MEDICARE FOR ALL

[SmileyRose]

chat it up everywhere
type it at the top of every email to everyone
write the editors
call the news hounds
pester the crap out of the politicians at every level
button on my shirt
sticker on my car
little notes left all over the place with phone numbers to the politicians on the back

More and more people in my neck of the woods have no insurance - those that do can barely afford the premiums let alone actually see a doctor. We gave the super rich their tax breaks so they can afford to make sure the little worker bees creating all that wealth can access medical care - if they will not do it voluntarily then it's up to us worker bees to demand government confiscate enough wealth to provide medical care to the worker bees. It's just that simple.

Push it every day
Every single solitary day
Until we have it or I die.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[OneGrassRoot]

2. Bless your heart. I appreciate you and your efforts.

K&R

:hi:

[Scruffy1]

3. Check out this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l985JkDIcVQ. As long as we have for profit healthcare even those of us lucky enough to have it can't afford the copays after we pay for all the prfits made at every level.

[stockholmer]

50. 3 large obstacles to an effective, socially just USA health care system (from an EU perspective)

1 The private, for-profit insurance companies, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms.

In the USA almost all of these institutions are deeply in bed with the bankers via stock dispersions, derivatives, and medical debt financing schemes. These entities will NEVER give up a huge profit center like the trillion-dollar health market. They will pull out the so-called nuclear options, and if the pre-existing nuclear options don't work, they will invent new ones.

A further barrier is the pharmaceutical companies, who force your government, insurance companies, and individuals to pay rates for medications that are in many cases dozens or hundreds of times what the rest of the world pays, even though the medicines come down the same assembly production lines. In Sweden, hepatitis C drugs are free straightaway to the citizens, as the goal of the government is eradication. These drugs cost the Swedish government 3000 to 6000 dollars US per year in the short term, and saves money in the long, as the cure and survival rate is incresing. The VERY SAME drugs cost your Medicaid/Medicare and your private insurance companies over 40,000 dollars, A private citizen who has to buy at full retail, will spend over 100,000 dollars per annum.



2 The state of the health of the American people would overwhelm such a system, without drastic, systemic changes to the health of your people.

I could go into a Walmart (personally I have never stepped foot in one, even when I visited the States or when I lived in NYC) and in several hours, I would see more overweight, physically ill individuals than I would see in months of walking on Drottninggatan, our busiest central Stockholm shopping street. More than 50 percent of the American population will have diabetes or pre-diabetes by 2020, according to a new major report ( http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=14672 ). Your cities ere designed to only be accessible via auto traffic, thus making walking to work or shops either logistically impossible or in many cases, dangerous.

The level of bio-physical attack you are under is staggering, the vast bulk of your food contains GMO, sports are something to watch on telly, not actively participate in, the use of high fructose corn syrup is off the charts (new studies show that cancer cells use HFCS like super-fuel to spread http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802 ), the vaccine rates are insane, (even ones that we in the EU have banned due to many deaths, such as the new Swine flu), and almost 90 percent of your country fluoridates your water, something we outlawed over 40 years ago, after a brief trial showed many negative effects, especially on cognitive brain development.


3 The culture of consumption, and "more is better" ethos that permeates the American zeitgeist.

We have a concept in Sweden called 'lagom'. It is fundamental bedrock to our culture and psyche, and roughly means 'just the right amount, neither too much, nor too little'. It is a balance, a way of offering help to all, but not condoning greed, all within our holistic bio-sphere of Swedish soil, natural resources, and the ancient knowledge of moderation in life. This, to many millions of Americans, reeks of self-denial, of a retreat in the face of new conquests. Nature and nurture to us means living as fellow life, in a fragile plane of existence, and this is philosophy, if anthropomorphized into a human being, would truly be 'persona non grata' at millions of Americans' tables of ideas. This will manifest itself in the heath care system by chronic overuse, rampant fraud, unfair distribution of scarce resources, and a horrific lack of service for the intended consumer.


Bottom line, there is huge money to be made in the American system by serving cheap, chemical-laden food that is mass-produced, promotion of the petro-fuel car culture that leads to low physical activity, then further huge profits to be made in sucking dry the sick humans that result from such unhealthy, unsustainable lifestyles.

[BlueCollar]

64. well put...n/t

[timtom]

4. Excellent idea!

I shall do just that!

Thanks.

