Medicare Part E: Everybody - what's your problem with it?

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Medicare Part E: Everybody

The President this morning admitted on national television that he lost control of the message with health care. It's time to reboot - and use a very, very, very simple message so all Americans can understand it.
Let's use Medicare, which nearly every American understands. Just create "Medicare Part E" where the "E" represents "everybody." Just let any citizen in the US buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. No need to reinvent the wheel with this so-called "public option" that's a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy the President is so comfortable with.

Just pass a simple bill - it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people - that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

Thus, Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral!

To make it available to people of low income, Congress could raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me - under 65) to cover the cost of below-200%-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.

This blows up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with United Healthcare and it's $100 million/year CEO. Those who like Medicare can buy into Part E. Simplicity itself.

Of course, we'd like a few fixes, like letting negotiate drug prices, and fill some of the other holes Republicans and AARP and the big insurance lobbyists have drilled into Medicare so people have to buy "supplemental" insurance, but that can wait for the second round. Let's get this done first.

Simple stuff. Medicare for anybody who wants it. Private health insurance for those who don't. Easy message. Even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can understand it. Sarah Palin can buy into it, or ignore it. No death panels, no granny plugs, nothing. Just a few sentences.

Replace the "you must be disabled or 65" with "here's what it'll cost if you want to buy in, and here's the sliding scale of subsidies we'll give you if you're poor, paid for by everybody else who's buying in." This creates Part E.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-9

Lower costs, far less overhead.

Choose or don't choose.

No new bureaucracy to craete.

Those who have it love it.

Creates competition.

BOON for businesses small and large.

What's the problem?
 
gee wonder why we never thought about just using medicare to get coverage for the 10% of America not insured. .. oh we did and then we realized that govt wants to not just SOLVE the problem.. but SOLVE the problem with govt expansion hence the total overhaul.
 
Medicare is already forecast to go broke in 2018, even without any massive new addition to it like the Democrats are pushing for.

"Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.html

Changing the lingo does not change the economics. As a socialist, should not you be happy with Medicare as it is supporting the poor, why try and entice the middle class onto being dependent upon it as well, especially as that will only more threaten the service the poor receives?
 
medicare and ssi will go into deficit with the boomers for sure.. but after that its actualy pretty rosie with some smaller populations and another boom of kids now that can support it.. I wonder if we hadn't gone to iraq and Afghanistan how much of that cost could have covered the boomer bubble.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Medicare is already forecast to go broke in 2018, even without any massive new addition to it like the Democrats are pushing for.

"Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.html

Changing the lingo does not change the economics. As a socialist, should not you be happy with Medicare as it is supporting the poor, why try and entice the middle class onto being dependent upon it as well, especially as that will only more threaten the service the poor receives?
Click to expand...


Medicaid is for poor folks. Medicare is for old folks. Given that you apparently don't know the difference between the two, why should anyone take anything you say regarding either of them seriously?
 
TurdFerguson said:
Medicaid is for poor folks. Medicare is for old folks. Given that you apparently don't know the difference between the two, why should anyone take anything you say regarding either of them seriously?
Click to expand...

Whoops misread, that is an extremely cheap way to get out of facing the real problem that MEDICARE is nearing going broke WITHOUT the addition of middle class folks onto the system.
 
blackascoal said:
Medicare Part E: Everybody

The President this morning admitted on national television that he lost control of the message with health care. It's time to reboot - and use a very, very, very simple message so all Americans can understand it.
Let's use Medicare, which nearly every American understands. Just create "Medicare Part E" where the "E" represents "everybody." Just let any citizen in the US buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. No need to reinvent the wheel with this so-called "public option" that's a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy the President is so comfortable with.

Just pass a simple bill - it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people - that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

Thus, Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral!

To make it available to people of low income, Congress could raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me - under 65) to cover the cost of below-200%-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.

This blows up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with United Healthcare and it's $100 million/year CEO. Those who like Medicare can buy into Part E. Simplicity itself.

