aren't many tests that test whether tests test what they say they test. lol

My opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

[No Elephants]

259. Perhaps it is not all either one way or the other? If I score well on a test and credit my ability

to take tests, I am not saying I know nothing about the subject (or that I have a zero IQ, depending upon the kind of test). I am saying only that my native abilities plus acquired knowledge in the field does not warrant the high test score, but a lower one. I am not saying a zero would be an accurate score.

[No Elephants]

257. I agree. I was blessed(?) with a gift for taking standardized tests. I score very high, but I admit

my actual ability in the field in question does not usually match the score. I believe that I am good in a few areas, but I score very high across the board, no matter which test; and also across the board, higher than my actual ability.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

51. There is a middle ground here though.

The cost of developing a primary care physician is insane, we have too few medical schools and too few slots for candidates.

If the government subsidized medical school more generously, created a surplus of pipeline doctors and guaranteed malpractice reform (not just tort reform), you have a doctor who can afford to live on less.

It's not just the doctors who rake it in. Add a 6 - 20% target margin to every step of lab work, procedure or just simple clinical supply and you have a bloated medical system symbiotically feeding off the insurance companies, who also have an average of a 7% margin built into their business models.

Increase competition without losing quality and you have an affordable medical market. It starts with education.

[WriteDown]

57. Excellent points. nt

[bertman]

66. I agree, sui generis. And let's hope that we are seeing these changes begin to happen.

[Mojorabbit]

229. My husband is a family doc

and though he makes a comfortable living we are by no means wealthy. It is not the family care doctors who are raking in the big bucks.

[JDPriestly]

119. Like right now -- swine flu.

Doctors see more death in just a few years than most of us will see in our lives. It's a very tough gig.

[bobbolink]

172. Doctors in other countries don't get rich... why should they here?

Just to keep poor people from health care?

Or does that matter to you?

[eagertolearn]

181. I would guess my husband went into medicine because he loved the challenge

and prestige more than the money. There are a lot easier ways to make money. Specialists don't get out of school until their early thirties and then they are expected to run a business, take "call" a 1/3 of their life and deal with the stress of always wanting everything to turn out perfect. He makes a good income but after you cover mal- practice, continuing education to keep up with your field, having to pay full price for your kids for college, all the contributions that you give because you are one of the fortunate in the community i wouldn't call us wealthy. He has really aged over the years because of the stress and now with many people not having insurance in our community this effects elective surgeries and that is what he mainly does. He really believes in a single payer system but he also believes we need to look at what is working and pay for that and get rid of what is not working. Everyone expects an MRI because it is avaliable but does everyone really need one for their diagnosis? "Medicare for all" would be using a system in place that works and if we have healthy people paying into a system too that are not in need of major medical care then that will help make the system stronger financially. Everyone deserves health care. Not all doctors are looking for trophy wifes (who ever said that above). I am like the opposite of that!

[kestrel91316]

67. +10. I say pay them what the average veterinarian earns (ok, maybe a bit more).

You'll filter out most of the people who are in it for money and status.

[LanternWaste]

82. Are doctors the only profession

Are doctors the only profession one should go into due only to a passion for the job, or does that apply to all jobs?

[U4ikLefty]

226. Ask a teacher.

[Aragorn]

113. u r correct

says a (very modestly) retired doctor.

[JDPriestly]

118. Very, very few doctors go into that profession for the beamer and the trophy wife.

Just to get into medical school, they have to go through an interview process. And then after they graduate, they go into a residency or internship program. Again, grades, interviews, attitudes toward patients and medicine are assessed very carefully. This is at least true for American-trained doctors. Doctors who are educated in other countries probably do not go through this gauntlet of what are basically psychological assessments and review after review by teachers and doctors with whom they work. Very tough for a doctor to fool people and go into the field for the beamer and the trophy wife.

If all that doesn't thwart anyone who is not born to be a doctor, if it doesn't eliminate people who don't really care about patients, the tough science curriculum and the grade standards certainly do. There are a couple of doctors in my family. They are very serious people -- the kinds of people who were studying in college when everyone else was partying.

[WriteDown]

135. That is not what I've encountered...

I went to UNC-CH and when I attended, there were quite a few frat boys and the likes who were going to med school. If Dr's weren't in it for the money then this article wouldn't outline the trend.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/healthcare_doctors_shortage/index.htm

[JDPriestly]

195. Actually, some doctors choose a specialty because they feel that they can

do more good by specializing. Many also enjoy the intellectual challenges in specializing. Family medicine doesn't present the kinds of diagnostic challenges or even treatment challenges that a specialty does. Treating colds and sending the more interesting cases to specialists can be frustrating to some doctors. Also, some doctors, for example enter medicine specifically to become oncologists or surgeons or whatever.

I know one doctor who really had her heart on surgery and loved it but then decided to go into family medicine because the hours in surgery are too demanding and incompatible with having a family. So, my limited experience in the area does not support the conclusions in the article.

[WriteDown]

196. See post 162 for what I think is the more usual situation. nt

[CANDO]

162. My wife works at a cancer clinic.

It is part of a brand new wing at our city hospital. She's worked there for 7 years now. What she describes to me is a group of doctors who are all about the money. With this recent economic downturn, the patient visits have been trending downward because people can't afford the treatments. The doctors have let people go and pushed more and more work on the rest of the staff and even have them calling patients to get them to come in so they can generate revenue. Very bad situation, if you ask me. Health care should not be an opportunity to produce profits. Yes, doctors deserve a good living. What they don't deserve is to live like aristocrats. She says there are one or two of the doctors who often make fun of patients to the staff after their treatments. They are horrified by this behavior, but don't say anything because they sign their pay checks.

[JDPriestly]

228. Actually, the doctors I know well are paid salaries. At least one of them

gets a reasonably high salary -- and drives and old car. She just loves her work. The other one has a family and works at a famous hospital. I'm pretty sure he too is on salary. But then there is a tradition of charitable work in my family so maybe my experience is not typical.

[rd_kent]

197. What we need and what we get can and usually are two different things.

The cold hard truth is that many Doctors DO go into the field for the money. The upside is that these doctors, especially specialists, are VERY GOOD at what they do, so......

Sure, it would be great if EVERY profession did for the betterment of their fellow man, but that is not reality....

[AlbertCat]

213. You must not know any doctors.

Lousy doctors get weeded out quickly.

My father was a doctor....and a racist repug. His doctoring came before any of his prejudices....or even our family for that matter. I can't tell you how many time he WASN'T there for me! (He didn't even come to my sister's high school graduation!) But he was up and working the ER at 3:00 am all the time....any time they called.... I know because the phone woke me up too. And I know a lot of others who's MD parents were doing their jobs before taking care of even the family business.

Doctors get paid a lot of money, and should, because they are specialists who are extensively trained to work at saving your life.