[kctim]

5. What if ALL do not want it?

[paparush]

7. It's available .. it's an option . . it's a safety net . . it's not mandatory.

Everyone is qualified.

Not everyone participates.

[kctim]

18. Funding for Medicare isn't held out of paychecks?

[TxVietVet]

62. It's all about YOU.

The conservanazis have created a society whose god is greed. I served this country and we were all in the same boat.

Now, it's all about ME.

If something catastrophic should happen to you, as a society we would be morally obligated to help you, or we wouldn't be much of a country.

When the conservanazi-loving fools realize that they are nothing more than just pawns in a big game, it won't be just about the "ME" anymore. Until then, they will be greedy little toadies for the conservanazi republiklans.

[kctim]

75. I also served

and are you actually trying to tell us that it is better for someone else to dictate where you go and what you do, than to choose for yourself?

I don't believe in forcing my morals onto others, but when you do, the issue goes from actually helping those in need to who and how to help those you feel deserve the most help.

Basically, it's all about YOU and other people doing what YOU think should be done.

[rasputin1952]

88. You have the option of being treated by the VA...

a taxpayer sponsored health care system that serves veterans and often dependents. You can participate in some damn good health care, or you can pay for private insurance which can cut you off at any time, or ration your care...or, do both.

Those of us tat served have options; but when children in this nation cannot get basic immunizations, when citizens die because some jerk looking for a bonus is sitting behind a desk who's entire function is to find ways to deny care because of "the bottom line".

No one will be "forced" onto a Medicare like system, if you wish to spend 1/4 or a 1/3 of your pay on private insurance that will most likely deny you care in many instances, that is your option. But you, nor anyone else has the right to deny care for those that are in dire straights...and if my tax money goes to saving lives, I am more than willing to pony up.

I may suggest as well that you do a little resourcing...under no plan proposed was it ever a part of said plans that individuals would be "forced" to see certain physicians. In every plan, your primary care provider would remain the same, as wold your pharmacy unless the individual decided to change on their own volition.

One more thing..."death panels...they were instituted by the GOP, as soon as the people behind desks decided who would get treatment...and who would die from lack of treatment because of the cost. The GOP is complicit with manslaughter for each person that could have received treatment and possibly lived, but dollars got in the way.

[Recursion]

89. Let me make one point, though

No one will be "forced" onto a Medicare like system, if you wish to spend 1/4 or a 1/3 of your pay on private insurance that will most likely deny you care in many instances, that is your option.

If we do a Conyers-style bill that's not true. Like Canada's system, it would make it illegal for a health care provider to provide covered therapies to a covered individual without billing through the (Provincial in Canada; Federal under Conyers) system. Physicians could still bill privately for things like Lazik or liposuction (treatments whose prices have been steadily dropping, I'll add provocatively), and there could conceivably be private billing of illegal immigrants (who presumably will not be covered by any bill that gets passed in the next few decades), as well as any group that's grandfathered in.

[rasputin1952]

97. For any procedurethat would be cosmetic, except it the case of

injury, I have no problem problem w/people taking out insurance or paying out of pocket. I don't think the public should pay for a facelift or things like that. Illegals, by their very status should not be treated except for life threatening situations.I do not see those as "bad " things in any bill or law.

I an taking about a health bill, not a "feel better" law. I am not so callous as to deny health care for the suffering, even if they are "illegal", but individuals of that status would not be fully covered under the full range of services.

It is also important to look at laws i other countries, take the best aspects, incorporate hem and discard the weakest or worst provisions, enhancing upon the best.

[TxVietVet]

101. "DEATH PANELS" are the insurance companies that deny you service you pay for.

[rasputin1952]

103. That's what I ws saying...

they don't know the patient, they don't care...it's all about saving money and looking for a bonus; lives mean nothing.

[kctim]

109. Yes I do have that option

because it was part of the deal I entered when I voluntarily chose to serve my country. Our choice gave us the option we now have.
And IF we are honest with ourselves, we MAY "participate in some damn good health care" at a VA, or we may not. It is possible that private insurance MAY "cut you off at any time" or they MAY "find ways to deny care," but that is NOT the norm.

If you have to pay for something under penalty of law, that you do not wish to support, you are indeed being forced to support said thing. The option, not choice, that is GIVEN to you, is to spend 1/4 or 1/3 of your pay for what you want, which is an additional charge on top of what you are already paying. An 'option' most people cannot afford.

