What's so diificult about saying -- "Under 65? Want to pay for Medicare and get covered? Fine."

[Armstead]

Jumping Geehosifat!

The answer to this whole health care mess should be so simple.

Allow everyone to buy into Medicare if they want to, regardless of age. If younger people want it, pay a premium based on income.

Want to stay with your private insurance instead? Fine. Keep it.

One of two things would happen.

A) Very few younger people would want it. If that were to happen, there would no impact on Medicare -- but the potential of competition would force the insurance companies to treat their customers better.

B) There would be a notable number of younger people signing up for it. Seems like -- as with any other insurance program -- that if you add revenue from younger people who would use fewer services, that would at least help the bottom line of Medicare.

Yes, I know. Lot of details would have to be worked out. But the concept seems straightforward. Want to get public coverage? You can. Don't want it? You don;t have to.

Why do too many of our leaders refuse to stand behind such an approach?

Okay maybe the answer to that is clear...Corruption and cowardice.

Better question is why do we keep letting them get away with this?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Indeed. Why do we keep letting them get away with this?

Because they are way better organized than we are, I suspect.

You can't herd cats.

And we are all cats!


K&R

Excellent thinking!

[Armstead]

3. Meow

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. LOL!

[Cleita]

2. Actually, this was the original conversation, let those who want Medicare to

be able to buy into it. It was simple and doable. How did the issue get so far off track?

[winyanstaz]

4. k & R...good points!

[joeglow3]

6. Aren't medicare reimbursement rates less than the cost?

I know for our friends who own their practice, they are.

[Armstead]

10. Reimb ursements may have to be altered...But that's a bigger issue for Medicare already

[The_Commonist]

7. It's amazing how this one simple notion...

...has been complicated and obfuscated beyond all rationality.
And all because the greedmeisters don't want to give up one cent of their filthy lucre.

"Medicare for All"

That would be such a simple idea, that very few real people would oppose.
Instead it became "The Public Option" which isn't very good branding, and led to teabaggers and "death panels."

[Lugnut]

8. You're preaching to the choir with me.

It's such a simple solution and easy to understand. The system is in place and is time-tested. :shrug:

[truedelphi]

9. If I should die before we have REAL REFORM

My instructions in my will are to ship my body to the WH.

They have not passed any meaningful reform because they have the sworn statement of the big boys that no one will get needed campaign funds - that it can pass only over the dead stiff body of killed-off insurance companies.

Since those companies are more valuable to our elected leaders than we are, it's inevitable that they keep it as confusing as possible.

[mdmc]

11. --

[Hamlette]

12. won't work

unless you prevent insurance companies from cherry picking.

If you don't make insurance companies pay all claims filed, and not pick only healthy ppl to cover, the public option/medicare will cover all the "bad" cases and end up costing more than insurance. Which is fine but you must be willing to answer the right wing when they come after the system as costing much more than private insurance.

[Zavulon]

13. I'm with you.

That would make a lot more sense than an expensive, sweeping new program which nobody could agree upon for ages and doesn't appear to be much of an answer to everything.

Critics of idea would point to Medicare's problems, but if the government can't fix those why should it be trusted with a huge new program?

[ljm2002]

14. HR 676 n/t

[sandnsea]

15. How will the bottom 50% pay for it?

The ones who can't afford insurance now?

[AJD48]

16. Your proposal would negatively impact health in the U.S.

specifically, the financial health of the insurance companies!

I agree, Medicare for all is the BEST and most straightforward solution.

[andym]

17. It's a good idea, but the buy in wouldn't be cheap

without subsidies (that 65+ are getting). Probably somewhere around 4-5K/year/individual (since that's Medicare cost per individual-- i believe) (for the 80% coverage).
I would do it though....

If we want to have it "free," then we need to raise taxes as Medicare for All does (HR676).