5 candidates want to "modernize" (privatize) Medicare and SS

[madfloridian]

I am not familiar with Kucinich views on this, but I have talked to the aides of the other candidates on the phone. Please note that each and every one of them uses the word modernization. I had heard that was one of the terms used by the RNC so as not to alienate folks on the word "privatization". A couple of aides admitted that this was the same thing.

If you read up on the views of Lieberman, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and Graham on this subject, you will find they all take the DLC position of modernizing. There is a lot on this at the www.ndol.com

I object to this because it is basically going to turn Medicare into a series of HMOs, which do not exactly have a good track record for the elderly.

My question to each of the candidates would be about Social Security. I believe they should say that those who already have it should NOT be affected by the modernization. Check your paycheck stubs to see what you are paying. Those on the system already paid that for years.

Turning these two programs over to private companies without oversight means doom for the elderly of our country. How dare ANY of these candidates attack the others!!!! Go forth and read up.

[roughsatori]

1. The shame is some of the Candidates supporters claims are false

They will claim a candidate is for Universal Health-care without understanding what that or single-payer system means. They do not understand that when their candidate talks about every American deserving health-care that is the same rhetoric of the Repukes (Shrub says the same thing.)

Some of our candidates have plans to re-reimburse the insurance companies, or give you a rebate on health-care expenses. In other words: If you can't already afford health-care it won't help you.

Simply talking about a "safety-net" is not an endorsement of universal health-care or a single-payer system--they are meaningless words when it comes to the complicated American for-profit health-care system.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. Hi, It is my understanding that only two or three candidates

Support the idea of single payer health care. They are on my sig line. Gore is there too because he said last yeat that he had come to the conclusion that single payer health care was now the only way to fix the problem.

You are right about rhetoric and health care talk. Reform, modernization and "safety net" are meaningless phrases.

[roughsatori]

14. You got it correct in your sig-line.

I would go mad with happiness if the candidates pictured in your sig-line won the nomination.

[spindoctor]

9. ...and healthcare for all.

Being originally from Europe myself, I don't understand what the big deal is, or why anyboy would NOT support universal health care. Although there are differences between countries, nowhere in Europe is health care not for profit.
Doctors still want their salaries, specialists want their big bucks, nurses need their pay-checks. The hospitals don't come for free, the ambulances don't burn water and most pharmacist don't sell extasy for a living.
Not to mention, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, Bayer, managed to stay in business for quite some time now.

It is a win-win solution for health providers, patients, and even insurance companies. Of course our beloved pharmaceutical industry would have to bite a bullet or two, but if they don't like it, there are several foreign companies lined up to provide us with all the Prozac we desire.

[Mairead]

There's a difference between paychecks and expenses versus profit

What do insurance companies contribute to healthcare? They take a percentage of the cost and put it into the pockets of the very wealthy, but what do they contribute?

[Larkspur]

2. Dean opposes privitizing Social Security

He supports removing the salary ceiling so that more money can come into SS coffers. This solution is also supported by most SS privitization opponents.

As far as Medicare/Medicaid, I think that he wants states to have more flexibility in helping patients. It's the bureaucracy that is hog tying states and doctors from doing what is in the Medicaid patients' interest.

[revcarol]

5. Medicaid is not the same as Medicare.

Medicaid is for the indigent, the destitute elders, those who have no stocks and bonds or savings, those who only own one car of a very low value, those who cannot by any stretch of the imagination pay the deductibles of Medicare or any prescription drugs. You really have to be POOR to get Medicaid, and each state makes its own regulations and supplies 25% of the money expended by each patient.So what
Dean "might" be talking about is the red tape, because the federal government does require certain things, but not enough IMHO. See the understaffing in nursing homes, and states cutting off things like dental, eye,hearing treatment in the states' Medicaid, and also medication for long-term mental health problems.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. though Dean does say he is against privitizing Medicare

he just doesn't go far enough to make sure we all have health care. He talks about making insurance more affordable. He ignores the need to get the profit motive out of the mix. He doesn't give any specifics.

Gore and Carol Mosely-Braun have both spoken so eloquently on the subject, about how we can spend less money and have universal healthcare that is not tied to employment. This is where we need to go IMO.