"But you, nor anyone else has the right to deny care for those that are in dire straights...and if my tax money goes to saving lives, I am more than willing to pony up"

Of course not. But we do have the right to decide who and how that care is paid for. You are willing to 'pony up' for you're morals, others are willing to pony up for their morals. Why are YOUR morals more important than theirs?

I don't believe in 'death panels' nor did I mention them. And it is dishonest at best, to state that people who do not agree with you are 'complicit with manslaughter.'

[rasputin1952]

111. Let me put it to you this way...

and I'm not singling you out, so please avoid that situation.

There are ways that insurance can be paid for through various means if one is poor or destitute.

Why pay a fine, if you would benefit from paying for care?

I am a "single payer" person, the cash saved from paying insurance companies would easily pay for care where no one is denied care for...and it would be cheaper, no "middle men".

You can watch premiums rise, or you can pay a flat rate and have virtually complete coverage, (except for some elective surgeries).

The alternatives...treatable diseases, death.

The only entity that is prospering is the insurance business...and they could not care less about the population as a whole.

One other thing about how insurance works, you pay a premium. (bill/fee) to be a part of a pool. As the poo dwindles, you pay more. Say you pay $400 a month, the ohters in that pool are paying for the care you receive, depleting that pool, premiums go up. even for those who do not receive care because of good health. The individual receiving care is dependent upon others to pay for their care, something very few people comprehend, so it is a fallacy to think that individuals are paying for their own care. What would be the difference if instead of $400 per person and $300 per person, (the federal pool would be exponentially larger spreading the risk...saving, (hypothetically $100 a month/$1200 a year, and receiving the same quality of care from the physician of your choice?

It's win/win...and you would not have the horror of an insurance person telling you your child is going to die because they will not pay for treatment.

[kctim]

84. EVERYONE who pays into it IS participating

Just like social security, it is supposed to be a safety net and IF people only used it when needed, it would still be. But people now plan on it being their ONLY form of retirement and health care so that they may spend spend spend on material junk NOW.

[rhett o rick]

10. Is that a serious question? When you reach 65 you are eligble for Medicare.

No one forced you to use it. Why not make it AVAILABLE to all?

[SmileyRose]

11. So don't use it.

But it should be set up the same as Public education, police and fire. Everyone pays in. Period. If someone doesn't have kids or sends theirs to private school, they still pay in to support the public system. We all pay to support the police, but some of us opt for gated communities, private security, ADT systems etc.

You are welcome to do that with Medicare as well. Even now, I personally know people who purchase additional insurance on the side to supplement their Medicare coverage. It enables them to see doctors who do not take Medicare and covers the full amount of procedures and treatments only partially covered by Medicare.

Those who can't afford the additional coverage still have access to basic medical care. Just like kids from poor family get access to basic education and police protection.

[kctim]

19. That is not how it works

People choose which schools, police and fire protection they want when they choose where they live.
The ONLY choice with Medicare for ALL is whether you choose to use what you paid for or not.

I actually support a Medicare for all plan, just as long as it is a true option which doesn't require people to pay for two plans; one they use and one they do not.

[SmileyRose]

22. There are already plenty of options with Medicare

Metro Atlanta has at least 5 choices for Medicare. The greater Detroit area, where the rest of my family lives, has at least 4 - 3 of which are completely different than the ones we have in Atlanta. You can certainly move to get the Medicare coverage you want just like you move to get the schools you want.

The current version of Medicare has it's problems - and quite frankly is at more financial risk than social security. However, with everyone's skin in the game, it will be much more solvent, and better funded. We spend more per capita on medical care than any industrialized country - shifting the same amount of spending to Medicare will give us phenomenal medical care, even at the most basic level.

[kctim]

69. Not the issue

Those are 'options' given to you, not choices. And at its core, not really any different than any other government mandate.

The ONLY way you can ensure "everyone's skin in the game," is to take away their freedom of choice and force them to participate. THAT is the roadblock we must get past in order for there to be Medicare for ALL, and OPINIONS on how phenomenal or cheaper it will be are NOT going to change beliefs.

[Lorien]

23. what if I don't want to pay for our military? nt

[Foo Fighter]

45. Exactly! n/t

[kctim]

70. Then change the Constitution

which also just so happens to be the correct way to bring about something like Medicare for ALL and what should have been done with social security.

