How would the population react if a bill were proposed to shut down Medicare

[YewNork]

So many people are out there telling the government to get out of their health care, what would the reaction be from opponents of reform if they
were told "OK, you win. Medicare will shutdown as of January 1, 2010." How many would start celebrating?

[baldguy]

1. The same people saying "No Govt Run Health Care!" are saying "Don't Touch My Medicare!"

On Monday, in front of the unfriendly VFW audience, Obama made a special point of telling them their VA benefits wouldn't be effected.

The people who are protesting health care reform are the cream of American idiocracy.

[roakes10190]

2. Medicare

A resolution was presented in the House and voted on. No one, I repeat no one, voted for doing away with Medicare.

[Graybeard]

3. It was Rep. Weiner - NY who called their bluff.

His proposal to end Medicare was aimed at opponents of single-payer or public option who say government should stay out of it. Repukes (liars and phonies all of them) backed down.

[talblkman]

10. Nothing is wrong with medicare

Medicare helps those who are unable to work, or who can't afford insurance. let's not be prude to the point that we're missing the negative effects the public option, and this entire bill could have on us who work and CAN afford health care. My parents always were able to provide our family with medical insurance via their job. Now I work and can provide myself insurance via my job. Why should I, have to succumb to the exact same coverage as those who don't work? Don't want to work, and couldn't care less about working? Those that abuse the system - and we all know who "they" are. THEY are the ones that drive up costs. If they don't have insurance, provide a subsidiary for them. Don't include everyone in the country. We, nor the doctors deserve that. Please, tell me what's so wrong with my stance?

[kdmorris]

15. I think you are thinking about Medicaid

Medicare is insurance provided to elderly people, not "those who are unable to work" and "those who can't afford insurance". It is run by the government to provide health care to retired people.

What's wrong with your stance? It's offensive as shit. Unless you've ever had to be on Medicaid, you should try buying a clue before you look more foolish. Of the millions of people who are on Medicaid, I doubt even 1% "couldn't care less about working". That's just another talking point thrown out there by "compassionate conservatives" to get idiots like you to turn on poor people and make it seem like they are "taking more than their share".

[talblkman]

17. And I doubted it when I was told there are "Angry" individuals in this forum

I apologize for my ignorance. I by no means claim to be an expert in the health care system. NO I wasn't aware (until a last night discussion) the difference between medicaid/medicare. Now I know, however, that supports my thinking. The elderly who have worked their lives and are now retired DO have options for insurance. Many are being lead to believe that we're in a doomed state where if you can't afford it you can't get it. Not true, based on your point to prove to me that i'm "foolish". All I'm saying, is many are insured in this country; and if we aren't there ARE options out here.

Furthermore, I'm getting this believe that individuals like you believe everyone is genuine out there who wants insurance but don't have it? Everyone isn't. There are individuals who don't work. I'm referring to the ones that take advantage of the system(s) and drive up costs for everyone. Why should us working individuals be subject to the same environment in any office - doctors or elsewhere?

Prior to joining this site I was informed that "oh don't go there, their angry, evil, rude and....". Your rather disappointing calling me "foolish", my stance is offensive as "shit". And I've even been tagged an "idiot". None of that's necessary. That is why ignorant individuals like me have a problem understanding the options, because radical opinionated people like you refuse to be civil.

[kdmorris]

18. Oh, I'm usually very civil

But I get tired of people who do come here and say things as if they know what they are talking about when they don't. You yourself admitted that you didn't even know the difference between Medicaid and Medicare until last night. If you didn't know they difference, why do you come here and make statements about people who refuse to be working being on Medicare? Why didn't you come here and ask questions instead of stating your opinion as if it's fact? I would have been more than civil in that case. I would have given links and data and all kinds of stuff if you genuinely came here looking for information.

How can your opinion that "Many are being lead to believe that we're in a doomed state where if you can't afford it you can't get it." be taken seriously? There are no seniors citizens who are led to believe you can't get Medicare unless they can afford it. It's a GOVERNMENT right along with Social Security. It's "socialized" medicine, at it's finest (or at least the public option was portrayed as socialism, with few people understanding that the military and senior citizens ALREADY have "socialized" medicine.

