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

I think you'll find if you look at the times you'll see that my edit was done before you posted your reponse, but I agree our conversation is over.

---

BTW anyone that wants to see a chance of HR 676 being a choice should go to opencongress.org

---

So you acknowledge that you were mistaken in that only people over a certain income amount pay a medicare premium?

You know what? Who cares. You know next to nothing about the current system, as illustrated; not even something as fundamental as premium payments. I doubt you have many credible words about a proposed system.

Good thing our conversation is over. I have low tolerance for ignorance.

I have a respect for the problems with the current system and don't see the point of if Medicare is true socialism or not. The point is the system needs to be reformed which is what the bill offers. I don't really care if you're or I am right or wrong about if it's socialized medicine, that wasn't what my intent was when posting here. The label was important to you. My point was the bill HR 676 is an expansion of Medicare and that people that are against it have a misconception of what it is IMO.

My thinking is that Medicare, Medicaid, Medical, and so on were all created to provide coverage. Medicare being a part of that in my opinion makes it socialized medicine and because it's already an important part of what we already do, HR 676 should not get the stigmatization that it does by those that oppose it. If by true definition it's not I don't think really is important. I do wonder why the label is important to you, if as you say you're for socialized medicine to begin with. Have you supported HR 676?

---

As already stated, I support the bill. I get the impression that you haven't grasped that you and I both believe in the same program.

I think labels are important to a degree in order to gauge progress. To me, socialized medicine is the holy grail, and to call medicare, "socialized medicine" is not only flawed, but entails a lowering of standards because medicare is a lackluster, problematic, privately competitive program that falls short of the scope of universal healthcare.

I see socialized medicine as an inclusive program. Medicare is an exclusive program. This is the only problem I have with your perspective; the fact that you consider something like medicare, socialism. It's like calling a go-kart a car or a bicycle a sport bike.

Call it single payer, socialized medicine, or medicare for all; the brass tacks are that the medicare program is NOT the program we need to be fighting for, rather evolving from. This aspect has little to do with labels, and more to do with standards. I support advancement in any public healthcare arena. I do NOT think that medicare as it stands is the answer to our current crisis.

But, the bill proposes stark differences from the current medicare program. They call it medicare for all, but it really isn't medicare. Let's make sure that we are in fact, as you say, expanding medicare as a plan, and not just bringing more people into medicare as it stands today.

Call it single payer, socialized medicine, or medicare for all; the brass tacks are that the medicare program is NOT the program we need to be fighting for, rather evolving from. This aspect has little to do with labels, and more to do with standards. I support advancement in any public healthcare arena. I do NOT think that medicare as it stands is the answer to our current crisis.

But, the bill proposes stark differences from the current medicare program. They call it medicare for all, but it really isn't medicare. Let's make sure that we are in fact, as you say, expanding medicare as a plan, and not just bringing more people into medicare as it stands today.

I agree there are many problems with the current Medicare system and that working to expand it so it is more inclusive, (which HR 676 appears to do,) should be the goal and would be more of a UHC bill then the 5 or so being floated around now. I also think a bill that does more harm than good for Medicare should not get any attention at all, and certainly shouldn't be passed, which is what I'm afraid will be the outcome if any of the other bills gets passed.

I also respect you have a more stern view of what socialism is, and are upset by those like me that use a more general term for it. Still it is no excuse for being rude and condensing to people, just because they don't agree with your point of view.

---

You got personal with your responses and then defended an ignorant position.

This is not a case of a differing opinion. We actually agree on just about everything that is a matter of opinion. You have some perceptions in regard to the current medicare system however that are unequivocally wrong and I have shown, with links from medicare.gov, where you are wrong.

That is the only point of contention we really have. Don't turn this into, "you're a jerk because you got mad that we disagree". Sorry, that's not the case. You were wrong on empirical facts. THAT'S what we "disagreed" upon. I knew certain facts and you didn't. In regard to social theory, so far you and I agree totally.

As far as me being rude, we can go down that path if you like. You used derogatory and insulting phrases to describe my demeanor, when all I ever did was outline, in a scientific manner, where you were mistaken.

If you want to have a civil debate, or a friendly discussion, I'm more than capable. If you want to get personal, just keep doing what you're doing, because I can play that game too.

You got personal with your responses and then defended an ignorant position.

This is not a case of a differing opinion. We actually agree on just about everything that is a matter of opinion. You have some perceptions in regard to the current medicare system however that are unequivocally wrong and I have shown, with links from medicare.gov, where you are wrong.

That is the only point of contention we really have. Don't turn this into, "you're a jerk because you got mad that we disagree". Sorry, that's not the case. You were wrong on empirical facts. THAT'S what we "disagreed" upon. I knew certain facts and you didn't. In regard to social theory, so far you and I agree totally.

I think if you look back at our conversation I stated opinions, and why I said many time IMO. I only took personal what I considered condesinding remarks pointed at me. I don't think I've tried to turn this around to anyone is a jerk, I only stated an obvious part of what is needed to have a civil conversation.
.

---

What medicare covers in not a matter of opinion.

Whether medicare has a monthly premium is not a matter of opinion.