[kestrel91316]

39. No one will be forced to see a doctor. If they wish to see one, they will

not have to face bankruptcy.

I kinda like that idea.

[Skittles]

48. I don't want war

but I sure as FUCK have to pay for it

[paparush]

6. That was THE slogan that should have been stamped on america, every minute of every day, for months.

Easy to get one's head around (vs the concept of Single Payer)

Medicare for All.

I'm with you Smiley.

[TBF]

8. K&R nt

[jannyk]

9. Kick & Rec!

[Lugnut]

12. K&R n/t

[newtothegame]

13. Great idea, IF the gov can figure out a way to actually keep hospitals open under such a proposal.

I work in a non-profit cancer center providing medical oncology and radiation oncology. We are reimbursed ~$.51 on the dollar for Medicare patients and ~$.38 on the dollar for Medicaid patients. Contrary to many DU'ers beliefs about healthcare, this is on our COSTS, NOT CHARGES. So we are losing $.49 for every dollar on Medicare patients (treatments usually costs tens of thousands of dollars) and $.62 for every dollar on Medicaid patients. Medicare and Medicaid make up 70% of our patients. We are the only cancer treatment option for 90 miles around, and being extremely rural, our average patient is over 60 years old.

As a non-profit, we don't need a profit. But we do need to cover costs to keep our doors open. Buy the medicines, pay the workers, etc. And covering costs would not cover purchasing of new medicines, or new technology, or expanding our space as we see more patients.

We also lose money on most commercial insurers, but it isn't nearly as bad. We get ~$.80 on the dollar for our costs for commercial payers.

The only reason we're still open is because we have a benefactor who passed away in the mid 90's but whose foundation still regularly donates.

So my question is, how the HELL would we stay open to treat these patients if ALL our patients were Medicare/Medicaid?

[flamingdem]

16. Reasonable co-pays and monthly payments could alleviate that problem

I'd be happy to pay a few hundred a month for good care as would many others who are subject to the mafia healthcare insurers at the moment.

[newtothegame]

17. Agreed. But sorry, in the world of rural healthcare, Medicare/Medicaid ARE the mafia insurers. nt

[Recursion]

31. Medicare Part A isn't "good care"

It's pretty lame coverage and has a $1000 deductible. And unless you've paid in a full career into the trust fund, the premium is something like $400 per month.

[Liquorice]

41. Yep, it's far from good care. I can't believe how bad Medicare is, actually. Until

my mom retired, I had no idea Medicare doesn't pay a dime for dental or vision... I guess they figure it's not like older people need to see or have teeth. It should be so much better. I'm surprised that retired people haven't made more of a political issue out of the shortcomings of Medicare. I was extremely disappointed when my mom couldn't afford dental work because Medicare covers ZERO in dental, and she has to pay for her eye exams and glasses as well. What a bunch of crap.

[mahina]

47. I have dental and vision coverage and two fillings cost 200.

Glasses cost pretty much the full cost of the frames and lenses, with a credit for the exam, which you have to do every year. God forbid you don't cough up your share.

Dental and vision ins. sucks on the market too. Sorry to hear about your Mom's unmet health care needs. Sucks! Lousy system! How did we allow this?

[tucsonlib]

44. Agreed

What we should fight for is EXPANDED, COMPREHENSIVE Medicare for all. No need for the co-pays, deductions, deductibles or "supplement plans". Just more givaways to the insurance industry.
Not only can we afford it, but the infrastructure is already in place.

If you haven't read the full text of H.R. 676, you really should. It's simple, eloquent, workable and would go down in history as one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text

[Recursion]

65. 103.2: Conversion of investor-owned providers

If that section were somehow passable, the problem would be solved.

[flamingdem]

90. Note that England and other countries do not cover dental either

from what I've read and I think it's the same in Canada.

Correct me if I'm wrong but somehow dental is not included... we get blamed for not flossing 3x per day or something

[stillwaiting]

24. We need to nationalize the ENTIRE health care system. Drugs, hospitals, medical technology, etc.

There is WAY too much profit and exorbitant expenses involved in our "costs".

Too bad, too sad for the private health care companies.

They behaved badly. Very, very badly.

[fasttense]

56. Think of all the billions of dollars wasted on paying for Insurance corporation CEOs' salaries.

If all that money did not have to go to those blood suckers, the money would be there to pay for hospital visits at their true costs. All the money wasted on applying for, ensuring compliance with and processing 20 or more types of health insurance could be used for paying for hospital visits. All the huge profits that health insurance corporations and their stock holders demand could also be used for paying for the real costs of health care.