"Individuals like me" believe that health care should be a basic human right. I do, in fact, believe that everyone who needs health CARE is genuine. Yes, there are individuals that don't work. They are poor, caring for sick children, sick parents, any number of reasons that they don't work. Are there people who "take advantage of the system"? A few, but the vast majority of them are truly people that fell on hard times and CAN'T get out of the hole they are in.

We, as a civilized society, should be helping them out of that hole. And if 1 or 2 people who "take advantage" are helped along with the thousands who need it, I'm OK with that. Because, otherwise, who gets to decide who is "worth" it? Which of us can truly determine the worth of another? Racists wouldn't help minorities. Sexists wouldn't help the opposite gender. Until we can find the perfect human being who has absolutely no bias to determining the worth of a human being, then we are obligated to help anyone who comes to us in need. THAT'S the way I look at it.

"All I'm saying, is many are insured in this country; and if we aren't there ARE options out here." That is also not true. There are numerous people (almost every Walmart employee) who is given just enough hours to disqualify for Medicaid and just so few that they don't qualify for their employers' "health care plans". There is another large subset of people who could buy health insurance from their employer (they are eligible), but cannot afford it, because it's too damned expensive. There is a huge number who were hit by "welfare reform" in 1996 who cannot get Medicaid because you have to have children to get it. I do not believe your assertions that "the people taking advantage of the system drive up costs for everyone", unless you are talking about For-Profit Health Insurance companies. Health insurance companies are driving up the costs for everyone, not some poor schmuck who has no health care and goes to the emergency room.

If you want people to be civil to you, try asking for information instead of trying to shove YOUR opinion down our throats.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Just in committee. I would love to see such a vote called on the floor of both chambers. Let's

get it on record that the GOP supports government run health care.

[talblkman]

5. Assistance with Health Care isn't the problem - Public Option is

I honestly don't believe that the government being involved in assisting with health care is the Rights concern. The concern is the Public Option, and I have to admit it's a concern of mines as well. If the government implements the Public Option, this will force all the private practices to significantly reduce their cost which will reduce their profit. If that happens, they will be forced to lay off workers. In addition to more layoffs because of less profit, why would employers continue to use the private sector for higher when they can use the Governments option? Overall, my fear is the private sector will be eliminated (or too expensive for the middle class - myself) and the Government WILL in fact control MOST of the insured. Consequently, doctor offices will be overcrowded with those who don't work, illegal aliens and all the working class. And those of us who work will get the short end of the stick when we have to visit our doctor. I want the government involved, I appreciate all that is being done now with Medicaid...but to control it all and negatively effect the public sector and the 1000's of workers there is not a smart move.

[baldguy]

6. Fact check: Private health insurance as a means of distrubuting health care services has failed.

We spend at least twice as much per capita as every other industrialized country, and we lag behind all of them as well - as well as behind several third-world countries. Fully one-sixth of our population has no health care at all, and another third can't afford adequate health insurance. Millions of manufacturing jobs have been eliminated in America & moved overseas because of the cost of health insurance. And today, doctors limit the number of patients they take care of because of the paperwork insurance companies require.

And it will only get worse in the future.

Private, for-profit insurance is part of the problem and no part of the solution.


If you're concerned about cost - you should support the public option or total public financing.

If you're concerned about coverage - you should support the public option or total public financing.

If you're concerned about layoffs - you should support the public option or total public financing.

If you're concerned about service - you should support the public option or total public financing.

[talblkman]

8. Why isn't "one-sixth" of the population covered? Define Adedquate.

Fully one-sixth of our population has no health care at all, and another third can't afford adequate health insurance.

I really appreciate your response. My confusion is with medicaid out there and the many other government resources to medical insurance why isn't one-sixth of our population covered? Do they not know, or fail to seek out what is available? Does that include illegal aliens? If it does include illegal aliens then when they go to the emergency room for medical assistance is when they should be arrested. We as taxpaying American should not have to support those that don't contribute to our country and are a factor in high insurance premiums. I'm lost with your evaluation that 1/3 of our population can't afford adequate health insurance? Is this the elderly & underpayed? If that's the case, then THEY should be given options for better health care by our government. I've never had any major medical issues, yet, however I'd like to believe that the medical insurance I currently have will be sufficient. Am I wrong?

