IF the ability of opting into Medicare replaces the new public option that would be great!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

BUT, why limit it to just those over 55? Is it also going to be made available to those who have been priced out of the private market due to Prior conditions? Will it be available to those who are not offered healthcare now by their employer? What happens to everyone else that is under 55?

[drm604]

1. Apparently everyone else is screwed. n/t

[Echo In Light]

22. Those folks will be 'criminals.' HC 'problem' solved.

[baldguy]

2. Lower it to 55 in 2010,

Then to 45 in 2015,

Then 35 in 2020,

Then 25 in 2025,

Then have it cover everyone in 2030.

[Oregone]

4. Right on, but also would be nice to work up

Cover all the kids universally sooner than later

[drm604]

5. And make everyone who's in trouble now

wait 10, 15, 20 years. Sounds great! :sarcasm:

[baldguy]

6. When Social Security was first enacted, half the population was ineligible.

It took 25 yrs to expand it to cover everyone.

[drm604]

10. Oh, I didn't realize that, that makes all the difference for those people who need help now.

:sarcasm:

[baldguy]

11. And Teddy Kennedy wouldn't have let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[drm604]

13. Where did I say that we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

The perfect (or at least near perfect) would be single payer. I was willing to settle for the good, a public option.

This isn't even the good.

In any case, my complaining about it is not the same as saying that I won't accept anything less than perfect.

[baldguy]

17. Medicare is single payer.

It's just not going to be universal for now - which we weren't going to get anyway.

[drm604]

18. I understand all that and I don't like it.

And I certainly have the right to say so without having people put words in my mouth and claim that I'm saying that I won't accept anything less than perfect. Especially when what we're (apparently) getting is way way less than perfect.

In any case, do you honestly believe that we'll be able to slowly move the age down over the years? We'd have to fight this same battle over and over and over again, assuming we even remain in power all of that time.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. I agree. While not ultimal, it is the best first step to Healthcare For All.

I know people will suffer under this, but it is the best starting point out there, IMO and I (as far as I have learned tonight) am for dropping the PO for a Medicare buyin with phased-in age groups.

AS LONG AS it includes regulations against pre-existing, caps, recisions, etc that the industry gets away with today.

[goclark]

7. Won't there be anything special in it for those under 55?

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. No PO. Hopefully pre-existing, cap removal and kids to 27 yo

among other restrictions will make the cut ALONG with premium caps. The one thing we haven't heard much about.

[branders seine]

9. they don't want real reform.

await details.

[Hidden Stillness]

12. A Very Convoluted Situation

This is a very tricky situation and I'm not at all sure how any of this would work. You will recall that the original progressive/liberal position on this issue was to fight for single-payer; then, that was undercut by "D"LC leadership and Daschle/Obama, to a "public option," then further reduced and undercut, to small "exchanges" and "triggers" that would have been easily violated and killed completely by corporate-insurance collusion of any kind. Therefore, what had become "the public option" was so weak and overpriced, that it was not worth having. Further, with the cruel, tiered pricing set-up they had arranged with their corporate friends, the poorest people were not going to afford anything but the barest "coverage" that would not pay for things, and they would over and over have to come up with the money themselves anyway--which is exactly the (bankruptcy) situation today! Therefore, the loss of this thing, after they caved on it being single-payer, seems not to be a loss at all.

That leaves the question of how the Medicare/Medicaid expansion--if done--would be handled. By the way, a simple start of reducing the age limit on Medicare to 55, (then further lowered later, when this has been established, to 45, then lower), is the plan of a single-payer group coaltion, led by Russell Mokhiber, that just had a press conference a couple of weeks ago on C-SPAN, including a doctors' and nurses' group for single payer. This was their "compromise" idea when single-payer itself was so quickly killed for the "health care" bill itself.

If expanding Medicare/Medicaid to healthy people of these other age groups will increase the pool of premium-payers who will seldom use the medical services--the definition of well-managed insurance--then it instantly solves the looming budget problems for these great programs. On the other hand, the current people on Medicare/Medicaid, (I think) are generally people already on a fixed-income source such as Social Security or General welfare/A.F.D.C., etc., which was how they further qualified for the medical insurance coverage, by first qualifying for those other programs. How will things be paid if you have poorer people who qualify for medical coverage, but do not have sufficient, reliable income--will that be subsidized? Also, it has been mentioned that the self-employed or owners of small businesses with employees would not be covered under surrent definition of the program. Will the expansions bring more money, with healthy people paying in--good--or will there be some unintended consequence threatening Medicare/Medicaid, to add small business, etc., keeping in mind they already have very high costs?

[dflprincess]

14. The devil is in the details

like what will opting in cost and what will it cover? Will we also have to purchase medigap and drug coverage? There's a lot we don't know about this plan.

[amandabeech]

15. The 55-64 group will pay full freight on Medicare, and that will be at least $800/month.

I think that it will be more, and many, many who will be eligible will not be able to afford it.

Your parents and grandparents who are on Medicare are subsidized by the Medicare withholding on your taxes. They pay nothing for Medicare Part A which is hospitalization, and I believe, the most expensive part. If they get Part B, Part D and a supplemental policy, they pay $300+ per month, which not everyone can afford, senior or otherwise.

This proposal sounds good until you price it out.

[tsuki]

16. Full freight on Part A is $443.00 On Part B, it is a sliding scale from

$96 to $308 depending on income. But I would expect these rates to come down with a larger younger pool.

[amandabeech]

19. Do you have a cite for those figures?

I don't think that the number of younger folks enrolling is going to be sufficiently large to make those rates come down significantly.

[tsuki]

20. The government site.

http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100

https://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2099&p_sid=AqjnH_Oj&p_lva=2100

[PVnRT]

21. Because they vote more

Yes, I'm cynical.