Of course, we'd like a few fixes, like letting negotiate drug prices, and fill some of the other holes Republicans and AARP and the big insurance lobbyists have drilled into Medicare so people have to buy "supplemental" insurance, but that can wait for the second round. Let's get this done first.

Simple stuff. Medicare for anybody who wants it. Private health insurance for those who don't. Easy message. Even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can understand it. Sarah Palin can buy into it, or ignore it. No death panels, no granny plugs, nothing. Just a few sentences.

Replace the "you must be disabled or 65" with "here's what it'll cost if you want to buy in, and here's the sliding scale of subsidies we'll give you if you're poor, paid for by everybody else who's buying in." This creates Part E.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-9

Lower costs, far less overhead.

Choose or don't choose.

No new bureaucracy to craete.

Those who have it love it.

Creates competition.

BOON for businesses small and large.

What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Could you explain how Medicare E would lower costs? Because right now, the 'lower costs' in Medicare are being subsidized by the private sector and by government 'fixes'. If you shift a large portion of the population from private to Medicare E, then you reduce the number in private plans that subsidize the lower Medicare costs. This jacks up their premiums to the point that even more will shift to Medicare.... etc... until the cycle wipes out the private side. Then what do you do?

If it truly pays for itself... I have no problem implementing a Medicare E.

But as Chap stated... why not just cover the 10% that don't have insurance now. Why go to the trouble of trying to shift everyone? The bulk of the population is happy with their insurance. What they want solved are the COST issues. The above does not address the rising costs of health care.... at least not as far as I can see. If I am wrong, I would love to hear how this will reduce costs.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Whoops misread, that is an extremely cheap way to get out of facing the real problem that MEDICARE is nearing going broke WITHOUT the addition of middle class folks onto the system.
Click to expand...


Raising the ceiling on salaries from which payroll taxes arr deducted from $106,000 to $250,000 would fund Medicare and SS in perpetuity.

There is another fact the right never touches on, because it shoots their specious arguments down in flames. We spend double in premiums what the most expensive single payer system pays in taxes. Do the math, for crying out loud. Going to Medicare, part E for everybody will cost us at most half of of what we spend now...not half again as much, but half. Insurance companies pay out 25% in overhead, Medicare 3%-4%, and those of us who have Medicare love it. It could always be made better. the "coverage gap in part D could be made to go away, and the rule forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices was a blatant gift to Big Pharma from Dumbya.
 
Medicare Part E: Everybody - what's your problem with it?
Click to expand...


Nothing's wrong with it. It's what many liberals, including myself, have been saying from the beginning. It's the simplest and cheapest solution for the uninsured, one that is easy to understand and implement, and doesn't require any fancy legislation or new beauracracies.


However, I knew Obama never had the guts to make this his core health care reform position. And I doubt he'd expend any political capital to accomplish this.


Plenty of countries have a hybrid system of a core, basic public insurance plan, and private insurance for those who want some bells and whistles beyond basic coverage. Germany. Australia. France, I think. It works. In many countries. So there is no real rightwing argument against this.
 
Cypress said:
Nothing's wrong with it. It's what many liberals, including myself, have been saying from the beginning. It's the simplest and cheapest solution for the uninsured, one that is easy to understand and implement, and doesn't require any fancy legislation or new beauracracies.


However, I knew Obama never had the guts to make this his core health care reform position. And I doubt he'd expend any political capital to accomplish this.


Plenty of countries have a hybrid system of a core, basic public insurance plan, and private insurance for those who want some bells and whistles beyond basic coverage. Germany. Australia. France, I think. It works. In many countries. So there is no real rightwing argument against this.
Click to expand...

yes, many countries do use the above with decent success. Now what is the one commonality the three you listed (and I will add Canada as well)???

1) Australia has the land mass about the size of the US, with about 1/10th of the population. Add to that the fact that its population is largely centralized around the top five cities and you have a system that can be more efficient.