Baseball players are paid a ton of money for.....what exactly? Anything vital?
Movie stars get paid a bundle because....why?

Please....by all means....pay the doctor!

[eagertolearn]

242. Sorry to hear he wasn't around. My husband started out in a job

where he was working all the time like that and his partners were making way more money than they needed (my husband was the new partner and wasn't there yet). At one gathering one of the wifes said that their kids have grown up not knowing their father because he worked all the time (and played hard too without the family). So that was it and i told my husband this is not how i want my kids growing up (at the time we had one). So we eventually moved to a small town where it is hard still to be on call a lot (but not as many call ins) but we have had great family time raising our three kids. He could of made a lot more money working somewhere else but quality of life is so important. I don't think that doctors figured that out until our generation though!

[hughee99]

235. So are people who love healing the sick not going to medical school now

because it pays too well? If only we pay them less, it will attract a larger number of caring people? Paying them less may weed out those who are just in it for the money, but it how will it attract those who care? If we're going to provide health insurance to millions of additional people, aren't we going to need all the doctors we can get?

[kestrel91316]

65. The smartest, most dedicated human beings on the planet aren't

physicians, lol. They are veterinarians.

Vet school is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder to get into than medical school, and when all is said and done, we are paid the least of all the medical professions INCLUDING HUMAN NURSES, lol. We have to love what we do, because pleasure in a job well done is about the only true reward we get. The money is decidedly mediocre. And like I said, it's really hard to get here, so we are generally the cream of the crop.

I have had a number of physicians confess to me in private that they wanted to become veterinarians but COULDN'T GET INTO VET SCHOOL, so they settled for medical school. The reverse is unheard of.

So you won't hear me say that physicians are so brilliant and glorious that they should live like kings, while we continue to live like relative paupers, lol.

[bertman]

68. Interesting. I didn't know that despite the fact that my wife is a certified wildlife rehabber.

Your last sentence is provocative but I'm going to let it slide.

[Joe Chi Minh]

89. Sounds like you really deserve to be provoked, if you find certain truths

so unpalatable.

Actually, I expect most of us don't begrudge doctors or veterinarians (should they have been so lucky) a good income. We tend to revere our doctors (and veterinarians) over here in the UK. But why do I get the idea that it's money that really rings your chimes, and that's what this is all about for you?

This, mark you, while you have so many hungry, homeless and hopeless fellow-citizens, and others struggling on low incomes while they and their spouses both work at multiple part-ime jobs, just to stay afloat - and the family without medical insurance. And you have the brass neck to pompously intone that in your lordly graciousness you will "let slide" kestrel's 'provocative' last sentence. You want a hefty kick in the pants.

[bertman]

107. Nice try, Joe.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Joe Chi Minh]

130. There you are, you see, you can take much worse than kestrel's "provocative" truth-telling.

Admittedly, my post was a shade intemperate, but you lads and lassies really try it on, on a Democratic site, such as DU. Especially, at a time like this.

[bertman]

187. " . . . Especially, at a time like this." What time like this?

The first quarter moon?? God, it is absolutely breathtakingly beautiful sitting just above the horizon with Antares below her and Jupiter to her south.

Step outside and check it out.

[earcandle]

225. LOLOLOLOL!

[Mojorabbit]

230. I am a wildlife rehabber too

Have been for decades after I retired from nursing. I specialize in wild rabbits these days.

[WriteDown]

69. +100

When I look at what my sister went through just to become a vet, I have to agree.

[kestrel91316]

79. Ten years ago one of my clients, a college student in her late 20's,

tried to get into UCDavis's vet school. She was REALLY sharp, and in recent years gotten stellar grades (straight A's), had great references and work experience, great GRE scores, everything you would want in a vet. Unfortunately, her very first year of college, way back when, when she was taking fluff classes with no relevance to vet school, she didn't apply herself and had some bad grades. She had even retaken the same classes later and got A's, but that one year was enough for the Davis people to basically tell her that it made her completely unable to compete with the other applicants, and that she would NEVER be able to get in.

She finally moved to FL where her hope was that it might be easier to get accepted. If she didn't get in, it's our profession's loss, because she would have been a great vet.

[WriteDown]

83. My sister did NYU and then UPenn...

Just the bills alone were unbelievable. She earns a decent living now (only because she went into oncology), but nowhere near that of most doctors.

[kestrel91316]

87. Well, NYU WILL bankrupt you, lol. I went all 8 years to a godless commie

state school (Colorado St U), plus back then it wasn't as expensive, and the first 2 years my dad paid everything (then he died and I had to get grants/loans but not too much, mom helped some).

[WriteDown]

136. She "HAD" to go to NYU...

Her exact words. She was/is a theater lover.

[kestrel91316]

175. My niece HAD to go there, too. For their international relations program.

Which she switched from to get a degree in Spanish/Portuguese, which I figure she could have got pretty much anywhere. Sigh. I love her dearly, but am glad I wasn't in on the decision.

She now is jobless in FL after getting another useful degree, a MFA in literary translation from UIowa. Sigh.

[sui generis]

77. yep - physicians only do one kind of primate, and the occasional lizard

when they have to deal with a republican.

You guys get all the rest of the phyla.

[WriteDown]

80. I was wondering where you were going with the lizard...

I don't appreciate you denigrating lizards though. Check my profile as to why.

[sui generis]

90. some yuck weather today

you are correct I have offended lizards everywhere. :blush:

:P

[WriteDown]

137. Yeah, accidents all over 75. nt

[truedelphi]

193. Vets also decide that certain conditions are not what the prevailing

Medical philospohy states that they are.

Vets were treating cows with ulcers by offering a course of antibiotics - a full 110 years before the medical doctors decided that this would work.

And vets are far more aware of the damage that Lyme's disease is doing across the nation. My girlfriend's doctors told her she could not have Lyme's - as they said it was confined to the Northeast. Then she took her dogs into the vets - and they said, along with all the tests we are doing today, we are planning on a test for Lyme's.

"Lyme's?" she asked. "Isn't that a disease that is only in the Northeast?"

Turns out that vets were finding significant percentages of Califronian dogs to have the disease. This made her go off on a new round of looking for a better doctor. She found one, and started getting treated for Lyme's. All because of her VET!

[AlbertCat]

214. a number of physicians confess to me in private that they wanted to become veterinarians

but they went for the patient that could ACTUALLY TELL them how they felt and what was wrong.


There are much fewer Vet schools than Medical schools....and the profession is WAAAAY different.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. And stop believing everything your doctor friends tell you. Boy, they must have a good laugh when you leave the room believing the crap they pulled your leg with!

