The perfect alternative to the public option...

[Tim]

A letter to the president from Thom Hartmann. It makes more sense than anything currently before the house or senate.

Dear President Obama,

I understand you’re thinking of dumping your “public option” because of all the demagoguery by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and their crowd on right-wing radio and Fox. Fine. Good idea, in fact.
Instead, let’s make it simple. Please let us buy into Medicare.
It would be so easy. You don’t have 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 you’re 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.
So it’s revenue neutral!
To make it available to people of low income, 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.
Most of us will do damn near anything to get out from under the thumbs of the multi-millionaire CEOs who are running our current insurance programs. Sign me up!
This lets you blow up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with Blue Cross. Those who like it can buy into it. Simplicity itself.
Of course, we’d like a few fixes, like letting Medicare negotiate drug prices and filling some of the 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.” (You could roll back the Reagan tax cuts and make it all free, but that’s another rant.)
We elected you because we expected you to have the courage of your convictions. Here’s how. Not the “single payer Medicare for all” that many of us would prefer, but a simple, “Medicare for anybody who wants to buy in.”
Respectfully,

Thom Hartmann

So what are the drawbacks to a proposal like this?

 

[Alien Allen]

A letter to the president from Thom Hartmann. It makes more sense than anything currently before the house or senate.




So what are the drawbacks to a proposal like this?

well this kind of sticks out

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.
So it’s revenue neutral!

I gotta admit it had me going until that point :24:

 

[Alien Allen]

The only part of that which is enticing is the simplicity. Merely expand Medicare to include everybody and throw in some measures to control costs.

Only one problem with that Tim.

Medicare has been dancing with the devil since its inception basically as far as trying to keep up with the costs. Despite the fact the feds control things as far as expenditures the best they can.

There has been no stomach to reform medicare and it is headed towards disaster financially. Everybody knows it is a pyramid scheme that is going to go bankrupt unless MAJOR reforms are made to it. The politicians don't know what to do it is so bad. They are scared at the repercussions resulting from making it solvent. What makes anybody think NHC would be medicare on steroids in that regard??

We have a serious problem and it will take a lot of thoughtful discussion and resolution of medicare expenditures. People are living much longer. Less people are working in relation to those on medicare every year. Combined with even greater stress on the Social Security system we have a major problem that on day is gonna make this nation fall like a house of cards. IMO


Until these issues are resolved NHC should be off the table. IMO

 

[Peter Parka]

I know this......

Interesting...

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th .

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

Whatever your political outlook, something needs changing there.

 

[Tim]

The only part of that which is enticing is the simplicity. Merely expand Medicare to include everybody and throw in some measures to control costs.

Only one problem with that Tim.

Medicare has been dancing with the devil since its inception basically as far as trying to keep up with the costs. Despite the fact the feds control things as far as expenditures the best they can.

There has been no stomach to reform medicare and it is headed towards disaster financially. Everybody knows it is a pyramid scheme that is going to go bankrupt unless MAJOR reforms are made to it. The politicians don't know what to do it is so bad. They are scared at the repercussions resulting from making it solvent. What makes anybody think NHC would be medicare on steroids in that regard??

We have a serious problem and it will take a lot of thoughtful discussion and resolution of medicare expenditures. People are living much longer. Less people are working in relation to those on medicare every year. Combined with even greater stress on the Social Security system we have a major problem that on day is gonna make this nation fall like a house of cards. IMO


Until these issues are resolved NHC should be off the table. IMO

But that's the beauty of this... People who buy into the program are carrying their own weight in costs. He's not suggesting that people just sign up and get in for free, he is suggesting that they pay monthly premiums according to the costs incurred by their enrollment. It would also be a way to help keep medicare afloat financially since a larger "paying" base will help infuse money into the system. That's why he says it will by revenue neutral.

 

[ssl]

Here's a better option: Let the people choose what they want, it's called economy. Supply and Demand. It fucking works. If one plan is too high, then they go elsewhere; if all plans are too high, then they need review: if they are bloating the prices, bust em down. if they are justified, such is life.

1+.5+1+1.5 = ~4 sentences; most important one: "Let the people decide what they want|can afford."

That is government, which an automated one would gladly accept as a viable option, as it requires less work on it's part. But of course, people have to be paid off (to keep shut, or to lobby like hell) driving the cost of producing a bill for consideration. Then the phase of actual consideration, which is exponentially costlier. Of course, if it gets through one of the two legislative houses (yes, there are two, versus the one judicial and executive branch.. there's some checks and balances for you idiots), then the process restarts with the other house.