[baldguy]

11. You haven't been paying attention?

Insurance companies charge 30% more than they need to make a profit. This makes people have coverage that is inadequate or non-existent. Is that so difficult to understand?


I'll tell you a story to illustrate: A few yrs ago my mother get sick. She had retired from the local public school system & my dad was retired from the UAW. They had some of the best insurance coverage you could get at the time.

She had been a smoker for 30 yrs, but she had quit about 10 yrs before. The doctor didn't think it was cancer, but wanted to do several tests to be sure. The insurance refused to pay for the tests, so the doc when ahead and started treatment for the GI problem he thought it was.

After several weeks, she still wasn't feeling well. Again the doc asked the ins co for the cancer tests, but since she had been a non-smoker for ten yrs the ins co refused the tests again. They thought there was no need, in spite of what the doc thought. So the doc treated her for something else.

A few weeks later, she started coughing up blood. Now the ins co decided now was the time for the tests the doc asked for 3 months before. She had lung cancer. But instead of a small tumor that could be treated with chemo & radiation, the doc had to remove her entire lung. She spent to next 8 months in the hospital learning how to breath again. Then after 2 more months recovery, the ins co stopped paying for the hospital bed. The doc wanted to keep her until she could move around with an O2 tank, but the ins co refused. We were able to get her into a nursing home, which was paid for a different policy she had, but after a couple more months she got an infection. We got her back into the hospital, but the only reason the ins co paid for it was because the doc sold to them as being unrelated to the surgery she had. If he had told the truth, the wouldn't have paid. Unfortunately, it was too late. She never recovered, and died a few weeks later.

So basically, the wonderful, expensive & caring insurance plan she had forced her doctor to delay treatment not just once, but twice. There are millions of similar stories - people have what they think are good insurance policies, but when the time comes for them to use it, the company doesn't pay for what they need. As a result people either go bankrupt or suffer & die.

[talblkman]

12. Powerful stories like that bother me

I'm sorry to hear about your mother. So with this plan, are we positive the same thing won't happen again? And how so? Each life is priceless, and I'd hate to see the support for this bill to be in vain. I'm simply being the devils advocate here: what's stopping the doctors from being so backlogged that we have to wait to even be seen to find out what is wrong? I've heard stories such as that (in respect to countries with universal health care), and that's what I fear as well.

[baldguy]

14. The stories you've heard are lies.

Propagated by & for the benefit of the insurance industry THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.

The average wait time for necessary non-emergency surgery in Canada is 2-3 weeks. In Britain it's 3 weeks. In France, it's 2. In America, if you have insurance AND if the coverage isn't denied, the wait is about 3 weeks. However, there are many many people who do not have insurance, or if they do the insurance company refuses to pay for the treatment.

And the most severe backlogs & overworked doctors in the Western world are in US emergency rooms. No wonder, because 50 million people use them as their primary care.

[YewNork]

22. Many of them make too much for Medicaid, and they can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions

[2Design]

7. sounds like you need to listen to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC more than

your other news network - if it works so good that the health insurers have to change and reduce their ceo salaries and private planes - that is a good thing - if the public option is what everyone CHOOSES to take then they have to have a better business model - it works very well in a lot of other countries to have health care for all - it is about time we got it and public option is the only sure way to change - Howard Dean said it and he has experience with health care reform

[talblkman]

9. If they have to change/reduce salaries - it's NOT a good thing

if it works so good that the health insurers have to change and reduce their ceo salaries and private planes - that is a good thing - if the public option is what everyone CHOOSES to take then they have to have a better business model

I disagree. What your saying, is if the government passes public option and the public sector is forced to make significant changes, how is that good for all of the employees there? How does that hurt the public sector, those who could potentially be driven out of business because they simply can't compete with the government? That is my main concern with this. Until I hear/read different. From my view, if the public sector can't compete with the government, they fold. The government now controls the entire health care system in the U.S.; companies and workers are out of work, you and I who work are now in the same category with those who don't (nor are trying to), and above all - all our eggs are in this one basket. That's not a good thing. I am not comfortable with the government ultimately running our health care system (Because the competition will be unable to compete) and doctors forced to play to their tune. What if the doctors are unhappy - then what?