[irislake]

102. Doctors in Canada are affluent but not obscenely rich!

I know doctors in U.S. make more but I think only a minority are in it for the money. A friend of mine ended up on a private plane with a group of American Orthopaedic surgeons on a fishing trip to James Bay. They bragged that they only worked 6 months of the year and charged staggering amounts for their surgery. Laughed about it. My friend was horrified listening to them. But surely they are not typical.

Who knows why some end up working for Doctors Without Borders or for the free clinics I am reading about for poor Americans while others are so greedy. According to polls over 70% of American doctors want single-payers government run health care. So at most 30% are in it for the money. At most!

I agree they should make a good living.

[gorfle]

131. Right. DO NOT PENALIZE MEDICAL WORKERS

Let's be very clear about what we are trying to accomplish with health care reform:

1) make sure everyone can see a doctor without worrying about the cost.
2) take the profit out of the insurance part of the system.

This should NOT be about controlling how much medical professionals make, or how much profit they make. Now I'm all for the government insurer negotiating rates with medical professionals, just as insurance companies do today.

But I do not want the government interfering with or controlling medical professionals and how much money they make.

I want to socialize THE INSURANCE, not THE MEDICINE.

[WriteDown]

138. See post 102 for the right way. nt

[gorfle]

155. Post 102 gives no insight.

Post 102 says nothing about the right way. It merely relays an anecdote about some doctors on a fishing trip. Perhaps you noted the wrong post?

[demwing]

258. I want my doctor "in it" for the patients, not the profits

I don't care if they have money. Hell I want money, too. I understand the desire to be wealthy. My bottom line is that I want to see more professionals who are attracted to the field based on their compassion, not their bank statements.

[madokie]

260. Except the reason for being a doctor to begin with isn't money

[valerief]

39. I think you mean INSURANCE EXECs. I want well-paid doctors and medical staffs. nt

[WriteDown]

45. I want well-payed...

Not countryclub members with golf at noon on Friday. I think the average specialist earns 300-500K a year.

[cemaphonic]

49. the doctors I know that are making that kind of money...

(lots of them, as my wife is a clinic manager in a large hospital) are not doing golf on Friday. Most of them are working 10-12 hour days most of the time. I can only think of a couple that seem to be in it for the money too. Most are either in it because they want to help people, or they enjoy the ego boost of working a challenging and highy respected profession.

[WriteDown]

50. That is not my experience.....

My friends who are specialists have large McMansions and seem to vacation more than they work.

Here is a great link on the phenomenon

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/healthcare_doctors_shortage/index.htm

[eagertolearn]

243. Interesting article. I think there will be adjustments in the new health care

system. My husband is an orthopedic doctor and when he was in residency they only had a few spots that year at Stanford. They had many more internists and family practice spots so it seems that would keep the numbers at the needed amount. He was in school several more years to do his specialty than the internists but I think we will see more and more specialists going to work for groups where they will try and balance out the income earned by all. His malpractice is a lot more than internists and he has to keep up with the changes in his field which requires going to get more training almost every year. It is very hard to run a business and work and so many changes like digitalizing medical records will make it hard to keep up with "groups" run by the hospitals. The internists don't have surgical prodedures to get reinburst for by insurance companies and that is where the difference comes in. There should be a better balance because the internists and family practice work their butts off and there is so much to keep track of. So they need to calculate in the years in school and costs though when paid and then balance it better. Right now groups who are trying to do that are losing good doctors who can make more elsewhere.

[Wednesdays]

244. I can vouch for that

A close family member of mine works as a payroll clerk at a local hospital. Once in a while, this person tells me that a special check was cut for a physician for $20,000, $30,000 or so. This is just for their bonuses.

:wow:

[Barack_America]

98. Maybe with 20+ years on the job.

Most specialists do not make that kind of money, particularly the ones working at large academic hospitals. That kind of money is reserved for a few select procedure heavy subspecialties.

[rhett o rick]

106. So do you want the govament to control all wages and salaries? Or are you just stirring up trouble?

Just curious.

[WriteDown]

133. If you're a gov't worker, you get a gov't salary...

See Canada and the UK for good examples of how it should be done.

[gorfle]

154. I don't want doctors to be government workers.

If you're a gov't worker, you get a gov't salary...

But I don't want doctors or other health care professionals to be government workers. I want government insurance. Now I want the government insurance to negotiate with doctors as to what they are going to pay for things, but I do not want the government dictating what medical professionals make.

Socialize the insurance, not the medicine.

[WriteDown]

164. Typical American philosophy...

I want what the UK and Canada has, but I don't want to do it their way. Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too.

[gorfle]

240. False Dichotomy.

I want what the UK and Canada has, but I don't want to do it their way. Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too.

You are making the assumption that the way the UK and Canada does it is the only way to do something.

I see no reason why medical professionals need to be government employees. They should be perfectly free to set up and work for private practices, and government health insurance will be but one of the forms of payment that they accept for services, if they choose to accept it.

Since the government insurance would be (or should be) the largest insurance plan in the nation, logically nearly every doctor would accept it. But they should not be forced to accept it if they don't want to. If a doctor wants to cater to rich, cash-only customers, for example, they should be allowed to.

[rhett o rick]

169. There is a long ways between Medicare for all and the govmnt taking control of the doctors. nt

[Barack_America]

96. If you don't want to pay us, repay the $500K in loans we have to take out to go to med school.

I know of all hell of a lot more doctors not driving fancy cars than I do the doctors you described.

[JDPriestly]

123. You are so right, Barack_America

Doctors deserve good pay. Pay the CEOs a little less and doctors and teachers and lawyers who go into public interest law more. The CEOs do not do the heavy lifting in our society. They just get in there first and grab more than professionals.

[Barack_America]

142. CEO's run hospitals. Not only are they paid about 10X what doctors make...

...even their secretaries get paid double what other secretaries in the hospitals make.

And they don't even have to work the hours and watch people suffer and die.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

[debbierlus]

167. There is a big misconception about doctor's salaries

[mzmolly]

217. 500K?

Wow! :wow:

[Barack_America]

237. If you go to a private medical school, yes.

Which many of the top medical schools are (Harvard, UPenn, Hopkins, Duke, etc.).

The tuition alone at my medical school is $44K per year; plus fees, plus books, plus living expenses comes out to a pretty hefty fee. Much of that money just sits there accruing interest both while you're in medical school and when you're doing your residency and getting paid just enough to live on. It's pretty easy to get close to the $500K mark without even factoring in undergraduate loans.

[mzmolly]

252. I think you deserve

to be paid well Barack_America. It's probably one of the most difficult jobs on the planet. A relative is in his internship currently. He's away from his family for months at a time. Not easy.

[rhett o rick]

104. LOL. Who do you think you are fooling? nt

[JDPriestly]

116. Doctors need to make good money because they devote their lives

to helping other people. One of the drawbacks to HMOs is that the HMO interferes too much in the doctor-patient relationship. How much time a doctor spends with the patient, what tests the doctor runs, those decisions should be left up to the doctor. The insurer, whether the government or a private company, should leave that up to the doctor.

