What No One Is Telling You: 100,000,000 Americans Already Use Government Health Care

[kpete]

What No One Is Telling You: 100,000,000 Americans Already Use Government Health Care
by barrettzinn

Sun Sep 20, 2009 at 06:23:45 AM PDT

Would that make a difference in how you hear the debate? What if I said it was 40% of all Americans with insurance? Would that make a difference?

It only took a few Google searches to compile the data and it is apparent in testimony before Congress. Folks, 100 million Americans with insurance are already on some sort of Government plan:


43 million are on Medicare

42 million are on Medicaid

4 million are on Tricare (active and reserve military, plus retirees) - no link, this is an estimate

8 million are covered by the Veterans Administration

7.4 million are on SCHIP

1.8 million are served by the Indian Health Services

2.7 million Americans are offered the FEHBP

656,000 are US Post Office employees

3.8 million are full-time State government employees

10.9 million workers are full-time Local government employees - 6 million of them public school teachers.

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/20/781602/-What-No-One-Is-Telling-You:-100,000,000-Americans-Already-Use-Government-Health-Care

[msongs]

1. lol dems need to learn how to frame a potent message then stay on message...except for dems who are

really republican trojan horses

Msongs

[Saturday]

2. Democrats are so busy being on the defensive that....

they never get offensive points in the media. This needs to be put out there for the teabaggers to see and mull over.

[KoKo]

11. Obama has the bully pulpit and lots of folks he could send out to talk about this...

instead from what I saw on CBS and ABC this a.m., Obama seems to be on the defensive about health care reform. I got the feeling he doesn't believe in it...he said on both programs: "it's a complicated program with many moving parts." How does that sell his program to the average American who is already nervous after the Wall St. Bailout?

If they wanted to sell it they could. That they don't frame it in anyway that average folks can understand leads me to conclude they don't believe in it and we will get some hashed over, watered down complicated program that will have a lot of "unintended consequences" for all of us. If it's so complicated with "lots of moving parts" then what the hell is it all about? :shrug:

[dajoki]

14. Absolutely...

If he wanted something passed he could get it done if he would show some leadership. And I do not believe it has to be that complicated, Medicare is already in place and it could be branched off from there.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. thank you. K&R

[exboyfil]

4. This is one of the reasons that you will see resistance

to any changes. These groups view their access as good and costs are inexpensive (because they are subsidized through payroll taxes, general taxes, etc).

Medicare will say it is not fair to cut my benefits because I am entitled from my years of withholding

Service people will say I am entitled by my service

Government employees will say I am entitled because I have accepted a lower salary than the market rate for my services

Then you move to the following

Manufacuring union workers won't want a change because their benefits are better than their salaried coworkers right now

Note that above represent huge core constituency groups for the Democratic party

A summit meeting with representatives of these core groups is necessary to discuss potential options that go beyond tax the rich. I would propose something like the Germans with a 8%/8% split on earned income (employer/employee) with perhaps an 8% tax on unearned income as well. If a universal plan can be crafted for these groups then it could possibly be carried forward into the other sectors. I think something that is set up should include both benefits and a funding mechanism tied as closely as possible to the plan (like Social Security).

[wickerwoman]

8. I don't think that's true.

Both of my parents are retired government employees and my dad is a vet. They know that without that health coverage our whole family would have lost everything last year when I lost my job and my dad had a major heart attack.

They're extremely satisfied with government health care *and* they're pissed and astonished that neither of their children have or can afford health insurance. It scares the shit out of them because one of our neighbors lost her son at 27 because he didn't have insurance and couldn't pay his hospital bills.

I don't think any of the groups you listed are as self-serving as you portray. Most of them have family members who are struggling without insurance or they know people with health care horror stories.

[exboyfil]

9. Would they be willing to see additional needs testing on the

health care they now receive (such as Medicare Part A)? I may have generalized some, but right now all the approaches I am seeing are wrong, and I have seen resistance from these fronts on this board and in the media.

Asking all of the Daddy Warbucks in the U.S. to carry the load will not work. In our global society the rich have lots of options available. Getting a bit more out of them may work, but I think the max would be returning the marginal rates back to pre-Bush and eliminating the cap on Social Security. Even these two approaches will not generate all of the expected revenue.

