What if Obama said : No agreement about reform, we'll just have to open up Medicare to the uninsured

How bout them apples if reform fails to pass?

Makes me hope it doesn't pass. How about this for Alternate Plan C?

It's so damn crazy, it might just work!

I'd love to see this happen...

Recommended.

:kick:

but perhaps it could be passed as a "stopgap" sort of thing (wink, wink) in the budget reconcilliation.

Hard to stop those trains once they leave the station.

This is all about Congress.

Obama can't do squat until Congress gets up off its ass.

Of course, he can apply pressure, which I at least think he's doing, but that's about the limit.

But if he had that capacity, he likely wouldn't be immunizing torturers.

Theoretically though, he'd only need to go around the lobbyists and their pets directly to the nation. He could easily make the case that continuing on this patchwork path will ruin the economy as a whole and must be settled at any cost.

The biggest "benefit" of Medicare for All is that its simplicity sells it to the public/electorate. And it also ends all quibbling debate.

As with impeachment and torture prosecution, the only missing element is the political will to act.

Too much drama for Obama.

--

I heard a comment on the radio the other day that Medicare is paid by younger generations paying for those older than they.

My mind started to wander and I have been wondering for 3 days now, if more people like me who despise their private insurers, and if more people who pay premiums and deductibles, copays and all of that crap bought into the system, wouldn't it really be cheaper in the long run.

I've been to the physicians' who advocate for single payer website, and I've read and read, I've listened to the interviews of representatives from nurses' organizations, and I truly want single payer, we're just being told that we can't have it right now. I've talked to my Mom about Medicare and she's pleased with it thus far. She's looked into supplementals for long term care, etc., but she has yet to buy into one.

Perhaps my better question should be, why is it so hard for our citizens to fully grasp this, and raise hell with bought and paid for politicians?

unless we reform it first. Medicare "sets" reimbursement rates. No negotiation. Most rural hospitals lose money on every medicare admittance. Many doctors will not take new medicare (and Medicaid) patience. As it is now hospitals and doctors simply shift costs to private insurance customers.

If hospitals are losing money while doctors are driving BMW's, I have no pity for the hospitals, or their doctors.

Average doctor salary is $200,000 a year in the US.

Maybe the doctors need more "patience", and less of the "thug life".


edit: markup nuked my sic

argument. I'm from a rural midwest town of 12,000. We have a non-profit hospital that we rely on. Our doctors don't drive BMW's.
Rural hospital reimbursements are very low. Yes the doctors can get by with their reimbursement rates for medicare. The hospitals can't.
If they lose the ability to cost shift to private insurance, their out of business.

Those are separate topics. A rich person can be "white trash", just as a poor person can be "high class".

As far as rural reimbursements being low, I haven't seen anything to indicate that medicare pays lower for different rural, or urban, environments, perhaps you can provide a link.

As far as hospitals going out of "business", you said they were a non-profit, so that doesn't make sense. They're not a business.

You might also want to watch your spelling and grammar around here (their?), as it tends to label one as an "uneducated freeper moran" (an intentional mis-spelling, to mock the consistently uneducated right-wing trolls).

The same procedure in a large hospital in NYC gets a larger reimbursement than a rural 30 bed hospital in Colby , Kansas.
I'm sorry if you are unaware if this, but it's something almost every congressman representing rural america (R & D)constantly complains about. I will try to find you a link.
A non-profit hospital goes out of business when they can no longer pay their bills.
Here in Kansas we have seen many small town hospitals "go out of business" in the last 10 years. If you are unaware of this you must be from a large city in a big state.
Sorry about the spelling ...but you did know what a meant.

I do know that states with less people have less incoming medicare dollars... as they have less people.

Are you objecting to regional cost-of-living adjustments?

I am from a small city in a big state, I live in Portland, OR.

I'm trying to respond to 2 treads at the same time. I'm a newbie.
I'm just saying medicare in a rural state doesn't work out very well.
Every little town within 60 miles of me "used" to have a hospital. Most are now closed. We have towns in rural Kansas where it's 60 miles to the closest small hospital. These small rural hospitals are reimbursed by medicare at a reduced rate to urban hospitals here in Kansas.
Don't believe me. Google "medicare rates for rural hospitals"
I'm not picking a fight. Currently Medicare is not good for rural areas.

ps. The spelling errors are due to the late hour, and the vodka....I'll spell at you tomorrow.

And the worst I've personally endured of a hospital over billing was Children's Hospital at Erlanger when I had a 2 yr. old there. There were 4 docs who never touched my son, just stuck their heads in the g*&damned door and asked how he was doing and we were billed for their sticking their frickin' heads through the door!

The pediatrician had called Children's as he had been notified that our son had his stomach pumped in a North Georgia hospital. He told them to bypass the emergency room upon our arrival and to put our son in a room for observation until the next morning or until he rec'd information that might change that. We were in the ER for hours, they didn't have diapers for him, they didn't have small needles to stick him with - at a Children's Hospital - they didn't give a damn about our son or other children they were just trying to make money. After hours in the ER, we were on the phone, after we'd cleared it with the pediatrician, to take him back to the North GA hospital where he'd first been treated.

If you don't think that private insurance sucks and it along with some hospitals are raking you over the coals, you need to think again.

Is your child on medicare? medicaid? You are taking this thread in a completely different direction. I thought we were talking about "medicare for all".
Yes there are some bad stories about private insurance ....and there are some bad stories about medicare and medicaid.
I am just making my argument against expanding Medicare for all, and how it touches rural hospitals.

there are hospitals who overcharge people who have insurance just 'cause they can.