Doctors should not be working on a time clock. They take an oath to do no harm to their patients and they should be permitted to practice pursuant to the ethics they learn in medical school. Doctors go to school seemingly forever. Just to be come a doctor costs a small fortune. Once you become a doctor, you owe so much money, you almost never can quit.

One reason doctors and lawyers seem to make so much money is that they work such extremely long hours in many cases. In addition, they have to be the best and brightest just to get into their professional schools and they compete throughout their careers to get good opportunities and good jobs. The professional life should be a life of service, and professionals deserve to be well paid for what they do.

Teachers also should be better paid and held to a high performance standard as should doctors and lawyers.
This is my opinion.

Cut the incomes of businessmen who work for big corporations, not the incomes of professionals.

[Ms. Toad]

117. The challenge is that by the time doctors enter the world of employemnt

they are relatively old, compared to other professionals, and deeply in debt (for the most part).

Many, if not most, other post graduate programs pay the way of their students, and often pay a stipend on top of that for teaching. They may have college debt when they are ready to find a job, but don't have several years of medical school on top of that to pay for - with a shorter work life to pay it off. In 2007, the average debt load of a new doctor was around $140,000, and the average age of a new physician who went straight through from high school graduation is 30.

If you lower the pay too much entering the medical field cost will be prohibitive, and potential medical students who have the intellectual ability to succeed in other fields will be more inclined to do so.

[eagertolearn]

247. I agree and not only do they have a later start but it is hard to work

to retirement age because of the stress of the job. My husband has been working about 20 years in his field and would like to keep working until our youngest makes it through college (7 more years)but the call schedule and the stress from the job is really hard on him. Many times he wonders whether he should of followed his dream of coaching.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clear eye]

157. Current plans don't mandate Medicare payment rates. n/t

This is just a rebranding of the privatized, under-regulated, underfunded "public" option, w/o gov't competition or premium caps for everyone. Calling it "Medicare" is aimed to bamboozle you and your friends. The perpetrators should be ashamed.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

178. That's fine, as long as they don't have to pay out the wazoo for malpractice insurance.

My husband's neurosurgeon quit his job as head of the department of the hospital, because he couldn't afford to shovel out $200,000...yes, that's 5 freaking zeroes...a year to cover his insurance. Appalling.

[grahamhgreen]

223. With single payer systems malpractice becomes a fraction of what it is here because the patients med

medical is ALWAYS covered, already.

[Clear Blue Sky]

215. Modest living?

Then why would anyone spend another 10 years post college, incurring huge debt, working long hours, high stress, etc for "a modest living".

When I'm sick, I want a doc at the top of his/her game, not one content to earn a modest living.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. I can get behind that!

and I believe it will take the wind out of 'pug sails when they try to call it 'teh socialism.'

[clear eye]

153. Get behind what?

The rebranding, or actually letting everyone into something like the currently configured Medicare?

They're not doing the latter.

[Melissa G]

4. House Dems should spend more time on DU

we could have told them this ages ago...;)

[LiberalLovinLug]

84. No Kidding

Its such an obvious way to coin it. You have to think it was the DLC and their fear of anything hinting at an approval of Single Payer that stopped this smart approach from ever being used previously. Now that the Dems are scrambling and fighting and its gotten to the point of maybe not even passing a bill, the almighty DLC has given its blessing.
:eyes:

[clear eye]

159. So you think it's a GOOD idea to call a privatized, under-regulated plan

w/ no competing gov't plan and no premium caps to prevent inflated prices, "Medicare" in order to sell it to a gullible public?

[liberal N proud]

6. Now they are talking

[clear eye]

160. They're not saying what you think they're saying.

The Medicare pt E they're touting is simply a rebranding of the privatized, under-regulated, underfunded "public" option. You won't be able to join any of the current Medicare plans if you're not current Medicare age. The pt E plans won't have a gov't run option to compete w/, or premium caps, or even be required to use Medicare provider payment rates. The partial tax subsidies will allow the private administrators to inflate premiums, and they will.

There's more, but I'm too disgusted by the collaboration of the major media and the Dems to bamboozle the public into thinking they'll be getting something they won't, that I can't even concentrate.

[DKRC]

7. Someone's listening to Thom Hartmann

He's the first one I heard say this, but don't know if he coined it. Makes perfect sense to use it to defuse the rightwingnuts' "socialist" rants.

:thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

10. I've heard him use the term as well..

Progress for Progressives?

I fucking HOPE so!

[DrToast]

32. No, Thom Hartmann did not coin the phrase

But I did hear he invented the Internet.

[travelingtypist]

156. The first person I heard say this was Howard Dean.

He said it would be the simplest, easiest to set up, just lower the age limit
and bring everybody in, bing, bam, boom.

[clear eye]

165. Thom Hartmann meant to let all of us into the current Medicare,

not call a completely different, privatized program w/ no gov't run competition, no premium cap, no mandated provider payment rates, and not subsidized by taxes as Medicare is, "Medicare".

[Soylent Brice]

here comes the sun...

[clear eye]

166. I think you misunderstand,

and you're meant to. No one is offering to give anything resembling the current Medicare to all of us.

Read the fine print.

[Soylent Brice]

239. two things: it's a start, and there's still time.

also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6829571

[Wednesdays]

245. I'd be more than happy to read the fine print

Where is it? :shrug:

[clear eye]

248. H.R. 3200, which is the basis for the current negotiations,

is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200rh.txt.pdf

I'm sure there will be some changes, but given the intense insurance lobby pressure, not likely for the better.

[Beetwasher]

8. Whoa! Smart!

:thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

9. The US military and Canada know: cut out the middleman and save money!

ER: Darling, aren't you relieved you don't have to deal with an insurance company?

[wildflower]

11. It's about time!

Better late than never. :kick:

[jtrockville]

12. Once again, Kucinich shows amazing foresight.

In the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) called his single-payer coverage proposal “Medicare Part E.”

[harun]

15. +1 for DK.

[dana_b]

53. +2

a smart man

"whatever it takes, for as long as it takes."

[Zorra]

144. Summary of Kucinich-Conyers Bill: "Expanded and Improved Medicare For All Act"

:applause:
H.R.676
Title: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (introduced 2/8/2005) Cosponsors (78)
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/8/2005--Introduced.

United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) - Establishes the United States National Health Insurance Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.

Prohibits an institution from participating in the Program unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that actually deliver care in their own facilities to participate in the Program.

Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

Sets forth methods to pay hospitals and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization.

Authorizes appropriations and provides for appropriated sums to be paid for: (1) by vastly reducing paperwork; (2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications; (3) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top five percent income earners; (5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and (6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

Requires the Program to give first priority in retraining and job placement to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration.

Establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to advise the Secretary and the Director to ensure quality, access, and affordability.

Provides for the eventual integration of the health programs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Indian Health Service into the Program.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.676:@@@L&summ2=m&

Let's git 'er done.

[sheldon]

170. First thing I thought of......

Good call!

[bluestateguy]

13. I'd like to see Medicare opened up to all while we wait for the public option to open up

Make Medicare open to all who do not qualify for Medicaid until the PO (if it ever) kicks in.

[bertman]

14. EXCELLENT!! Now I can start using my "MEDICARE for ALL AMERICANS" sign that I used

at those town hall meetings this summer.

This is great news.

[clear eye]

185. Do you know that they're just renaming the privatized "public" option?

Or were you fooled by the PR?

[seafan]

18. HR 676 Medicare For All. Medicare Part E. May we call it ...

...our soothing "House Blend"?

:toast:


The Hill: House Dems want Medicare for everyone

By Mike Soraghan
10/20/09 08:27 PM ET

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.”

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

.....

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.
The idea has bubbled up among House Democrats and leaders in the past week, most prominently in a caucus meeting last Thursday.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) spoke out last week in favor of re-branding the public option as Medicare, startling many because he has loudly proclaimed his opposition to a public option.
Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), the veteran chairman of the House Transportation Committee, also voiced his support, as did House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

John Schadl, a spokesman for Oberstar, explained the congressman likes the idea because people are familiar with Medicare.
“One of his concerns is that people don’t know what a public option is. Medicare is a public option,” Schadl said. He said Oberstar started talking about “Medicare for Everyone” during August town hall meetings.

A notable incident last summer demonstrated the popularity of Medicare and the confusion over the public option when a man famously told Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) planned to unveil a proposal to her caucus Tuesday night that would include the public option favored by liberals in the healthcare bill Democrats want to bring to the floor, according to two House sources.
The plan, called the “robust” option or “Medicare Plus 5” in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent. Leaders are planning to roll the bill out next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November.

.....

Weiner's office: CBO analysis of Single-Payer 676 apparently underway right now., October 20, 2009


At Kos yesterday: CBO Scoring Rep Weiner's Single Payer: Update, October 21, 2009


Thom Hartmann: Medicare Part E --Everybody--, September 9, 2009


Yet another reason for single-payer Medicare For All, 'Pace Airlines CEO charged with knowingly not paying his employees' health insurance premiums', September 22, 2009


All righty, then. The next "option" is Single Payer (Medicare For All)., August 16, 2009




Keep pushing.

[bigworld]

20. It's about time

that we start labelling things the way the Republicants have for years. By calling it Medicare, we force Republicans to slam Medicare -- which most won't do. Medicare has a streong positive vibe. It's easy to understand, and most people have had a positive experience with it.

And for those who don;t want it -- they don;t have to take it. I think Greg from TalkingPointsMemo raised this months ago.

[StreetKnowledge]

21. Better healthcare for America is a noble goal, regardless of its marketing......

But good marketing always helps.

[onehandle]

22. Perfect. When Republicans try to shoot it down, WE can claim that THEY are trying to kill Grandma.

Which, of course, they are.

[Overseas]

24. K&R! Yes please! Medicare Part E!

Millions of us are desperate right now. We need help.

Open Up Medicare to all who want it.

I can't actually go to the doctor these days. I have one of those huge deductible plans and don't even know how the new private insurance technique of "recision" will affect me if I have a medical need I can't solve with Vitamin C, zinc, cold compresses and Ace bandages.

I'd love to apply those funds to Medicare Part E, and actually be able to visit a doctor for questions that may not be dire emergencies.

[SlingBlade]

26. People understand Medicare ! And that

is the key to passing a REAL Health Care Reform Bili as well as stifling the GOP misinformation campaign.

Democrats must understand that any kick the can down the road tactics will result in a back lash
that will cost them the majority, And rightfully so.

K & R :)

[change_notfinetuning]

27. I love it, but Rahm Emanuel won't go for it. It's dead before arrival. n/t

[Autumn]

28. Finally

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: An idea whose time has come.

[change_notfinetuning]

29. No chance. In D.C. only the good IDEAS die young. n/t

[denem]

31. Such a little ray of sunshine flickering in a pool of piss.

[Divine Discontent]

42. ha

[QUALAR]

30. TediCare For All

I haven't heard Obama mention Ted Kennedy lately. It's time to honor Kennedy in a monumental way - TediCare.

[tekisui]

34. knr!~

[robinlynne]

35. bout time. If they read DU they would have done that months ago!

[pattmarty]

36. JESUSFUCKINGCHRIST, It's about time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FlyByNight]

38. Hear hear!

:applause:

[exman]

40. Well.....DUH!!!!

:shrug: Has there ever been a better option? Who has been keeping this a secret? Is there a more obvious solution to the health care nightmare?

[AzDar]

41. Holy shit! Not only would this be a fully fantastic idea, it would guarantee a Dem majority

for a generation (or two).

[Politicub]

43. I love this option - and think it is the path to single payer

I can't think of a better way to do this than expand an already successful program to cover more Americans. Medicare is a great name and brand, and may end up being our own version of the NHS one day!

:bounce:

[vinylsolution]

46. It's the program we all need....

.... everyone in, no one left out.

Except Republicans, who would be banished to the wilderness for years if this passes.

Onward! :kick:

[sasquuatch55]

47. YES!

nt

[AllyCat]

48. Medicare for All! How obvious was this y'all??

I'm glad this is on the table. Well, more on the table than it's been. How do we push this? I'll call on my way to work again for my once a week call. Of course, I've been calling this Medicare for Everyone from the beginning, but apparently, they can't hear and need to have it repeated over and over and over again to understand.

[dajoki]

52. Obama needs to get behind this, quickly n/t

[dana_b]

55. let's write to him

me first! ;)

[dana_b]

54. I didn't think I'd live to see

this. It may not pass, but at least we know that some are listening and they have backbones!

[clear eye]

161. You haven't lived to see anything like what you are being fooled into thinking you're seeing.

No one not currently elegible for Medicare will be allowed into the current Medicare plans. The
"part E" will have only private administrators and no gov't run plan to compete with. The "part E" won't even have to pay providers at Medicare rates, it'll only be "recommended". The only differences between the new "Medicare pt E" and current private plans is that there won't be any pre-existing condition crap, there will be some basic minimum coverage mandated, and a small percentage of people will be subsidized. If this full privatization and income requirements for premium subsidies spills over into regular Medicare in the future, old people will be worse off than they are now.

I'm disgusted w/ the Dems and disappointed in the OPer for perpetrating this fraud.

[mvd]

56. K&R

Why not use a successful program that we already have?