[bertman]

20. Throw in the savings garnered from not having to pay the overhead and profit to private

insurers, plus the reduced costs from having preventive care instead of last-minute emergency care for the millions who now wait until they're sick as shit to go to see a doctor, and you've got a HUGE savings (=money not needed to pay for medical).

Then, cut the military budget by 10%. Get out of Vietnamistan and Iraq.

The debate about how to pay for this is being framed by people who want to defeat it. You're buying their arguments, exboyfil.

There is no reason that anyone who is currently served should have their coverage reduced.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Medicare is not means tested

The rates charged are higher at higher income levels, but it is not a means tested benefit. It can not be turned into one, either. The resistance you see probably comes from what you are saying, which is far more radical than you think. Means testing of Social Security or Medicare benefits would be a basic change of the system from 'Insurance' to 'welfare'. You need to understand that. There are many, many reforms and changes to Medicare that beneficiaries want to see happen. Tons of them. But altering the basic nature of those plans is not something anyone wants for themselves, or for the future generations to come.
Say 'means test' and you will be dismissed.

[exboyfil]

25. Part A is not means tested but Part B is

That is the whole definition of means testing - increasing premiums for increasing income ($96.40/mo for low income and $308.30 for high income). Granted the benefit still exists in part, but it is still being means tested (if you continue increasing premiums to a certain point then no benefit (subsidy) remains). The same applies to Social Security but even more so through the taxes that are paid on it. The higher the income the more taxes paid on the Social Security benefit. It is a matter of degree and not of kind.

Social Security is both insurance and welfare. Low income workers are subsidized by the contributions of medium to medium high workers (approx. $50-$100K). This is not a bad thing, and at least the low income workers have contributed to funding a portion of their old age benefit (which is not the case for SSI recipients).

Medicare is also welfare in that the withholdings (mine included right now) no way justify what is expected to be spent in the future.


I think any sensible plan is going to make more demands on higher income retirees - I don't see anyway around it. Whether you want to call it taxes, sliding scale premiums, or means testing - it all amounts to the same thing.

[jwirr]

5. Seems to me this would work into both KO and Ed's shows.

[Cleita]

6. I think I've been telling DU and my local political clubs that for six years.

But thank you for putting it up in a fashion that maybe people will pay attention to. If one of the LW pundits pick up these stats and airs them like they have picked up other facts on DU it will spread out in the media. One stat I have seen repeated by study groups is that 60% insured are on government health care of some type or the other.

[WillowTree]

7. You can make a case for the first six...

....but Federal, State and Local government employees, and USPS workers are insured through private commercial insurers just like any other employer-sponsored plans.

[jtrockville]

12. Even just the first six total over 100 million.

[Overseas]

10. K&R. Great point. //nt

[madville]

13. Any many doctors don't take Medicare or Medicaid because of the low reimbursement rates

n/t

[bertman]

21. "Any many"???? Please translate, madville. nt

[NYC_SKP]

15. K & R! nt

[pleah]

16. K& R

[Odin2005]

17. +1

[raccoon]

18. k&r nt

[zorahopkins]

19. President Obama Did The Right Thing

I saw this question recently:

"Was President Obama wrong not to grant an interview to Fox News?"

First of all, let's get one thing straight: Fox "News" is by NO means a news outlet. It is nothing more than a place for right-wing wingnuts to spew their vile, hateful, and racist propoganda. It is the place that support the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies. And it HATES Barack Obama -- it cannot stand the fact the an African American is President of the US.

So -- NO -- President Obama was not wrong to grant an interview to Fox "News". President Obama, supported by a majority of ALL Americans and of ALL the people of the WORLD -- is doing his best to usher in a NEW ERA of peace, prosperity, gender-equality, justice, and love. Fox "News", on the other hand, is doing its best to pull us back to the 8 dreary years of Bush/Cheney -- years of wat, depression, male-domination, injustice, and hatred.

Why should President Obama lend the prestige and gravitas of his office to such a low-life, digusting, and vile propoganda outlet as Fox "News". People who watch Fox "News" are more likely to want to watch "Dancing With The Stars" anyway.

[bertman]

22. This is critical information, kpete. Great work!! Thanks for posting. Recommend.

[Captain Hilts]

24. AND the Prez and all Congress critters. nt