I think more than the money it cost or the the revenue lost, the representatives we have in both houses loyalty to the Insurance co's has more to do with why health care reform, particularity single payer is doomed from the start. I still think it's the best plan out there and the bill itself isn't 1000 pages.
H.R. 676

What I consider IMO is part of the problem
Presidential Candidates: Selected Industry Totals, 2008 Cycle Health Services/HMOs

This one is a bit more telling

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

This one is a bit more telling

Why am I not the least bit surprised.....

---

Join the PACK!

This one is a bit more telling

Well I'm not sure that is just for health insurance, but I agree it is telling. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products were in there too and also part of the same problem. I think this one is telling too. The one for Lawyers/law firms blew me away though. And I also agree, none of it surprised me.

---

BTW anyone that wants to see a chance of HR 676 being a choice should go to opencongress.org register and show support for the bill.

---

Medicare is as American as it gets and is socialized medicine.

I have to disagree. Medicare is not socialized medicine. It does get some funding through taxes which it does share in common with socialized medicine, but the program is not socialized.

For one, the only people that can get medicare are the disabled and retired. It's an exclusive system, not an inclusive one.

Second, people who receive Medicare also pay a monthly premium out of their Social Security benefits. This is in addition to the taxes paid by working individuals. The premium is something like $92/month which comes out of limited SS benefits to begin with. So to put this into perspective, the average working class individual pays 1% of their income towards medicare, while the people who receive medicare benefits are paying on average 10% of their income for the program.

On top of that, Medicare does not pay for drug coverage.

Medicare only pays an 80% benefit in most cases, and 50% in other cases. There is NO dental coverage at all. Most elective and preventative procedures aren't covered at all.

Doctors can refuse to see patients that have medicare, opting to spend their time on people with private insurers or people that self-pay because it's more profitable. In socialized medicine, the profit factor is removed.

True socialized medicine is available to all (Medicare isn't), covers all of the cost on most procedures (Medicare doesn't),pays for drugs, dental, preventative procedures (Medicare doesn't), and is primarily funded through taxation (most Medicare claims are paid out of beneficiary premiums) with services being provided by zero profit institutions where the goal is to provide medical services instead of being profit driven (Medicare competes with and pays into the private sector). Socialized medicine would allow for greater access because it doesn't have to compete with the private sector (Medicare competes). The only thing Medicare has in common with socialized medicine is that is uses some tax money to fund the program. The similarities stop there.

In summary, medicare is an exclusive program with limited scope and coverage that is being paid for by the disabled and elderly whilst competing with private insurance. That's not socialized medicine.

If you take away the bit about being limited to the disabled and retired, and adjust some of the amounts up or down, this is a pretty good description of the Canadian medical insurance scheme. We always thought it was socialized, but what do we know?

---

But what you propose is massive system change. Adjusting amounts, making it available to everyone... heh that's the crux of the issue with Medicare!

But what you propose is massive system change. Adjusting amounts, making it available to everyone... heh that's the crux of the issue with Medicare!

I think they are just tweaks. The real crux is how much you want to pay.

Canadian health care doesn't pay for everything, and doesn't always pay 100% of what it does cover. It covers more than Medicare, because Canadian voters are willing to pay more. It covers almost everybody because that's how we all got through the last few hundred winters: helping those that need it, and sharing.

You need to get past the labels, and look at the details and the cost. It is too easy to just say

Socialism = Communism = The Work Of The Devil

and then stop thinking about it in a critical fashion.

---

Well though Medicare currently doesn't cover some of the things you mention, Medicaid, Medi-cal and other similar programs help in those costs. Again very American programs. Together they give coverage and in the new Medicare for All bill it would cover everyone as well as the things you mentioned (drugs, preventive care, etc...read the bill for more) People pay high rates for medical insurance, I and others think they could probably pay less than they pay now and still cover everyone, because they would no longer be paying for insurance companies advertising, CEO bonuses, other high salaries as well as other cost that Medicare wouldn't incur. Medicare for all includes everyone with more coverage than the current system, at less cost to individuals if you take into account what most already pay to the insurance co's already. Because then we're only paying for medical care and the costs involved in that, and not lobbyist saleries, campaign contributions, campaign's to derail health care reform and a host of other things thru our premiums.

I also agree we need to stop demonizing Medicare for All. It's not something that will bring the country down, and is not a massive system change but an expansion of our existing system that can help our citizens have health care.

I'm quoting someone else here but a good way of looking at it is.

Public healthcare is a lot like public education. Is public education good? Absolutely! Should tax dollars pay for it? Absolutely!

Like everyone should have access to an education, everyone should have access to health care. It really is as American and simple as that.

---

Second, people who receive Medicare also pay a monthly premium out of their Social Security benefits. This is in addition to the taxes paid by working individuals. The premium is something like $92/month which comes out of limited SS benefits to begin with.

This IMO isn't accurate, the cost are based on income, and there are no premiums in the Medicare for all bill. It would be funded through our taxes, so doesn't IMO apply.