[andym]

58. This is good news. Now we need to lobby the Senate and Wihte house to support it. nt.

[newtothegame]

59. I'm not 100% sold on this. Has anyone else seen the article noting that Medicare..

is the top denier of claims percentage wise, more than any other insurer? I like Medicare itself, but if Medicare has a hard time wanting to pay for the clients it has now, what would happen if we were ALL on it?

[change_notfinetuning]

61. No, and I don't believe it. Why don't you cite it? n/t

[newtothegame]

62. Here you go. 2nd page.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

And in fact, it's not even close. I'm not arguing against a public option at all, but I'm also saying let's be realistic about Medicare.

[change_notfinetuning]

64. Thanks. I will check it later, but I really appreciate it. n/t

[zelda7743]

74. Medicare denials

I do billing for a living. I'd like to bring up a point about Medicare denials. For the most part, the only time we see Medicare denials is when the patient has signed up for an advantage plan but still thinks that he or she has Medicare. When you ask for their card, they will present their Medicare card. Then we get the denial and find out that the patient actually has Secure Horizons, Humana, etc. Of course, by then you can't bill their insurance company because there was no preauth given. It's interesting to see how many people have Medicare Advantage plans that do not know they signed up.

[mvd]

85. Good point

This would be consistent with the reasons for denial given.

[kestrel91316]

72. My grandparents, who both lived into their late 80s in large part because they

got FABULOUS MEDICAL CARE in their retirement years, got everything they needed from Medicare and never got denied a damned thing, and their medication costs didn't fucking bankrupt them, either.

I suspect you are just making things up.

[newtothegame]

73. No, every doc in America must be making it up.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

[change_notfinetuning]

81. I had the identical experience with my relatives. The problems I have seen is

more with Medicare fraud than with denial of care. They will pay for claims, even fraudulent claims, that an insurance company CEO wouldn't be caught dead paying. But, God forbid an insider should report the fraud and their lives are never the same.

[mvd]

95. And Medicare can always be strengthened

Part D was like a backdoor program to let insurance companies/pharma have a hand on Medicare.

[Mojorabbit]

231. I am on medicare

and the cost of my meds doubled the beginning of this year.

[dflprincess]

108. I know that my mom has not had any problems with her Medicare

or with her Medi-gap insurance (which is covered by the state because her income is so low).

She doesn't even have to worry about that preauthorizaiton crap like those of us with private coverage have to do.

I'd love to have care like hers and I'd be happy to pay more in taxes to get it. Better than the money my employer and I both send to Cigna.

[GrilledCheeses]

147. by .05% total.

They have more claims than any other group. A good percent of their denied claims seem to be clerical errors or lack of information like in CARC code 16 which makes up nearly 28% of reason code denial. CARC code 204 isn't even listed as a % in their study (204 is "This service/equipment/drug is not covered under the patient's current benefit plan.") Meanwhile CARC code 96, which is another non- coverage code exchangeable with 204, makes up only 8.5% of dropped claims.

So it really doesn't look too bad. Maybe I'm wrong this was the first time I looked into it.

[RufusTFirefly]

60. Medicare for Everyone! Yes!

Whoever dreamed up the phrase "public option" was either tone deaf or deliberately aiming to undermine real efforts at achieving the kind of health care that the rest of the civilized world already receives.

[dhpgetsit]

63. Thank you for the frame, Thom Hartmann!

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-9

[defendandprotect]

71. Great news!!! Now . . . how can we help them deliver it -- ??? What can we do???

[moonlady0623]

76. So....

PUT private insurers out of business. Move the workforce to managing Medicare. The system is so broken the only way to fix it is to start over.

[Faryn Balyncd]

86. K&R....Medicare-for-All is the ticket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and if we are to

....have a hybrid system (opening up Medicare to all, while still allowing private insurance), we need to level the playing field with Open Enrollment to both Medicare AND the private plans, so that the private plans don't use pre-existing condition exclusions to dump all the sick patients into Medicare, which would force the premiums up in Medicare and/or increase taxes, and allow the insurers to continue their racket of overcharging low risk patients who have no alternative except to buy from them.

Currently, the insurers maintain this racket by the fact that non-insured patients are charged 250% to 600% higher than insurance companies pay for the same service.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6825396&mesg_id=6825396

If they are allowed to cherry pick and dump sick patients into Medicare, they will force the Medicare premiums for younger Americans buying in to Medicare up, and thereby they can continue their rachet.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6825396&mesg_id=6825396

[Hekate]

88. The obvious solution all along. I made this a part of my phone calls to my rep & senators today...

:thumbsup:

[JBoy]

91. Yes! Let the repubs explain why Medicare is Great, but at the same time a Very Bad Idea.

[tomm2thumbs]

92. Part E - if this happens, history will give Pelosi the credit, not Obama

and deservedly so...

[clear eye]

186. She can have it.

All that has happened is a renaming of the House's privatized "public" option. When people wake up in 2013 to what has actually been done, I doubt there'll be a lot of cheering.

See some details in my post in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6828159&mesg_id=6828159

[budkin]

93. WORD UP!!!

[MNDemNY]

94. Will The president veto such a thing??

[dpbrown]

97. Yes!!!!

That's the way to handle the branding! Go, Democrats!

[EndElectoral]

99. McGovern advocated this. It's what should be done

[Daemonaquila]

100. This wasn't the obvious strategy before... WHY?

*facepalm* It scares me that this wasn't the obvious first move. Makes me wonder who has been responsible for this strategy.

[rhett o rick]

110. I have this picture of Congressional Democrats slowly crawling out from under their

tables. Asking "after 8 years, has the bombing stopped?"

I think they are shell shocked, oops for the younger generation, suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome (called "shell shock" in WW II).

[Nay]

141. That's my question, too. This was such an obvious strategy--that

the Dems did not use it from the first was why any normal person easily jumped to the very rational conclusion that the Dems were bought off by the insurance companies just like the Pubs. One has to wonder who the hell (if anyone) designs and plots strategy for the Dems. They suck at it.

[clear eye]

183. Are you referring to the renaming of the privatized public option, "Medicare Pt E"?

or something else? Because renaming is all that has happened.

[krkaufman]

101. If this is just now "bubbling up" among Dem Representatives ...

... they're seriously incompetent.

Extending Medicare to all is the simplest damn solution, and could easily be tweaked to allay any fears of uncompetitiveness. The premiums for non-subsidized enrollments could be tweaked, short-term, to avoid price shocks to private insurers and could be used to help support the Medicare system, overall; and the Medicare Part E(veryone) fee structure could be tweaked, as needed, to accommodate concerns from ACTUAL health care providers.

[clear eye]

192. I wish that were what is going on.

Unfortunately they are not changing the elegibility standards of the current Medicare plans.

What they have done is simply to rename the privatized "public" option they were already offering as "Medicare Pt E".