Then if they get close, but cannot agree on fawking petty points and language, then the whole fawked process restarts anew!

The Grand Old Democratic Way to Party...

:smiley24:

 

[Accountable]

No, that's the way of a republic. Lucky thing you're not here, eh? You'd hate it. Probably best if you stay where you are.

 

[Minor Axis]

So what are the drawbacks to a proposal like this?

I see nothing wrong with it. On the other hand our friendly forum conservatives hate medicare and social security so they'll :24::24: and belittle the idea. What really pisses me off about SS is the way it's been robbed ever since WWII by politicians in general. If not for that it would have been the MOST outstanding of liberal programs.

 

[Alien Allen]

But that's the beauty of this... People who buy into the program are carrying their own weight in costs. He's not suggesting that people just sign up and get in for free, he is suggesting that they pay monthly premiums according to the costs incurred by their enrollment. It would also be a way to help keep medicare afloat financially since a larger "paying" base will help infuse money into the system. That's why he says it will by revenue neutral.

You still don't get it. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to pay for themselves also. But they are going to really bankrupt us. There is no will to address that so what on earth makes you think NHC would suddenly be done in a fiscally responsible way.

I see nothing wrong with it. On the other hand our friendly forum conservatives hate medicare and social security so they'll :24::24: and belittle the idea. What really pisses me off about SS is the way it's been robbed ever since WWII by politicians in general. If not for that it would have been the MOST outstanding of liberal programs.

I agree that the money was used for other things. But that means nothing because it still would go bankrupt. Nothing would change other than the time frame when it finally collapses.

You guys are loons. Your financial house is on fire and all you want to do is to throw gas on it. :willy_nilly:

 

[ssl]

No, that's the way of a republic. Lucky thing you're not here, eh? You'd hate it. Probably best if you stay where you are.

Yeah, Texas is a little backwards from SC.

Or maybe the other way around, especially with that dumbass "governor" of ours. :smiley24:

 

[Minor Axis]

agree that the money was used for other things. But that means nothing because it still would go bankrupt. Nothing would change other than the time frame when it finally collapses.

You guys are loons. Your financial house is on fire and all you want to do is to throw gas on it. :willy_nilly:

You don't get it at all. If Social Security had not been robbed, there would have been more than enough money to see us through the baby boomer retirements and then the program would have been home free. Conservatives say there is no such thing as a good social program, mostly because they are anti-social.

 

[ssl]

You still don't get it. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to pay for themselves also. But they are going to really bankrupt us. There is no will to address that so what on earth makes you think NHC would suddenly be done in a fiscally responsible way.

I agree that the money was used for other things. But that means nothing because it still would go bankrupt. Nothing would change other than the time frame when it finally collapses.

You guys are loons. Your financial house is on fire and all you want to do is to throw gas on it. :willy_nilly:

You know you can put fires out with gasoline. :nod:

 

[Alien Allen]

You don't get it at all. If Social Security had not been robbed, there would have been more than enough money to see us through the baby boomer retirements and then the program would have been home free. Conservatives say there is no such thing as a good social program, mostly because they are anti-social.

I am not sure where to look but since you made the claim then show me how much money has been removed from the SS fund to pay for other things. It is laughable to think those funds would make SS solvent. All that would do is to hold off the inevitable. Because nobody has the guts to deal with the reform that is required.

Take a look at this data. The numbers are mind boggling. You can blather on will the same old bull shit about conservatives not liking social programs all you like but the numbers below are the cold hard facts and why SS is not sustainable as it is. Hand wringing aint gonna solve nothing when you have people living so much longer than they used to.

In 1930 the population was 123,203,000
In 2000 the population was 281,422,000

If you look at the increases in black and hispanic citizens their numbers are multiplying at far greater rates.

And I can not find it by then you have the numbers of retirees to workers that is ever dwindling. Which further exacerbates the problem.



Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2005 — Infoplease.com

 

[Tim]

You still don't get it. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to pay for themselves also. But they are going to really bankrupt us. There is no will to address that so what on earth makes you think NHC would suddenly be done in a fiscally responsible way.

I agree that the money was used for other things. But that means nothing because it still would go bankrupt. Nothing would change other than the time frame when it finally collapses.

You guys are loons. Your financial house is on fire and all you want to do is to throw gas on it. :willy_nilly:

Medicare and Social Security are not designed to pay for themselves, they are designed to be paid for by everyone to cover the few that use it. The people that are using the systems are NOT paying into those very systems, it is us (the workers) that are paying in. And just as Minor stated, these programs have been targeted by the right since their inception. They will do whatever they can to bankrupt these social programs.