There is billions of dollars being funneled off the health care system to line some rich person's pockets - this money could go to real treatment and health care.

Instead billions of dollars are wasted. Poured down the greedy hole of some stupid capitalist system.

[Recursion]

61. No. That's not part of the "twice per capita"

I think that's just a fundamental factual mistake that's being kept alive on DU. The "twice per capita" figure doesn't include what we pay to insurance companies; it's what insurance companies, the government, and individuals pay to providers (doctors, nurses, pharma, device manufacturers, etc.).

[ardy]

92. Well, I guess

they can continue charging that $8.00 for each aspirin twice a day... while they have the patient mainlined on Morphine every 3 hours 24/7... Never witnessed patient ever taking or being given an aspirin. That's the only thing/charge I could make out on the page and a half of daily detailed billings but...then someone paid for it somehow.... There is plenty of room for across the entire board improvements. There is a lot of money being made and paid..just not sure where it is all going. Apparently not an equitable distribution of the funds.
The whole health care mess needs a lot of work done on it to get it right, workable and affordable, and fair for all..
Long past due and the last two years only puts us just another two years behind and all further in Debt..

MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!

[area51]

119. Welcome to DU, ardy. n/t

[Bennyboy]

14. Show me the MONEY....

I know it is out there that Medicare for all (Or socialized medicine) will save money. Show me that when you speak of this.

[eridani]

35. We are already paying twice the money every single other country pays to cover everyone

Therefore there is plenty of money.

[Sherman A1]

49. Precisely

Things might need to be shuffled around, but we are already paying more than enough.

[Recursion]

54. Tell the doctors who will have to treat 50 million more patients that

"Hi, Doctor, I'm going to increase your workload by 25%, but I'm already paying you enough."

How would you feel about a Republican plan that told a sector of workers that?

[Sherman A1]

58. And we should tell the people who need treatment what?

That this nation spends more than other western nations (who have universal coverage) on health care, yet because you are working more than one job and none of them provide you health insurance that you are SOL?

We can and must do better...

[Recursion]

59. "We must do better" is not a plan

We both agree that health care providers need to increase their workload by about 25%.

You're the one saying that the current amount providers make is enough, despite wanting to require that workload increase. I asked you to justify that, and "we must do better" isn't an answer. Do you want to draft doctors and nurses?

[jtown1123]

74. More jobs! Create more national universities where doctors and nurses

can gain a good medical education with little debt. It's a win for everyone.

[Recursion]

78. I'm all for it

I think that's the kind of solution we need rather than stomping our feet about the fact that insurance companies manage to make a profit.

[flamingdem]

91. This is an excellent idea, wonder why it has not been discussed much nt

[Sherman A1]

107. A Plan.

How about the model of Canada or Great Britain or France or Sweden or Norway.....

You complain that workloads will increase. Yes, they will. They have in just about every business of which I know over the last several years. We are all doing more with less and then we are told to do even more with less, then even more with less.

Why should this industry be any different?

[Recursion]

53. No, there's not

That twice per capita barely provides treatment for 80% of our population. (Remember, the twice per capita is payments to providers, not insurance premiums.)

Either providers will have to do more work for less money, or we're going to have to pay even more than we are now.

[RBitt]

68. Read HR 676... Your assumption is incorrect

If phased in over a ten year period additional Drs an nurses can be trained, and the training can be funded to those who are qualified but unable to afford it.
The bill is simple, paid for and expands medicare to cover all care. It would be transformational. It will solve many more problems than you might realize. Remember that health insurance was not for profit until Ronald Reagan was president. Remember that letting business do what they do best was supposed to fix it. My health ins. cost in 1978 was 32. per month, paid for by my employer. Today it is over 900.00 paid by me, and up since Obama care was passed, and my annual cap is still in place due to "grandfathering".

[Recursion]

72. 676 dissolves all for-profit medical care providers

And outlaws duplication of coverage. Which is the only way it would work. And it would cause a violent revolution.

It would be transformational.

Boy, you can say that again.

Remember that health insurance was not for profit until Ronald Reagan was president.

Blue Cross wasn't for-profit; there's been for-profit health insurance in general for a long time.

Even today about half of plans are run by NFPs (depending on how you count them).