For a few more details, see my post in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6828159&mesg_id=6828159

[Trillo]

111. "public option" was a rebranding

that afterward resulted in redefinition and several different versions, moving over time to less public and more private.

Medicare for All!

[slipslidingaway]

112. Is this just a name change or are they writing in the bill that Medicare

be open to everyone.

If it is just a re-branding as the article states, then promising people something that will not be in the final bill could backfire on the Dems.

:shrug:

[Kermitt Gribble]

126. AFAIK it's just a name change. But the headlines

make people think they're opening Medicare for everyone.

[slipslidingaway]

146. Thanks for the reply, just a name change is not as exciting. n/t

[glinda]

114. Husband's meds tripled today on Medicare. Not in donut hole either. But go for it anyways.

[TBF]

127. It's not perfect but so much better than the millions who have NOTHING now.

But I am sorry about your husband's meds - I help my mom out to afford hers and it's crazy that we have to do this.

[glinda]

190. No notice though on changes in costs. I pay $400/mo now for BCBS and get little for it

so to be brutally honest, I want affordable coverage for myself and I want Medicare to not be allowed to just do this. We cannot cut anywhere else in out budget and tripling the cost out of nowhere is obscene.

[bc3000]

115. I doubt this could ever happen - it makes too much sense.

[clear eye]

151. What do you think is happening.

They are not planning to let everyone into anything like the current Medicare. They are just rebranding the privatized, underfunded "public option" proposal, "Medicare". It's all in the fine print of the article.

[jsgindc]

120. YES!

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'...keep em' keep em' Rollin'

Ok......it's like a snowball heading down a hill.

[clear eye]

152. What do you think the name change means? n/t

[Raster]

121. Yes! Yes! Yes!

And if Rahm doesn't like it.... he DOES have dual citizenship.

[90-percent]

122. I want to play political strategist here

Like, what is the left wing conspiracy thinking of this? Is this part of the Dem leaders plan? Uh, perhaps "Single payer" and "public option" were deliberately misunderstood frames that the general public does not have a good understanding of, in part to clumsy quasi-explanations from those that invented the term in the first place.

Howard Dean was the one who said it was too complicated; if you used "medicare for all", it would be simple and utterly understandable to all but the most basic knuckle dragger's that we share our continent with. So Howard was progressive and forward thinking, AND LARGELY IGNORED. Oh, he was all over MSM, and he spoke concisely and in detail about exactly the way he felt. But these two frames never went you tube, or what ever the term for number one with a bullet in the democratic world.

It's like the real leaders, those that can effect real change inside the Dem's, all ran with the crappy frames, and now that the momentum in favor of a PO is rushing upon us like an inevitable tidal wave, THE DEM LEADERS are almost reading from the same script; Use the term "Medicare for all". They were holding back on it until public pressure and understanding grew to the point where it needed a push over the edge.

So I'm suggesting the Dem's, may possibly be playing a Spockian level chess game, and this is a CHECK chess move?

Like they're showing all the cunning of the Republicans of the recent past and playing their cards exactly right to do what's best for the American people! And they're cunning without falsely incarcerating Democratic Governors or outing CIA agents or by some other anti-Constitutional Mafia plan!

It is becoming clearer with each day, those that are against a public option will be on the wrong side of history. When you get guys like Dole and Frist speaking somewhat in favor, it's real easy to see the wrong side of history from where all Republicans must sit.

-90% Jimmy

[closeupready]

129. I hope you're right.

:hi:

[Vidar]

124. Excellent notion! And Pelosi is actually leading. Recommended.

[closeupready]

128. How would this be different than single-payer?

It would be the same thing, right?

[clear eye]

149. See, this is the intentional confusion this PR move causes.

Shameful.

The "Medicare Pt E" won't remotely resemble Medicare in that its private administrators have no gov't plan to compete w/ or other premium cap. The only gov't funding will be for the small group getting subsidies and certain brackets getting tax cuts for a portion of the inevitably inflated premiums. Upper middleclass and higher people will resent the hell out of it b/c, unlike current Medicare, it won't offer them anything they can't get for the same or less outside the "option". The private administrators are recommended (not mandated) to use Medicare payment rates for providers, and there will be some basic coverage requirements.

It's designed to be the minimum necessary to fend off demands for single payer.

[clear eye]

171. Wrong. Sorry.

You have been duped by a successful PR campaign and the OPer didn't bother to clarify.

No one not now elegible for Medicare would be permitted into current Medicare plans. What is happening is that the already proposed "public" option is being renamed Medicare pt. E. It is not a gov't run plan, unlike the main Medicare, and it won't even include a gov't run plan to compete w/ the privately administered plans. Since there will be as many provider payers as there are private administrators of plans, it doesn't remotely resemble single-payer. It is not being subsidized by payroll taxes or by raising the income taxes of the top bracket. There is no premium cap, and no mandated payment rates to providers as Medicare has. The only subsidies will be for people earning just over what would qualify them for Medicaid, and there will be a small tax rebate for many more people, but that will likely be eaten up by inflated premiums.

The major differences from current private health insurance will be that it will be available to all outside of the workplace, it won't have pre-existing condition exclusions, and there will be some required minimum coverage in the listed plans. The downside is that it will be mandated with a tax penalty for not enrolling no matter what it ends up costing, and no matter if your kid just started an expensive college or you have any other unavoidable heavy expense that year. The captive market and lack of premium cap will lead to inevitably inflated premiums, as has happened in states like MA which mandate private insurance.

It is favored by "centrists" of both parties because there is the possibility that in the future elements of this model might more easily find their way into the Medicare offered to the elderly, degrading it, and opening it up to higher cost private plans.

[closeupready]

179. Ah. I see.

Thanks.

[gorfle]

134. What is medicare?

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare.

Actually, I'm foggy on Medicare. I always assumed this was for poor people, but I don't really know what it does. Is it health insurance? How does it work?

[zapkvr]

139. Of course Medicare should be for everyone

I don't understand why the U.S. the single most powerful country in the world alone of all the OECD can tolerate so many uninsured citizens. It ought to be a source of national shame. You spend twice as much as every other country and yet have worse outcomes and neonatal death rates that would put some third world countries in the shade. Just what is up with that?

[clear eye]

163. This proposal doesn't make current Medicare available for everyone.

Medicare is a program that is partially subsidized for everyone regardless of income with revenue from payroll taxes. It has mandated provider payment rates to keep costs down, and a gov't run plan that any participating private insurers must compete with. In fact it is so economical that private insurers have given up direct competition, and now only offer Medigap insurance and Medicare Advantage programs offering drug coverage and some bells and whistles for plans that are funded w/ a combination of pt B and pt D funds.