But you are still missing the overall point of this thread. We are talking about allowing people to buy into the program at cost plus 10%-20%. And if these people are paying their share of the costs, then how is that going to hurt the program financially? And the added 10%-20% premium will infuse much needed money into the system for the people who are not contributing. So not only are the added people revenue neutral, they add much needed extra money to the system.

 

[Tim]

I am not sure where to look but since you made the claim then show me how much money has been removed from the SS fund to pay for other things. It is laughable to think those funds would make SS solvent. All that would do is to hold off the inevitable. Because nobody has the guts to deal with the reform that is required.

Take a look at this data. The numbers are mind boggling. You can blather on will the same old bull shit about conservatives not liking social programs all you like but the numbers below are the cold hard facts and why SS is not sustainable as it is. Hand wringing aint gonna solve nothing when you have people living so much longer than they used to.

In 1930 the population was 123,203,000
In 2000 the population was 281,422,000

If you look at the increases in black and hispanic citizens their numbers are multiplying at far greater rates.

And I can not find it by then you have the numbers of retirees to workers that is ever dwindling. Which further exacerbates the problem.



Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2005 — Infoplease.com

So do we fix the problem or do away with the whole thing? Do you believe that medicare, medicaid and social security should be completely done away with? And if so, what do we do with the millions that depend on these systems to survive?

 

[Minor Axis]

In 1930 the population was 123,203,000
In 2000 the population was 281,422,000

If you look at the increases in black and hispanic citizens their numbers are multiplying at far greater rates.

Unless I'm mistaken, the system is set up so benefits are based on what you pay into the system. Supposedly because there is this large bubble of baby boomers, this makes it hard for later generations of lesser number to cover the BBs when they retire. If anything more paying people in the system today helps it. What kind of logic are you using?

 

[Minor Axis]

So do we fix the problem or do away with the whole thing? Do you believe that medicare, medicaid and social security should be completely done away with? And if so, what do we do with the millions that depend on these systems to survive?

You know Tim conservatives in general really don't give a damn about the millions.

 

[Alien Allen]

So do we fix the problem or do away with the whole thing? Do you believe that medicare, medicaid and social security should be completely done away with? And if so, what do we do with the millions that depend on these systems to survive?

I am not saying to do away with them. I am saying the system is broke and needs fixing and the sooner the better. Come on Tim you are not that ignorant of what the future bodes.

Unless I'm mistaken, the system is set up so benefits are based on what you pay into the system. Supposedly because there is this large bubble of baby boomers, this makes it hard for later generations of lesser number to cover the BBs when they retire. If anything more paying people in the system today helps it. What kind of logic are you using?

The population is increasing but the ratio of workers to retirees is out of whack. It has flip flopped from years ago. Thus the reason it is not sustainable as it currently is running.

You know Tim conservatives in general really don't give a damn about the millions.

And you liberals don't appear to be worried about Billions

Glad you all like pyramid and ponzi schemes.

Your theories appear to be if you have a problem then just make a bigger one to deal with. Instead of fixing what is there first.

You both act like I want the status quo. I have said we need to do something. I just don't want some bull shit piece of garbage like Obama and the liberals have proposed. I have said I like what the Swiss are doing and think that is a more viable option.

 

[ssl]

I am not saying to do away with them. I am saying the system is broke and needs fixing and the sooner the better. Come on Tim you are not that ignorant of what the future bodes.

The population is increasing but the ratio of workers to retirees is out of whack. It has flip flopped from years ago. Thus the reason it is not sustainable as it currently is running.

And you liberals don't appear to be worried about Billions

Glad you all like pyramid and ponzi schemes.

Your theories appear to be if you have a problem then just make a bigger one to deal with. Instead of fixing what is there first.

You both act like I want the status quo. I have said we need to do something. I just don't want some bull shit piece of garbage like Obama and the liberals have proposed. I have said I like what the Swiss are doing and think that is a more viable option.

I hate to burst your bubble, but both sides create bigger issues to cover up ones they wish not to fix or admit has an issue. it's not just one sided here.

and while we are at it, it's not just politics that do it either

 

[Alien Allen]

I hate to burst your bubble, but both sides create bigger issues to cover up ones they wish not to fix or admit has an issue. it's not just one sided here.

and while we are at it, it's not just politics that do it either

I never meant to infer it was one sided. I despise both sides. Just the left a bit more