This is not a radical idea. Other civilized countries have been doing it for years. Apparently Iraq deserves such a system and we are going to pay for it. But Americans don't deserve it?

Even a semi-centrist candidate like Dean should be able to get behind the idea.

[madfloridian]

3. Do a search for your candidate and modernization in quotes.

I think that will level the field here and allow some normal conversation on the candidates.

[spindoctor]

7. Kucinich

"The Kucinich plan is enhanced 'Medicare for All' -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance, carefully phased in over 10 years. It addresses everyone's needs, including the 40 million Americans without coverage "

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_universalhealth.htm

"I see a new horizon for Social Security in America, through restoring the age of retirement to 65 years, instead of the current 67 years. The normal age for retirement was raised in phases beginning in 1983 from 65 to 67 years. The reason? People live longer. The economy was transitioning to white collar jobs. But, while people were living longer, they were not working longer, because their bodies wore out. Medical technology has enhanced longevity. Still, increased longevity sometimes means people are sicker, longer."

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_socialsecurity.htm

[Yupster]

8. But Kucinich's Plan

is paid for by a new 7.7 % tax on all employers. That seems crazy to me. If we're going to have universal health insurance, the cost of it should be shared by everyone. That means the money should come from general funds.

Most of us have to know that businesses, especially small businesses are struggling today. Add another large tax that businesses have to pay and many more comapnies will give up and just take a passage to India.

Carol Mosley-Braun's plan is far better.

[Karmadillo]

15. But that's less than what employers, on average, are paying now. Here's

how Kucinich would finance his plan (employer taxes are discussed in point #2)

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_universalhealth.htm (you also have to click on "For budgetary details, click here" in the body of the plan summary to get the below information)

Medicare for All would cost the same amount of money that is now spent on health care costs, approximately $2.2 T/year when fully phased in (FY 2013, including inflation). These funds would be provided by the following sources. (Amounts reflect FY 2013 amounts when the plan is fully phased in). In year 3, the new benefits package would be implemented and all children would receive their health care from Medicare for All. Costs are slightly higher in year 4 to account for new patients born into the program and inflation. In year 5, all individuals 55 and over would be phased into the program. In year 6, only people turning 55 in that year would be phased in. This would continue for the remainder of age groups in years 7-10.

1. Existing government spending: $1063.6 billion

Maintain existing federal, state and local revenues that currently pay for Medicare and other federal and state programs (with the exception of revenues that now pay government workers’ health premiums).

2. Employers: $917 billion

Phase in a tax on employers of 7.7% on all public and private employers ($917 billion). This is less than what employers currently pay on average for employee health coverage. Employers who provide coverage currently pay an average of 8.5% of payroll for much less comprehensive coverage.

3. No more deductions: $245 billion

Employers that pay some or all of the cost for employee health coverage deduct these expenses. Under Medicare for All, employer payment for private health coverage would end, so government expenditures for these deductions would as well.

4. Cost savings: -$230 billion

There will be significant cost savings from consolidating administrative costs and through bulk purchasing of prescription drugs.

more...

[madfloridian]

10. They have cut payments for some cancer treatments, cut back all areas.

This has been done by the committee appointed by Bush, is it called the CMS? Will have to look it up.

Not a single one of our candidates appears to be speaking about restoring these cuts. By 2005 payments to doctors will be cut by 17% more. This is a shameful situation.

Our senators and representatives must stand up and do something about this.

If they pass some of the plans they are discussing now, those of us with insurance in addition to Medicare could lose it. We could be dropped and forced into an HMO type plan.

If the ones in the house and senate now have addressed this, please post it here.

[dolstein]

11. Sorry, but none of the candidates currently favor privatization of SS

In fact, as far as I can tell, NONE of the candidates favor raising the retirement age (Howard Dean has repudiated earlier statements to that effect), reducing benefits or raising the payroll tax. All of them oppose giving younger workers the option of diverting a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts. The only candidate I know of who favors changes in social security is Dennis Kucinich, who supports lowering the retirement age.

Frankly, none of the Democrats are profiles in courage when it comes to Social Security. There is simply NO WAY to keep Social Security solvent for the duration of the baby boomer retirement without reducing benefits or raising revenues. None of the candidates will admit this.