[theophilus]

15. I SO agree. If we had MFA, publicly funded elections, and a Green energy/infrastructure

push we would go a long way to fixing this country and the world. The Boomers need to step up and push for these programs!!!!!!!

[Cleita]

20. I do all those things and

I have the sticker on my car like the one below. My hope is that California will pass single payer again and that this time our new Governor will not veto it. If California starts the trend, other states will probably follow and maybe by 2014, we won't need the insurance plan passed by Congress and it will seem obvious that Medicare for All is the answer.

[area51]

21. +1

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, bankrupts and kills people.

Republinazi '93 plan -- mandates were their idea:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

"Any proposal that sticks with our current dependence on for-profit private insurers ... will not be sustainable. And the new law will not get us to universal coverage ...." -- T.R. Reid, The Healing of America

[stillwaiting]

25. k & r

[somone]

26. Yep. Medicare for all!

[grahamhgreen]

27. Big kr

[upi402]

28. Will our "Dems" leaders push this when the Repukes try to oust Obama's give-away to Healthcare Indus

I will continue to push it SmileyRose, as I have for decades. And NAFTA and insane trade policy and campaign election reform, and worst of all; MEDIA PROPAGANDA.

[maryf]

29. K&R nt

[Recursion]

30. Find a way to fund it without bankrupting hospitals or GPs

I have yet to hear that.

[eridani]

36. We fund it with the money we are already paying, which is TWICE

--per capita what every other industrialized county pays.

[Recursion]

51. Paying twice per capita for care (not insurance), we only cover 83% of our population

We obviously pay much more than twice per capita for insurance. Twice per capita is the cost of procedures: 2.6 trillion per year or so. And that's leaving 17% of us without treatments (and a lot of the people who need the most expensive treatments are in that 17%).

There's this fantasy that Medicare could force its 15% cramdown on all providers nationwide. This is absurd, especially given that doctors would have to see 20% more patients than they already do, and that these are some of the most labor-intensive patients for the providers (which is why their insurance companies dropped them). What would you say about a Republican plan that asked a sector of employees to do 20% more work for 15% less pay? But that's exactly what Medicare For All advocates are hoping will happen. (And that's not even getting to the additional 20% cut all of our budgeting pretends we're going to give Medicare and Medicaid doctors.)

[jtown1123]

79. Most doctors would prefer to work in a system where they

didn't have to deal with hundreds of different insurance policies and the headaches of getting paid. Government pays on time with much less headache therefore much less overhead.

[Recursion]

81. Well, they certainly pay eventually

I've never heard someone praise the government for the timeliness of its payment to providers. Also, there's the uncomfortable problem that Medicare denies claims at about twice the rate of private insurers; currently those of us with private insurance end up eating those costs.

[eridani]

106. We take the insurance companies out ot fhe pucture, and there is plenty of money n/t

[Recursion]

110. That "twice per capita" doesn't include insurance premiums

That's how much insurers, the government, and individuals pay to heath care providers every year.

[eridani]

113. Wrong. Administrative costs are included n/t

[Recursion]

114. No, they're not. 2.6 trillion is simply payments to providers (nt)

[eridani]

115. Let's see your link. n/t

[Recursion]

116. Here's Kaiser for 2007

www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf

This is payments by insurers, individuals, and the government to hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, nursing homes, etc.

2nd page is increase in insurance premiums relative to wages, which is even more depressing.

[eridani]

120. This data is for the US only. Have I misunderstood you? I thought you were disputing my claims

--about similar expenses in foreign countries. And there isn't a word about the obscene overhead in the US system.

[leftstreet]

32. K&R

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Yes, but can we get rid of the provisions that the government can put

liens on your estate after you die? I'd like to actually leave something behind for my kids besides bills.

[eridani]

38. Then choose to die rather than spend money on end of life care n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

94. Euthanasia is another issue we need to deal with, then.

[Recursion]

52. And, this is the heart of the problem

"I want Medicare For All but I don't want to pay for it."

That's basically where the country is. They would love to be able to enroll in Medicare. They don't like any of the ways we could pay for that.