Also thought I'd list some services covered by HR 676 single payer Medicare for all which includes at least the following:
Primary care and prevention.
Inpatient care.
Outpatient care.
Emergency care.
Prescription drugs.
Durable medical equipment.
Long-term care.
Palliative care.
Mental health services.
The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
Substance abuse treatment services.
Chiropractic services.
Basic vision care and vision correction(other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
Podiatric care.

---

I think they are just tweaks. The real crux is how much you want to pay.

You need to get past the labels, and look at the details and the cost. It is too easy to just say

Socialism = Communism = The Work Of The Devil

and then stop thinking about it in a critical fashion.

Uh, I am in support of socialized medicine. Call it socialism, call it communism, call it the work of the devil if you like, I support socialism and socialized programs. I don't mean to give the impression that I was against it, just looking at the situation rationally.

But they aren't just "tweaks". Providing healthcare for all is a major, superstructure overhaul. I'm not against it, I'm only contending the assertion that changing medicare as it is now just involves some tweaking.

No, it involves an entirely new, restructured program.

Well though Medicare currently doesn't cover some of the things you mention, Medicaid, Medi-cal and other similar programs help in those costs. Again very American programs. Together they give coverage and in the new Medicare for All bill it would cover everyone as well as the things you mentioned (drugs, preventive care, etc...read the bill for more) People pay high rates for medical insurance, I and others think they could probably pay less than they pay now and still cover everyone, because they would no longer be paying for insurance companies advertising, CEO bonuses, other high salaries as well as other cost that Medicare wouldn't incur. Medicare for all includes everyone with more coverage than the current system, at less cost to individuals if you take into account what most already pay to the insurance co's already. Because then we're only paying for medical care and the costs involved in that, and not lobbyist saleries, campaign contributions, campaign's to derail health care reform and a host of other things thru our premiums.

I also agree we need to stop demonizing Medicare for All. It's not something that will bring the country down, and is not a massive system change but an expansion of our existing system that can help our citizens have health care.

Oh I agree, certainly. Don't get me wrong. I'm just in disagreement that medicare represents anything like socialized medicine. That's the only part I'm debating.

This IMO isn't accurate, the cost are based on income, and there are no premiums in the Medicare for all bill. It would be funded through our taxes, so doesn't IMO apply.

Also thought I'd list some services covered by HR 676 single payer Medicare for all which includes at least the following:
Primary care and prevention.
Inpatient care.
Outpatient care.
Emergency care.
Prescription drugs.
Durable medical equipment.
Long-term care.
Palliative care.
Mental health services.
The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
Substance abuse treatment services.
Chiropractic services.
Basic vision care and vision correction(other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
Podiatric care.

Right, but you're taking my response to one thing (medicare as it is now) and comparing it to a new, reformed system. I'm not downplaying a new Medicare for all system. Again, I was only pointing out flaws with the existing system and how currently the medicare program is not socialized medicine. There are premiums for medicare now. The system is limited, and it does not function like socialized medicine. That was my point of contention. The new bill that you're referring to... I wasn't.

I appreciate what you're saying, but the limitations you're limiting it too don't really seem fair IMO, since Medicare doesn't work by itself, but with other programs. Medicare wasn't designed to do it all by itself, so I don't think that makes or breaks it being socialized medicine. The premiums you speak of everyone doesn't pay, just folks that make over a certain amount. There are also experts in the industry that consider it socialized medicine. It may not be what you consider socialized medicine and I can respect that, but it does have many aspects of socialized medicine and considering it as such I don't think is a great leap. Either way wasn't really my point (even though I do love a good debate and thank you for your time on it, and I realize I did make the initial comment), and I'm more than happy to concede the point.

My more pressing concern being I don't think that anything radical is happening by the expansion of Medicare thru HR 676 single payer Medicare for all (not saying it won't take a lot of work to get it right), and is really the debate the American people should be having with their representatives.

Unfortunately though many may think it's what they're fighting against or even supporting, of the 5 or so bills being debated by the houses, this one has been pushed to the background and is only mentioned when they want to say, "oh no we can't have socialism in America" without even looking at what it is. I think if they actually called it what it is "Medicare for All" instead of single payer (why they even came up with that name unless they wanted it to fail is beyond me) the public might actually give it a look.

---

Please enlighten this ignorant one as to WHY - Obama is off to MEXICO to discuss American Healthcare?
Do we now need the approval of the Mexican Government to implement health care since we also have to include illegal Mexican Citizens in the plan?

Please enlighten this ignorant one as to WHY - Obama is off to MEXICO to discuss American Healthcare?
Do we now need the approval of the Mexican Government to implement health care since we also have to include illegal Mexican Citizens in the plan?

The papers here say the Three Amigos are meeting to discuss NAFTA and future trade agreements. That would explain why all 3 North American countries are involved.

By the way Canadian health care generally excludes illegal residents. We are in the process of tightening up ID requirements here in Ontario, because of the large number of people slipping over here from Michigan and New York for free health care.

---

I appreciate what you're saying, but the limitations you're limiting it too don't really seem fair IMO, since Medicare doesn't work by itself, but with other programs.

Eh? What on Earth are you talking about? What other program does Medicare work with? Medicare is not a supplemental; it's a major medical plan and it does not coordinate benefits.