Insurance companies charge back to the insured some of those costs and the costs of claims they'd approved prior. (And if you don't think this hits working class Americans you need to think again).

And if everyone wasn't getting fucked over by for profit insurers and in my case hospitals and insurance companies) everyone's costs would go down and we'd all be better off.

I've asked my Mom many questions about Medicare and she is very, very happy with it. She's toyed with the idea of supplementals for long term care, etc., but she hasn't done any of that yet.

I had a long term illness and BCBS just about bankrupted us during that time. It would be great to think that a person could get sick and not face bankruptcy even after paying parts of premiums, accepting higher deductibles and co-pays in my way of thinking.

No, I'm still trying to state the advantages of Medicare for all. Doctors are paid quicker, citizens healthier and more productive, and on and on...perhaps you tried to take the thread off in a different direction?

BTW, my MIL is dying at home under the care of Hospice. She and my FIL have been on Medicare for years. My FIL bought a supplemental policy a few years ago to cover long term care. She's being taken care of, mostly under Medicare, but if more people were allowed access to this system wouldn't it spread the risk and lower costs to everyone?

:eyes:

Imagine being billed every time a police officer answered a question about directions, or showed up for an incident.

That's what we have now, with for-profit medicine.

I'm talking about the low reimbursement rates of small rural non-profit (none of the big corps would touch us)hospitals.

That must suck.

What do people without insurance in your area do?

No, to my knowledge, we don't have any "Free" hospitals.
Yes a person who show's up at the E.R. will be treated, billed, and the bill will(probably) not be collected. The hospital will make an attempt to shift that loss to private insurance customers.
Going back a few comment's. I'm not sure how to post link's. If you google 'reimbursement rates for rural hospitals" you will see I am correct.Rural hospitals are reimbursed at a much lower rate....but we don't have much clout in D.C.

but there are many ways this health care issue is perceived and none of it is black and white. I think if the gov't said Medicare would be expanded to cover all within guidelines set... that, in and of itself would cause changes in the system. (I support single-payer or Medicare for all)

When you state facts, best to provide links and/or direct sources... just copy and paste the URL.

I suggested the another poster to google "medicare rural reimbursement rates" and you will see that both dem and rep congressmen have a problem with them.
Rural areas don't know what a "for profit" hospital is. Cities run fund raiser's to keep their hospitals open.
There is not a corporation that would touch a hospital in rural Kansas if it was given to them.
Single payer doesn't mean much to someone that doesn't have a hospital within 60 miles. They have shitty coverage now they'll have shitty coverage with single payer.

none of this will be perfect, but anything is better. I have lived in small towns(and I mean 2,000-15,000 residents) all my life. When I was in Vermont, the beauty of the health coverage there is not only the availability for everyone, but also the fantastic community health centers throughout the state and I think that with planning and organization that is possible in all states. Within a gov't program of universal and available care, more preventative and early intervention would take place and greatly reduce need for 'emergency' care. There are just so many opportunities for this country to implement even small changes that would help people get and stay healthier but too often bureacracy and politics get in the way. What you and I can see as common sense can't be seen by large corporate interests and small minded thinking.

Just about the first poster that seemed to have a clue what I'm trying to say. In rural Kansas medicare for everybody means more hospitals closed. Medicare as it "exists right now" is not a health care solution for rural america. Senators and congressmen from rural districts(R & D alike) agree with me. I am troubled by the poster's who seemed to think a misspelled word makes a political point invalid. They need to sit down and "have a beer"

Copy the address from the page and then paste it into the post using this format:

<link:alaskareport.com/news39/x71283_divorce_palins.htm|NAME OF LINK>

Replace the open and close arrows "< >" with square brackets and use a "pipe" character " | " to separate the address from the displayed name.

It ends up looking like this in the post: NAME OF LINK

Be sure to preview the post so you can check if the link is working.

Hope this helps. Links are a really important part of any discussion. That's the difference between us and them -- we can support our arguments with facts.

quarters, it isn't very cheap after all.

I doubt the uninsured can pay for this either. I have a feeling most can't afford to pay anything.

Here, I found the premium payments and it looks like its per person:

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium

You pay up to $443.00 each month if you don�t get premium-free.

Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

* $96.40 per month.

http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment|PremiumCostInfo&version=default&browser=Firefox|3|Windows+Vista&language=English

That is $543 per person per month or $6516 per year.

is any of the reformed programs would make insurance income sensitive. I personal don't think we need insurance, we just need health care, paid for by increased taxes (from some undetermined source) :think: I was paying approx. $1,200/month for a family until I realized I was still paying additional $100's-$1,000's for co-pays and services not covered (and none of us had any major problems or stays in hospitals) I dropped my insurance (BCBS) last year and will refuse to pay(corpaorate insurance co's) ever again - but will gladly pay higher taxes when we all have health care. Anyways$500/month would be a whole lot less than I was paying.

If your wife get's breast cancer? You struck out against the system. Will you pay a price?
No, your doctor and hospital will probably treat her.....you will not be able to pay?
The hospital will treat her and shift their loss to private insurance.
There are millions who opt-out of med. insurance for many reason's.
but it cost's...the rest of us.
Be responsible.

Goodnight

If so, then, go for it, President "O"!

And some uninsured just don't want insurance (they're young and healthy).

Medicare to all ages. Is it fair that Medicare gives special consideration to one class of people while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves? (Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and this is a whole lot of wishful thinking.)

He lacks that power. It requires new legislation, like the "Medicare for All" house bill. The President doesn't legislate, he only has executive power. He can only change rules of programs in which he was given explicit power to do to so.