[RBitt]

73. READ THE BILL

unlike most Washington BS this is paid for in the bill and fairly, and without health insurance and all of the way we pay now, we all save major dollars. Think of how many ways you pay for health insurance today. It's in your property tax ( insurance for teachers, cops highway workers, etc. ) it's in your homeowners insurance, your auto, your liability insurance if you are a business, it's in the pension payment to public employees that have retired, it's in the cost of making your parents broke so they can get medicaid, it's in lots of things not considered but health insurance cost are staggering. HR 676 mandates a 4 % employer contribution and a like amount from employees. Every biz owner I talked to loves the ideas once explained to them. The bill also calls for a 1/2 of 1 % sales tax on Wall Street type sales of investment securities, stocks, bonds, and the like to fund the program. Unfortunately the Dems and Repubs are afraid to send this to the CBO to see if the numbers add up. Obama could have demanded the the CBO take a look at this but failed to do so. Perhaps it makes too much sense, perhaps it fails, but at least let it be measured by the same yard stick they use to justify every other bill.

[Recursion]

76. I've commented on it three times in this thread

I think it's a good idea. I also think its requirement that all for-profit health care providers be dissolved and outlawing duplication of coverage would (literally) lead to a blood-in-the-streets revolution.

[Caretha]

98. Who is going to revolt?

You've said that twice. The Insurance company ceo's?

Hell, we can't even have a revolution over illegal wars and a 1000 other illegitimate things this government does. Oh quick - look who is on DWTS!

[GreenPartyVoter]

93. I don't have a problem for paying for it in other ways. But I am very bothered by

the idea of working so hard to finally own a house, only to not be able to leave it for my kids. Or worse leave them with both a lien and a mortgage to clear.

How do other countries with single-payer health-care get around that issue? Or do they also have to do it the way we do it?

[Recursion]

95. They pay their doctors and nurses less, run fewer tests,

and pay providers less for the tests that they do run. They negotiate much lower rates for pharmaceuticals, breaking IP and making generics if necessary.

And have much higher effective tax rates. And they make it easier to go to med school; medicine is looked at as a decent middle-class profession rather than the way to be the richest guy in town. And they have fewer research hospitals doing less cutting-edge very expensive research (I'm not saying none, just less as a percentage of what doctors are doing). And they either explicitly or with incentives who can go into what field of medicine.

And, to throw the Republicans a bone, they have a better-working professional discipline and liability system. And their population is richer and healthier to begin with. It's a lot of things; that's just a few of them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

96. Thank you. We have a lot of work to do to get ourselves into that kind of situation.

[eridani]

34. Welcome back, Ms. Rose. Lots of us are with you all the way n/t

[me b zola]

37. K&R

[earcandle]

40. I will copy and paste all over! Love it. And my Worker Bee song is below!

Worker Bee

[defendandprotect]

42. This should have been done more than a year ago ... guess we though Obama/Dems ...

were going to lead the way --

Rather, they're leading the way ... BACKWARDS!!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

43. If you could stick with a cause, we might get somewhere.

;-)

Major accolades to you, SmileyRose.

[tomm2thumbs]

46. Get California to start, and let residents of other states buy in - sheer numbers could win this

worth a try...

[Recursion]

55. Because Medicaid has worked so well?

Any state-by-state model is going to wind up going down the same road Medicaid has, IMO.

[wilt the stilt]

57. are you insured by your employer?

or do you buy your own?

[Recursion]

60. By my employer

(And this matters because...?) I've dealt with the horrors of the individual market before, if you're about to accuse me of obliviousness.

[wilt the stilt]

66. Because you posts smack

of being one who has really never bought their own insurance. If we probably funded medicare then it would be OK. We pay way too much and get very little. All people are asking for is a system that works and all you can say is how it is not working yet you provide no solutions. You smack of typical republican bullshit.

[Recursion]

67. Arithmetic "smacks of typical republican bullshit"?

It's pretty simple. Expanding Medicare to all patients (and therefor all providers) would reimburse providers about 15% less and cover about 25% more people. You're asking doctors, nurses, etc. to do 25% more work for 15% less money. (Yes, that's simplistic; some of the savings would come from pharma and device manufacturers -- those aren't going to get us all the way there, though, by a long shot.)

All people are asking for is a system that works and all you can say is how it is not working yet you provide no solutions.

I've suggested some solutions several times on this board, and to my Congresscritter. Expand FQHC funding and offer loan forgiveness for medical providers who work at them for 5 years. Require transparent pricing of procedures (often neither patients nor doctors know how much a procedure is actually going to cost). Mandate universal health insurance coverage on both sides of the transaction (we will at least have that in 4 years). Move Medicare off of a fee-for-service reimbursement schedule (we will start that in 1 year). Stop subsidizing unhealthy food through our ag policy. The list goes on, but at least I'm not stomping my foot and pretending that the issue of how we provision health insurance is a silver bullet that will magically make health care affordable for an overweight, unhealthy population with huge levels of poverty.