[madfloridian]

13. Look for the word "modernization".

They do, most of them, want to turn Medicare over to private companies. Some just want oversight, some do not.

I have talked to their offices on the subject. If they have changed their positions I would like to hear it.

I was not talking so much about the age issue, but the modernization. I would love to be proved wrong about all of them.

[dolstein]

16. I'm talking about Social Security, not Medicare

As for Medicare, I don't have a problem farming out some of the administrative responsibilities (e.g., processing of medicare payments) to private companies if they can do it at a lower cost. But as far as I know, administrative expenses for Medicare are relatively low.

[madfloridian]

22. Farming it out? They just want to turn it over.

Not the administrative costs, the oversight. Most do not want the government paying for it. I will give you 3 guess what will happen once it is turned over to private companies. It will not continue. It won't profit them enough.

If you think that is ok, then fine. I don't.

[Larkspur]

17. Dean has said that he favors removing the salary ceiling on SS

Right now it's around $84,000. Removing it would increase revenues and a SS person told me at the AAUW meeting that doing this would solve 88% of the SS funding problems past the year 2041. She didn't tell me where the other 12% would have to come from.

[madfloridian]

12. To clarify, everyone MUST go on Medicare at age 65. No choice.

Medicare is for everyone, not income based. Those on it pay 60 or 70 a month for it out of Social Security.

Medicaid is for those less fortunate, where you have to strip yourself of all you have worked for all your life in order to get the services.

I don't think ANY candidates should be yelling at others right now, not unless they stand up for our elderly.

[fla nocount]

18. If true, Dean just lost my vote.

Fine, I'm a socialist. I believe that we are our brothers keepers. I believe that governments purpose is to serve We the People. Private industry has no business handling government functions except of course for two hundred dollar hammers and five hundred dollar toilet seats. Here is Fla. we make reservations with travel agents for campsites at state parks. This is BS, I'm leaving the country. Color my ass Canuck.

[madfloridian]

20. Check out the other candidates as well.....

Have you seen their views? Who will who vote for?

[fla nocount]

24. Well, five have been eliminated.

If business interests have become so insidious in our culture that it doesn't matter which party is in power I must give pause to Nader's remark that there is no difference between the parties. In this case I would probably vote with my conscience rather than my dollars and start packing my bags. I'm a single Dad with two cannon fodder candidates at home ages 10 and 15. It's time I was making alternative plans regardless. I hoped that I would be able to vote for a clear alternative, but.....alas.

This is not a snide remark and doesn't reflect on you or your question. I think the world of you my friend and your measured opinion.

Tom

[GR]

21. I Agree But Don't Think It's True...

nfm

[madfloridian]

23. Why just Dean, fla nocount? The others are not much different.

Could you tell me why you just specified Dean?

[fla nocount]

25. Sorry, the response was competing with dinner prep.

Look above to your previous post. Why Dean? Because he was my man and has a good portion of my unemployment checks.

[madfloridian]

26. Thanks, I see what you mean now.

I just wanted folks to realize we have enough battles to fight here without concentrating on Dean's view. None of them are stopping the cuts, and it is depressing.

[GR]

19. Can't Find Info On NDOL...An Analysis

Did find this under the Let's Fix It Now:

...Let's suppose, for example, that Congress decides to do nothing until 2018, and then start gradually raising tax rates to match the surge in spending on benefits. According to the trustees, payroll taxes would have to be 2.5 percentage points higher than today in 2025, 3.7 percentage points higher in 2030, and 4.3 percentage points higher by 2035. The tax rates would keep rising after that, to 5.8 percentage points above today's level by 2065, or a total of nearly 20 percent of payroll...

I feel that this is misleading as it included both the employee's and employer's contribution to get that 5.8% points.

If you divide that in half, to 2.9% that would mean an increase of $120 per month or $4 per day on a salary of $50K.

This article is also misleading as it doesn't take into account the revenue generation assumptions of an annual GDP of 1%. By comparison, last quarter, the economy grew at 3.3% rate. As you can see, a bigger GDP rate and more people employed will greatly help this problem, as of course, would fiscal responsibility, which the Bush ADM has NONE OF...

I am very concerned as to what is meant by MODERNIZATION? I always laugh when republicans say they want to REFORM SS. They really mean DESTROY....