What constitutes socialized medicine is well defined, and is not a matter of opinion.

We have not disagreed upon ANYTHING that is a matter of opinion. The only confrontation that we've had is in regard to FACTS that you were mistaken about.

ok, so now I know how you think of what I think about Medicare being socialized Medicine. What are your thoughts about getting the current administration to stop wasting time on the current bills and getting HR 676 back on the table?

---

I support 676. But I think it's not all encompassing, however a step in the right direction.

Look we need a fix to our current system. I'm sorry that we didn't get along. The important thing is that we need positive change for the better. I see healthcare as a basic human right. Thanks for putting this out there and for the record, you and I agree on 676.

As far as getting the current administration to listen, we need to have the voice of current medicare recipients and those without any coverage at all allowed to speak directly to the administration. How we do that, your guess is as good as mine.

How we do that, your guess is as good as mine.

I think the first thing that is probably doable for most is to show that more people are really behind HR 676 than any of the other bills. Right now the support for 676 exceeds the current and AFAIK the most talked about 3200 bill. At this moment 676 has 29% support and 3200 has 14%. If the percentage for 676 goes up to over 40% or more I think the administration would be more inclined to have to bring it back out there and talk about it in a genuine way. That's one of the reason's I post here and many other places as well as getting friends, family, etc. to go and show support for the bill and suggest others do the same. I even ask people that are skeptical of 676 but are very much against the other bills (to me for obvious reasons) to at least support HR 676 so it doesn't die and can be debated and shown for what it is and fix what problems there are in it, as well as have an honest discussion about what the cost are and the changes needed to make it happen. If one of the other bills gets passed we may never get another chance at true UHC.

Going to town hall meetings the administration is having now is another way to bring it back into the conversations as well as writing, calling, emailing, faxing etc. your representatives and telling them you want HR 676 to be discussed with the attention they are giving the others.

I'm also sorry that you've been upset by statements made by me. I appreciate the conversation and have learned from it, and I thank you for that.

---

Ahh, just found out why my friends didn't have to pay the premium. Apparently Medi-Cal pays the premium if their Share Of Cost is under $500.00 as posted in this information from California Health Advocates.

Note: As of November 1, 2008, if the SOC Medi-Cal has determined for you is over $500, Medi-Cal will no longer pay your Medicare Part B monthly premium ($96.40 in 2009).

Also they do say

One exception applies if you are in a Medicare Savings Program (MSP) that pays for your Part B premium (QMB, SLMB or QI). If you are in one of these MSPs, you will not be affected.

---

Lucky for those Californians that have the state pay for their medicare premiums. Still a premium, it's just that the state covers it for you.

Doing some reading, I see that you still pay the premium yourself if you do not have any medical expenses for the month.

"If you have no medical expenses in a month, then you cannot meet the SOC and your Part B premium will be deducted from your Social Security check."

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Documents/Medicare%20Part%20B%20Notification.pdf

Lucky for those Californians that have the state pay for their medicare premiums. Still a premium, it's just that the state covers it for you.

Doing some reading, I see that you still pay the premium yourself if you do not have any medical expenses for the month.

"If you have no medical expenses in a month, then you cannot meet the SOC and your Part B premium will be deducted from your Social Security check."

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Documents/Medicare%20Part%20B%20Notification.pdf

So everybody pays, even if they don't use the service. Sounds like socialism to me.

But seriously, everybody pays premiums or taxes or loses income or quality of life some other way because of the cost to society of premature deaths, long term disabilities, days off sick, orphaned children, etc. Why not just admit it, collect funds from everybody according to their ability to pay, and distribute the cash where needed for the good of everybody?

Oh wait, that's socialism too.

---

It's not socialism. Everyone paying does not constitute socialism. Everyone pays a sales tax if your state has a sales tax (most do). Most people pay income tax. Most homeowners pay property tax. Everyone is paying for the Iraq war in some fashion. Is that a socialist movement?

The difference is in the beneficiaries. As it stands, very few people are eligible for medicare. You must be disabled, or elderly with enough work credits. The vast majority of Americans are neither disabled or elderly. It's an exclusive program.

Neither Byron nor myself are saying socialism = evil. You keep going on about "oh wait that's socialism" this and that. I don't know who you're talking to because none of the recent activity on this thread has anyone hating on socialized programs.

Lucky for those Californians that have the state pay for their medicare premiums. Still a premium, it's just that the state covers it for you.

Doing some reading, I see that you still pay the premium yourself if you do not have any medical expenses for the month.

"If you have no medical expenses in a month, then you cannot meet the SOC and your Part B premium will be deducted from your Social Security check."

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Documents/Medicare%20Part%20B%20Notification.pdf

Actually the MSP at this link, (though I think it was obvious in the first one I gave) is a Medicare program and does not appear exclusive to California. It appears to me looking at it and from what you've said, you may qualify for it, at least from the monthly income stand point. Having worked in the medical insurance field I'm surprised you didn't get that, or know about it or maybe you just didn't notice I wrote it.
Quote from the first link MSP

Medicare offers several Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs) that assist people with low income and assets

And since my friends are on more than one of these plans was the basis for my earlier comments of not everyone pays the premium. In fact many whose income is under the amounts shown don't.
There's also a chance someone with your income would also qualify for Extra Help as well.