[wilt the stilt]

71. If and when we get real reform

the providers will be working more. pay them their due but face it they will be working more. We already have rationing as 17% of the population is excluded. pay them correctly, eliminate private insurance for regular care. study what works in the rest of the world. you arithmetic is only because it is funded incorrectly and medicaid is at the state level. You still smack of repub bullshit.

[wilt the stilt]

77. you say you have dealt with the horrors

explain to me how a policy works for a family of four.

[Recursion]

80. I'm single with no kids so I don't know

And since I think the individual market is the biggest problem on the insurance side I really have no idea why you're trying to convince me it's horribly set up; I already know that.

[wilt the stilt]

82. OH!So you don't really know about the horrors

of the individual market. I am basically calling BS on you.I figured that and that is why i challenged you. You have no idea and basically a republican plant.

[Recursion]

83. Bwah

Yes, you caught me :eyes:

Now, what was your point? We both agree the individual market is broken; how do you want to fix it? PPACA's solution is to essentially get rid of it and replace it with a series of group policies in the exchange. There are probably better ways.

[wilt the stilt]

85. It would take about 5- 10 years to correct

First off you warn the insurance companies that the preventative care will be non profit. This will give them a chance to adjust their business model. Possibly you take insurance completely out of the equation.You start to fund medicare correctly and stop medicaid. All are in and we raise the medicare tax and funding. You pay the Doctors at the same rate that insurance companies do so there is no discrepancy.

AMA is stopped. They limit the amount of Doctors which is bullshit and government helps to pay tuition. Increase pay to general practitioners so we have more regular doctors.

We have built a system of exclusion and rationing and it will take years to correct.

[Recursion]

86. "Preventative care will be non profit"

First off you warn the insurance companies that the preventative care will be non profit.

HCR did you one better: they can't charge you for it at all. Not just non-profit; they're going to be taking a loss.

You start to fund medicare correctly and stop medicaid.

I am all for this. Medicaid is a disaster; it's somehow managing to bankrupt both states and providers. That's insane.

AMA is stopped. They limit the amount of Doctors which is bullshit and government helps to pay tuition. Increase pay to general practitioners so we have more regular doctors.

I am totally in agreement with these (and brought them up elsewhere in the thread).

See, we agree about a lot of things here. And insurance was only a small part of the problem.

[wilt the stilt]

87. Insurance is the main problem

bloated unweildy and it is made to deny service. Overhead is ridiculous.

[Still a Democrat]

63. K & R

[me b zola]

99. Tweet it to Robert Gibbs everyday

http://twitter.com/#!/PressSec

We should do daily twitter b0mbs to Gibbs demanding Medicare for all. The more of us that do it will encourage others to do it and our voices will become louder.

[closeupready]

100. Just saw this thread now - too late to Rec. but I will kick.

:hi:

[The Gunslinger]

102. That's impossible after our "Democratic" leader

is forcing everyone by law to buy health care from for profit corporations.

[Recursion]

118. That's not true

There's no requirement that you buy insurance from a for-profit corporation; mine (and about half of everyone's) is from a non-profit.

[Zax2me]

104. Over 24 hour REC - K&R

[SalviaBlue]

105. I'm in. Great idea.

[panzerfaust]

108. But has not Obama brought us "universal healthcare" with Obamacare as his great "win"

That's what it says in the papers and on the news.

Did not the president himself say "Today after almost a century of trial, today after over a year of debate, today after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America. Today."

So is this not Great or What?

Bait and Switch? Oh you mean because somewhere along the line "health insurance reform" replaced "'universal' healthcare". Well, yeah, that too.

"Change You Can Only Hope For"

[slipslidingaway]

112. "Yes we could've" - if we had not silenced advocates ...

for universal HC :(


How do you win a fight if you silence the harshest critics of those who hold power....
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Sep 02nd 2009, 01:04 PM

Please do not tell me that you are fighting the entrenched interests when you invite them to the discussions and private meetings and exclude those who have been fighting the For Profit companies for decades.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/86

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[area51]

121. Kick for 2011. n/t

[mdmc]

122. ..