Medicare wasn't designed to do it all by itself, so I don't think that makes or breaks it being socialized medicine.

Medicare is not socialized medicine period. It's for an exclusive group of people with a disproportionate cost burden being placed on exclusive groups. Socialized medicine is available to more than just elderly and disabled.

The premiums you speak of everyone doesn't pay, just folks that make over a certain amount.

Wrong. EVERYONE that has Medicare coverage pays a monthly premium. You pay MORE than $96.40/month if you make over $85,000. But EVERYONE that gets Medicare pays a monthly $96.40 no matter how little their income. $96.40 is the minimum.
https://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2099&p_sid=Aaa6u-Ej&p_lva=2100

My more pressing concern being I don't think that anything radical is happening by the expansion of Medicare thru HR 676 single payer Medicare for all (not saying it won't take a lot of work to get it right), and is really the debate the American people should be having with their representatives.

Yes, something radical is happening. I mean, if you didn't think this bill was a radical move, you wouldn't even be talking about it now. Kind of like the cap on county bridge taxes. Where were you on that discussion? Let me guess, it wasn't that radical.
But this bill has certainly left an impression with you.

Medicare along with (say from the state of California for example) works with or has supplemented cost by Medicaid, Medi-cal, Adapt, as well as others. Together they offer coverage of all the things you mentioned.

Also the idea that it's a flat 96.40 minimum( I will admit i wasn't aware there was a minimum down to the lowest amount you could recieve from SS) doesn't seem to be the case with friends I have that are on Medicare and don't pay that, so apparently, not everyone does. I may be mistaken but they've never expressed that to me. I would think they would have Part B but the premium only seems to apply if you have Part B coverage.

As far as where was I when other things were being discussed, and you're flippant answer to your own question, (I haven't been rude to you) doesn't persuade me to continue with a discussion of my history other than to say you don't know me or what I've been active in, so your self righteousness really makes me think you're not worth the time.

---

Medicare along with (say from the state of California for example) works with or has supplemented cost by Medicaid, Medi-cal, Adapt, as well as others. Together they offer coverage of all the things you mentioned.

Again, benefits are not coordinated. If medicare pays, medicaid doesn't. Medicaid does cover some things that medicare doesn't, but the benefits are not coordinated. To received medicaid is income based, medicare is disability based. They are apples and oranges and do not work together.

Also the idea that it's a flat 96.40 minimum doesn't seem to be the case with friends I have that are on Medicare and don't pay that, so apparently, not everyone does.

Everyone does. Everyone. Everyone that gets SSDI or retirement pays at LEAST 96.40. I have already proven that to you. There is no minimum income to avoid paying the premium as you had originally stated. This has already been proved.

As far as where was I when other things were being discussed, and you're flippant answer to your own question, (I haven't been rude to you) doesn't persuade me to continue with a discussion of my history other than to say you don't know me or what I've been active in, so your self righteousness really makes me think you're not worth the time.

You're right, you haven't been rude. You've just been ignorant, and then defended ignorance in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. I don't feel offended at that, but don't expect me to sugar coat the facts to you just because they don't support your misinterpretations. I mean, if you think there are people getting Medicare benefits that don't pay a monthly premium; then you have no clue what you're talking about. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, so please tell me what the cut off is;
I get $846/month for SSDI after they take the $96 out. So please, tell me, how little do I have to get before I don't pay the premium. I'd SURE like to know.

And you're right, I don't know you. And you don't know me, and the fact that I receive SSDI for the last 8 years, have medicare, and worked in the medical insurance field prior to that. If you can't be scientific about things (which I figured most SETI users would be, perhaps I'm wrong), then you're right, there is nothing more we should say to each other. I have no tolerance for prideful people that talk out of their rear and then get defensive when they're proven wrong.

[

And you're right, I don't know you. And you don't know me, and the fact that I receive SSDI for the last 8 years, have medicare, and worked in the medical insurance field prior to that. If you can't be scientific about things (which I figured most SETI users would be, perhaps I'm wrong), then you're right, there is nothing more we should say to each other. I have no tolerance for prideful people that talk out of their rear and then get defensive when they're proven wrong.

Well I don't see where when I've been wrong I have defended it. I've expressed what I believe to be true. You have your opinion of how it works, I have mine. We'll have to agree to disagree.

---

It's not a matter of opinion Byron.

I have provided links from MEDICARE.GOV that shows EVERYONE paying a medicare premium.

Here it is again;

https://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2099&p_sid=CKYEI-Ej&p_lva=2100&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NTEsNTEmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1tZWRpY2FyZSBwcmVtaXVt&p_li=

Where you have been wrong;

The premiums you speak of everyone doesn't pay, just folks that make over a certain amount.

When I provided you the link, here's where you defended it;

Also the idea that it's a flat 96.40 minimum( I will admit i wasn't aware there was a minimum down to the lowest amount you could recieve from SS) doesn't seem to be the case with friends I have that are on Medicare and don't pay that, so apparently, not everyone does.

You also EDITED that last bit in the parenthesis so now you're just about saving face, and not finding the truth.

Go back to crunching and never message me again.