I hear many horrible stories about universal health care in other countries - and those stories scare me. I read on this board somewhere that there is no perfect system, and even if this isn't perfect at first it could be fixed. I appreciate and can respect that - but I'm getting the notion that we're trying to make this appear to be problem free. And at 33 y/o with a 12 y/o old child I am scared of the negative effects of this bill.

>>>And please, please, please explain to me if it's so good, why are there so many opposing it? <<< I wish I could make that bold.

[2Design]

13. they are being encourage by Fox NEWS , oreiilly and rush and

corporations wants to protect their profits and if their is a more viable option they lose customers - without government and forcing people without insurance to take insurance - wow - profits go up for corporations and poor people can't pay their bills and more move onto the street

you do not have to have the government run your health care - you can continue to pay the prices your belowed health providers charge - no one said you have to take the public option -

that is for the rest of us who are not enamoured in making sure the ceos have high salaries, private planes, and get parties all paid for by your funds while they decide what treatment they will approve for you and what they will not approve

I hope they do fold so that we can have great health care like the Veterans and congress and medicare and other countries

As I said before you are getting your information from remarkably ignorant sources - go to the whitehouse site and listen to Rachel Maddow if you want any truth

if you continue to express these views - you show you have manipulated by the corporations by FEAR and they are so happy you are willing to make sure they have great vactions, large homes and other goodies while they let people die.

[talblkman]

16. My views are genuine

I am not being manipulated by the corporations or anyone else. I am simply straddling the fence because I'm not quite sure which side to be on at this point. My current view is the government taking over the health care system and situations become worse then they are, all to save $$. I'm for saving money, and more so for universal health care. What I am not for is less options when it comes to my health care. What I'm not for is extended and unbearable wait times because now, everyone is in the same category. What I'm not for is my employer dropping health care coverage, agreeing to pay the fine, simply because now the private sector is forced to raise their premiums higher then the fine itself. I hope that makes since, because that is my dilemma. Lack of choice. It's almost like I must "pick my poison". And I feel like we can adjust this bill much more suitable for everyone.

[2Design]

20. now what is it barney frank said - it is like talking to a dining room table

what planet are you on? Sorry - go educate yourself

[Echotrail]

19. Since they're being coached, they'd react the way they're told

Although the reform protesters would be confused.:crazy:

I saw yesterday that a conservative protester had added "tort reform now!" to their list of grievances, all on a nicely printed sign.

That sure sounds like they are following the Republican agenda, and being heavily manipulated.

[SweepPicker]

21. Oregon Death Panel YouTube Video

Have any of you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70KcaXbkJw4

I just ran across that video in a local forum and the thugs are saying it is a credible video. Please tell me this is not the truth and how it can be debunked!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. It could be this "Seniors uneasy over Medicare cuts in overhaul"

that they are talking about.


WASHINGTON - Democrats are pushing for Medicare cuts on a scale not seen in years to underwrite health care for all. Many seniors now covered under the program don't like that one bit.

Seeing a political opportunity, Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of trying to use Medicare as a piggy bank to finance his top domestic priority — putting the president on the defensive on a highly sensitive issue.

At an AARP town hall meeting earlier this week, Obama went out of his way to address "a misperception" that the Democratic bills in Congress would cut medical benefits for the elderly.

snip

The House bill — the congressional proposal that has advanced the most — would reduce projected increases in Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years, a gross cut of about 7 percent over the period. But the legislation would also plow nearly $300 billion back into the program, mainly to sweeten payments to doctors.

That still leaves a net cut of more than $200 billion, which would be used to offset new federal subsidies for workers and their families now lacking health insurance. Those uninsured workers also pay the taxes that go to support medical care for the elderly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32225671/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[hedgehog]

24. This is exactly the problem - what should have been a plus for the bill,

after all, who isn't against cutting waste and fraud, became a minus when the Republicans labeled it a plan to keep old people from getting hip replacements.