In contrast, what is being done here is a rebranding of a privatized, under-regulated, underfunded "public" option with no caps on premiums, and no gov't plan to compete with as no one not currently elegible for Medicare will be permitted into the traditional Medicare programs. No improvement of the "public option" has happened, only a new name. The only subsidies will be a small group qualified by income, and some tax rebates for a specified amount that won't pay for much of the premiums. They have some basic coverage requirements, but no premium caps and no mandated payment rates like current Medicare.

I think it's a shameful con.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

143. The GOP are against Medicare period

we want a national medicare system for all and one for veterinary too

[clear eye]

145. Calling it "Medicare", doesn't make it like Medicare

None of the bills have the private plans competing w/ a gov't plan like the old Medicare Pt.C used to. Won't the gen'l public be surprised when they find no premium caps, no got't run option, and only a small group qualifying for subsidies. I guess Mike Soraghan's definition of robust and mine are a little different.

[clear eye]

148. No, they don't.

They want something that doesn't remotely resemble the current Medicare be labeled "Medicare", and we can thank big media for allowing them to get away w/ the conflation.

Down the road, when activists try to promote alternatives to the inevitable mess of this privatized, underfunded scheme, they won't be able to campaign for the easily understood Medicare for All because Medicare's rep will be mud.

Gee, thanks, caucus.

[inna]

253. i hear you

http://www.correntewire.com/health_care_deform_abort_retry_fail

[Roland99]

150. H.R. 676 is already there just waiting to be voted into law!

[midnight]

201. Ok. Why don't we vote on it?

[Roland99]

206. Because the blue dogs and Nancy won't allow it.

Fuckers.

[BrklynLiberal]

158. Perfect. Simple. Already in place.

[clear eye]

189. Not the plan they are offering.

They are not opening the gov't or other current Medicare plans to anyone not already elegible.

To see what is actually being offered go to my post in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6828159&mesg_id=6828159

[BrklynLiberal]

191. Damn!! Damn!! Damn!!!

:mad: :grr:

[Enthusiast]

168. Medicare for anyone that wants it!

Now THAT would be some "strong public option"!

[stlsaxman]

173. The PERFECT line of reasoning to as close to Single Payer as we're gonna get! Hooray!!!!

[Autumn]

176. So they may be just renaming

the public option as “Medicare Part E”? But it may be just their version of the Public Option that they have been kicking around. Shit.

[ej510]

177. Why the fuck should I care about the insurance industry?

"The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business."

The insurance industry needs go quietly in the midst of the night. FUCKEM'.

[JNelson6563]

180. Yes, expand existing program.

Very cost effective. :toast:

[clear eye]

182. Would be wonderful, and I'd join you in that beer if that is what they were offering.

But it isn't. It's simply a renaming of their version of the public option. Read my post in GD for a few details. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6828159&mesg_id=6828159

[Lilith Velkor]

194. It would be helpful if you'd include a link or three in that post.

Just so we know you are not trying to bullshit us.

Nothing personal, mind; this site has a history of attracting bullshitters, both professional and enthusiastic amateur.

[clear eye]

210. Here is the pdf for the full bill (HR 3200)

which is the public options plan that has been renamed Medicare pt. E:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200rh.txt.pdf

[Lilith Velkor]

218. Thank you. n/t

[lovelyrita]

188. Yay, the Dems do something right! :)

I'm glad this is actually going in the right direction. Giving me some hope.

[Paper Roses]

198. Many of the posters on this thread have painted the Medical profession

with a broad, biased brush.

I'm not a doctor but I certainly want to be fair to them. Also, lest you think I don't appreciate what everyone is going through with the current insurance fiasco.

I was self-employed for years and had no insurance because I could not afford it. I lost my recent insurance because I was laid off.

Blaming the doctors is not the answer. Put the blame where it goes,

Insurance companies.

[midnight]

200. Me too...... I want medicare because it works. Let's go get it.....

[femrap]

202. k and r

about time we got the 'frame' right. This is the way to go. :applause:

[ipaint]

205. Even if it's a lie?

[Generator]

203. Once again proving what I said, dump the Senate

The House are the only people working for the people. My husband said he thought the founding fathers didn't trust the people with too much power and wanted the balance of the senate. Well as I have learned during the Bush nightmare years the founding fathers left some loopholes.

It ain't really representative Democracy when some jackass (oh that's honorable Senator cough cough) with less people than the city you live in has more power over millions of lives than the actual representatives that live there.

[Wednesdays]

246. Well, we're a long way from amending that part of the Constitution

We're just gonna have to play the hand we're dealt.

[icymist]

204. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. n/t

[Algorem]

207. i must be smoking some good shit man far out

[notesdev]

209. Everyone*

* except for the Congressmen themselves who get gold-plated health care on a stick.

[Kermitt Gribble]

212. Misleading title.

They are not offering Medicare to everyone, they are just renaming the current crap public option plans so people who don't read past the headline will be fooled.

[mzmolly]

216. "Medicare Part E" BRILLIANT!

:toast:

[earcandle]

220. They are starting to sound smarter over there.

[grahamhgreen]

222. FINALLY! Bring it home progressives! YOU did this! YAY!

[lonestarnot]

227. Woooodamnwhoooooo!

:bounce:

[bamacrat]

232. Everyone go to www.countdowntohealthcare.com this is great

It's Anthony Weiners a D rep fromNY web site sign the petition. Medicare for all is what he's been talking about for months.

[PretzelzRule]

233. Why the holy F is anyone "worried"

about whether the F'ing insurance companies would be driven out of business??!? GOOD. DRIVE A FUCKING STAKE RIGHT THOROUGH THE HEART OF THOSE BLOODSUCKERS.

[Holy Moly]

234. Whot took em so long?

Seemed like a no-brainer to me from day one

[tavalon]

236. Medicare Part E

That's really good.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

238. HUGE KnR!!!! n/t

[BOG PERSON]

254. That's nice. n/t

[Odin2005]

255. Let's get it done for Teddy!

Healthcare is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT!!!

[No Elephants]

261. Some Democrats have decided that they will call ANYthing Medicare for everyone because

they think that rubric makes reform more palatable to BOTH the left and the right.

I wonder how many posts on this thread would have been written differently if the poster had been aware of that fact.

Olberman claims they got the idea from him.

[TorchTheWitch]

262. Unbelievable how many people here can't fucking read

Right in the OP it says they are doing nothing more than CALLING the mystery PO Medicare when it isn't Medicare at all and has nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare and even admitting their reasoning is to fool people into believing it is Medicare. And obviously this scam works given most of the responses in this thread.

[Gently Used Deal]

263. Courage

Maybe they're finally noticing that the pre compromised public option does not do a good job defining the edge of the debate. Maybe they are starting to see that if we actually did this, we'd have majorities as far as the eye can see, and not just in between GOP outrages.

Maybe we can all agree that when Dems are defined by big projects, big thinking, and broad programs, we win.

Good thing FDR didn't define a "largely new deal" with a "social security option".