2) Canada is very similar to Australia in both population and its density.

3) France is a couple times the size of a Nebraska/or Colorado, Germany is about the size of a Montana or Wyoming. Bottom line, neither are very large geographically. Thus, they are again able to take advantage of population density.

Just something to keep in mind when you continue to harp on 'look over there... they can do it... so we must be able to do it as well'.
 
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact they do not have the votes for a public option and Mr. Asswipe finally realized nobody wants Obamacare.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a “robust public option” — the most aggressive of the three forms of a public option House Democrats have been considering as part of a national overhaul of health care.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28651.html
 
zoombwaz said:
Raising the ceiling on salaries from which payroll taxes arr deducted from $106,000 to $250,000 would fund Medicare and SS in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
The taxable ceiling WAS not only raised but eliminated completely for Medicare in 1993 and thus making it as much of a welfare program as it can be STILL is not anywhere close to making it solvent.
"Lawmakers over the years have introduced bills to raise the taxable wage ceiling, or eliminate it, as was done for the Medicare portion in 1993"
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/2009/top.htm

zoombwaz said:
There is another fact the right never touches on, because it shoots their specious arguments down in flames. We spend double in premiums what the most expensive single payer system pays in taxes. Do the math, for crying out loud. Going to Medicare, part E for everybody will cost us at most half of of what we spend now...not half again as much, but half. Insurance companies pay out 25% in overhead, Medicare 3%-4%, and those of us who have Medicare love it. It could always be made better. the "coverage gap in part D could be made to go away,
Click to expand...

Michael Moore mentioned the same thing with Medicare having very low low overhead, so two things with that:
1. The point of overhead is not to make it as low as possible (though that is preferable) but to make it cost-effective. If you find by increasing overhead in hiring consultants, advertisers, marketers, administration you can reduce cost, waste and increase sales then that is positive overhead.
Far too low overhead is a huge reason why Medicare has so little overhead and accountability that it is estimated at a whopping $74 BILLION in fraud alone:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15178883

That's almost as much as the Iraq war per year and that is just fraud, imagine how much waste and unneeded use there was.

2. There are many reasons for the overhead gap, like private companies have to deal with huge amount of government regulations, lawsuits, preventative measures for lawsuits and an ever increasing amount of paperwork. In just about every other sector, private for-profit has been shown to be more efficient, its not like healthcare is any different in a free market but rather because there is so much more government in healthcare than any other sector of the "free" market.

zoombwaz said:
and the rule forbidding the government to negotiate drug prices was a blatant gift to Big Pharma from Dumbya.
Click to expand...

Why would you get a discount on bulk purchases by yourself by buying medicine, yet if you collaborated with many people across the country to buy even more bulk you do not get any additional discount?
It is because the goods have to go to different destinations, the companies are not saving anything in packaging and transportation or checkout time. Just because the government aggregates the PAYMENT via taxes doesn't make any stronger an economic argument for lowering prices - they still are getting disbursed across a variety of consumers.
 
Superfreak said:
yes, many countries do use the above with decent success. Now what is the one commonality the three you listed (and I will add Canada as well)???

1) Australia has the land mass about the size of the US, with about 1/10th of the population. Add to that the fact that its population is largely centralized around the top five cities and you have a system that can be more efficient.

2) Canada is very similar to Australia in both population and its density.

3) France is a couple times the size of a Nebraska/or Colorado, Germany is about the size of a Montana or Wyoming. Bottom line, neither are very large geographically. Thus, they are again able to take advantage of population density.

Just something to keep in mind when you continue to harp on 'look over there... they can do it... so we must be able to do it as well'.
Click to expand...

interesting point about the size of the country....however, isn't it also about the higher taxes in those countries that allow the government to afford to make it more efficient?

i support medicare vs the public option, but will take the public option if they can't suck it up and expand an already existing system, which of course would be more economically feasible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top