Blue Dog Suggests Medicare For All? Where Do We Sign?

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/10/15/15113/270

Blue Dog Suggests Medicare For All? Where Do We Sign?


By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:11:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags) Share This: Digg!

House Blue Dog leader Mike Ross:
I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates​
How much greater? How about 5% Mike? We got a deal. Of course, in a few hours, Ross will have to walk this all back. But it is stunning how stupid these people are.
Speaking for me only
 
One size fits all sounds regressive, make it a sliding scale and only for those who cannot afford or gain insurance in any other way.
 
Damocles said:
One size fits all sounds regressive, make it a sliding scale and only for those who cannot afford or gain insurance in any other way.
Click to expand...

The medicare for all wouldn't be free for anyone. Poor people would get the same subsidies to buy into it that they'd get to buy into a private plan.
 
Watermark said:
The medicare for all wouldn't be free for anyone. Poor people would get the same subsidies to buy into it that they'd get to buy into a private plan.
Click to expand...
So would "rich" people who are exchange eligible. It's regressive. Make it a sliding scale and you'd likely get more takers.
 
blackascoal said:
This plan didn't come from a bluedog democrat .. who actually won't support it.

Medicare For All Plan has been around for years and it has great support.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Home

Medicare for All - January 2006
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/stark

Kennedy and Dingell supported the plan in 2007
http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=B30A5C7B-35AC-4CC9-8192-1B1E50FC8356

It is without question the best possible way to real heatlhcare reform
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. It's just strange that in a rare moment of honesty the right proposes a supposedly moderate and reasonable plan to avoid creating "new government beaurocracy's", and it's actually the exact same thing as a plan people had thought of as belonging to only the radical left.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Yeah I know. It's just strange that in a rare moment of honesty the right proposes a supposedly moderate and reasonable plan to avoid creating "new government beaurocracy's", and it's actually the exact same thing as a plan people had that of as belonging to only the radical left.
Click to expand...

They think it feels better when they say it.
 
its what i think should happen as well to a certain extent tho it shouldn't be as much of an option. If you qualify you should be able to get medicare even under the age of 65. Fund it with a tax increase on those over 250k. Makes a hell of a lot more sense then overhauling the entire system just for the realistic 40M people who cant afford health care.
 
do we change an entire system and way of life for 13% of the people? and of thoes 13% how many can afford some health care but just dont buy it. I bet that number goes down under 10% if you make health coverage mandatory.
 
How does the entire system change for you Chap?

It makes insurance mandatory, makes regulations stricter, gives you the choice of a public option, and gives subsidies to those who currently can't afford insurance. How does that change you?
 
Watermark said:
How does the entire system change for you Chap?

It makes insurance mandatory, makes regulations stricter, gives you the choice of a public option, and gives subsidies to those who currently can't afford insurance. How does that change you?
Click to expand...
And it makes everything more expensive, and for stating that simple truth there are companies out there in the direct line of fire from the Administration.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah I know. It's just strange that in a rare moment of honesty the right proposes a supposedly moderate and reasonable plan to avoid creating "new government beaurocracy's", and it's actually the exact same thing as a plan people had thought of as belonging to only the radical left.
Click to expand...
If that is where cooperation could be found why would they reject the idea out of hand?
 
Watermark said:
How does the entire system change for you Chap?

It makes insurance mandatory, makes regulations stricter, gives you the choice of a public option, and gives subsidies to those who currently can't afford insurance. How does that change you?
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
And it makes everything more expensive, and for stating that simple truth there are companies out there in the direct line of fire from the Administration.
Click to expand...

i am not so sure it makes everything more expensive....seems it is pretty expensive right now and if the bill comes out right, then rates will decrease for everyone as the risk is spread over a broader spectrum of society and if a government agency actually works, then insurance will get fair competition and that is good for everyone.....
 
It will probably raise his costs because of the subsidies (I think the main tax they are leaning on is a tax on business who don't give their people health insurance, so it will result in raised prices for all of us whether or not those companies give out health insurance).

But that's about all I can think of. Hopefully we can make up most of the raise in costs due to the subsidies through mostly eliminating superfluous emergency room visits and the healthcare inflation cuts that will hopefully come with the public option and regulations. But I'd say it's still a social good even if that doesn't pan out.
 
Watermark said:
It will probably raise his costs because of the subsidies (I think the main tax they are leaning on is a tax on business who don't give their people health insurance, so it will result in raised prices for all of us whether or not those companies give out health insurance).

But that's about all I can think of. Hopefully we can make up most of the raise in costs due to the subsidies through mostly eliminating superfluous emergency room visits and the healthcare inflation cuts that will hopefully come with the public option and regulations. But I'd say it's still a social good even if that doesn't pan out.
Click to expand...

what irratates me about this debate is how republicans or conservatives don't want healthcare for all, yet, do nothing to stop the state and federal government giving great healthcare plans to their employees.....plus, the people who get elected to DC enjoy awesome for life coverage....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top