Also if you read further in the the California Health Advocates site you'll see where they discuss at least several things where Medi-Cal (Medicaid) works together with Medicare as a back up to it. If I knew what state you were in, I may be able to find similar info.

I still respect your view of what socialism is but I still have my view of how close our system comes to it, (and see no reason for either of us to defend our position on it at this point since we both already have),and think with the new plan it would be one that could come even closer to your view of it, and being the real UHC we elected the current administration for. So tell anyone that will listen and convince them if they're not already, cause the current administration doesn't seem to have that goal at this point.

---

Actually the MSP at this link, (though I think it was obvious in the first one I gave) is a Medicare program and does not appear exclusive to California. It appears to me looking at it and from what you've said, you may qualify for it, at least from the monthly income stand point. Having worked in the medical insurance field I'm surprised you didn't get that, or know about it or maybe you just didn't notice I wrote it.

I guess you didn't bother to read your own link. The pamphlet that you linked to states the following;

"You may qualify to get help paying for your Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) and/or Part B (Medical Insurance) premiums. STATES HAVE PROGRAMS that can help pay your Medicare expense"

So no, it's NOT a medicare program. It's a state program. And no, I do not qualify for it where I live. The fact that you have to ask which state I'm in to verify benefits outlines this. If it were a medicare (federal program), then it wouldn't matter which state I lived in would it?

And since my friends are on more than one of these plans was the basis for my earlier comments of not everyone pays the premium. In fact many whose income is under the amounts shown don't.
There's also a chance someone with your income would also qualify for Extra Help as well.

Well, how far do you want to move the goal posts? Medicare premiums are STILL paid by everyone on medicare. That there are state programs that pay it for you is another matter. And no, I do not qualify because my state has no such program.

Also if you read further in the the California Health Advocates site you'll see where they discuss at least several things where Medi-Cal (Medicaid) works together with Medicare as a back up to it. If I knew what state you were in, I may be able to find similar info.

They only pay what medicaid normally covers which medicare does NOT. Again, these are not coordinated benefits. Do you know what, "coordinated benefits" means?

I still respect your view of what socialism is but I still have my view of how close our system comes to it, (and see no reason for either of us to defend our position on it at this point since we both already have),and think with the new plan it would be one that could come even closer to your view of it, and being the real UHC we elected the current administration for. So tell anyone that will listen and convince them if they're not already, cause the current administration doesn't seem to have that goal at this point.

The problem is people like yourself that are not qualified to advocate the system on a very important topic. Here you continue to make guesswork with a medical system illiteracy which makes what you're advocating look poor by proxy. You have a gross misunderstanding of the current system, do not understand premiums, benefits coordination, or the difference between state and federal benefit levels (I mean, for crying out loud you're claiming this is a medicare program when you link to a medicare.gov site that tells you about state level benefits to offset premiums), and honestly have little understanding of the systems in question which means that putting you as a voice for a new program would be haphazard at best. This is not a matter of opinion. But, it would take a part time job to educate you on the merits and details of the existing systems, much less those hypothetical ones proposed by government.

I'm a medicare recipient. I believe in socialized medicine. I ask you, please, do not try to argue this point with anybody because you'd hurt the cause.

http://www.malignantpoodle.com/byronmedicare.jpg

I didn't say states weren't involved. They seem to be Medicare programs though. The fact the states pay them and is coordinated thru them I think tends to show how they work together. In any event, I'm only confirming what I said in the beginning (Not everyone pays the costs of premiums and it's based on income, which you said does not happen.) and not trying to go off on another debate.
We've already had the other discussions, and I appreciate you don't think much of my view. I get that, I've tried to show the basis for my earlier statement and why I see it how I do.. Maybe it has more to do with where I live and the help/assistance Medi-Cal has with Medicare as well as how close they work together here, but still the main topic of the thread is about Medicare for all, so where do we go from here and how do we get there.

---

Again, it seems that you don't understand what coordinated benefits are.

You're talking about a state program that offers welfare in the form of paying medicare premiums. That is not a medicare program, any more than if you pay my premiums for me.

I'll give you a brief run down in my own words of what coordinated benefits are;

Coordinated benefits consist of insurers that compensate for the same claim. A coordinated benefit is one that is paid by multiple third parties, and there is coordination and even subrogation which determines how they are paid.

Medicare and medicaid are NOT coordinated benefits. This is due to the fact that medicaid pays everything AFTER medicare for dual eligibles. They do not coordinate for similar benefits.

You're citing a state program which offers on welfare basis to cover medicare premiums (remember, premiums which you said not everyone has to pay. I'm just curious. If people do not have to pay it, why do there exist programs to pay it for them?). They are paying the premium for those that fall under a certain income bracket. Brass tacks; THE PREMIUM IS STILL DUE. This was the point of contention; how much medicare collects from said premiums, which you originally stated does not have to be paid by many (most).

Byron, I can forgive that you have an ill understanding of the current system. Many do. But don't pretend to know otherwise.
http://www.malignantpoodle.com/byronmedicare.jpg