Good catch, oleeb! Thanks. :)

Thanks. I hadn't seen the report.

It's the least expensive means. Most of those employed in the health insurance industry would remain employed, but the highly paid execs and the profit takers (blood suckers as you put it).

.

Hey Hey Hey . . .

"I didn't see the following story in the news last week about a coalition that has formed to press the Medicare for All legislation in Congress.

Oleeb ... You needed to go no further for this story than right here in the Cafe. I posted this blog last Thursday that has all the info needed about the report that the CQ article speaks about. Here's the link:

Dramatic New Study Presented in Congressional Briefing

There have been reports about single-payer being off the table that have come from various sources within the new administration in lieu of a plan of "Incremental Universalism" to health care coverage. You may wish to check out CVille's blog here.

But you are correct about a lack of "news" coverage. There seems to be a black-out of sorts with the coverage by the mainstream media related to the single-payer side of the debate.

Surprised? Not me...

Following is the direct link to the Think Progress interview with John Podesta explaining Obama's position related to the health care issue. The part begins at 4:14 in the video:

thinkprogress.org/2009/01/29/podesta-responds/

~OGD~

Hate to rain on your parade, but do you even know that medicare no longer provides access to even basic levels of health care, unless you have an expensive supplemental health insurance policy?

Even public hospitals no longer take patients with medicare only. Getting a private physician to take a medicare patient w/out supplemental insurance is impossible. Medicare for all, is still health care for only those wealthy enough to afford it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but too much time among the netroots in the blogosphere causes people to lose touch with the reality on the ground. You need to talk with the grassroots.

I don't think your read of the situation is entirely correct. If we socialize the healthcare system for all as we did with the health care system for the elderly, it will be the health program for all and the whole idea of supplemental private insurance will disappear at least insofar as you're referring to it regarding how that sort of thing works with Medicare presently. Yes, you'd probably need some sort of additional insurance for things like boob jobs and other vanity operations, but not for medical care that impacts your health and is not purely elective or cosmetic.

Oleeb, I know someone who died, not because he didn't get a "boob job" or any vanity operation.. he was a patient waiting for an organ transplant, but that's not what killed him. He had been denied the physician he needed, and fought to get for six years. He couldn't afford supplemental insurance, because he didn't have the money for it. It was a lymphoma (a cancer) that went undiagnosed, because he didn't have the physician performing the routine blood tests to monitor the progression of his condition. Had the doctors at the public hospital taken him as a patient, they would have caught the lymphoma when it was still in a very survivable stage. Hon, you really need to find out the realities here in the US, because you don't have even the basic understanding of what is going on at present.

Americans with medicare die every day, and medicare doesn't just cover the elderly, it covers the disabled, and disabled includes those with critical illnesses that render people too ill to work.

They have universal health care in the UK, and are understaffed because over the years, as the NHS's burden became too great, more physicans abandoned the NHS and went into private practice, other doctors emigrated.

Even if we implemented "medicare for all", there would still be a private system, and the majority of all physicians would refuse to work within the "medicare for all". When the universal health care system was created in Vermont, doctors who had previously taken medicaid and CHIP patients, dropped them, and would only take private insurance. When private insurers started leaving the state, doctors left the state as well.

I know something needs to be done, but it's not quite so easy as saying "medicare for all". We need to deal with a number of issues, and there needs to be serious parameters laid out, so that no matter if you have a far right winger or far left winger in a position of power, neither could impose cruel and inhumane policies regarding access to health care. There needs to be fair compensation for physicians, and by the same token, physicians have to bring their income expectations down to planet earth. There should be incentives given to those who who wish to attend medical school and are willing to commit to general practice/internist, and to work with the public system. There are so many important factors, but I shouldn't be up this late, can't believe I lost track of time.

Supplemental means it takes care of the Medicare co-pay. For Mr. TheraP (who will be 70 this year, that costs about $150/mo. For a younger person, I would presume a policy like that would cost much less or the younger person could simply decide to pay the co-pay out of pocket.

.

Hello . . .

Rain on the parade? Naw ...

It's more like spitting into the wind. Don't let any of it get on ya'...

Before coming in here half-cocked telling folks they are out of touch, I recommend you read the following House Bill HR 676 and then get back to us about what you learned about the system that can and should be implemented.

United States National Health Insurance Act
(or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act)

I love a full outline of what you learned ...

But for some funny reason, I don't expect it.

~OGD~

.

Right-i-o . . .

As far as it not hurting to keep putting things up in order to reach more people, you are singing to the organ player in the choir.

Maybe you haven't seen my post about Pushing Obama."

And I fully agree that anything but single-payer type is not the way to go... That link to the Incremental Universalism (think Massachusetts) was to show what they have in store, not that I agree with that type of plan.

~OGD~

Yes, this is also my strategy, OGD. WE have to get out ahead of Obama. He's not going to pull the country behind him, he needs to lead from within the pack. And I, like you, feel that we have to find every which way to push forward what needs to happen, to keep the a hearth burning for healthcare and another hearth for Justice to be served and so on.

The prescription add-on that the Bush administration negotiated with Big Pharma is a travesty. It is so complicated, and the euphamistically named "DoughNut Hole" (to make it seem friendly (?) leaves many people in the lurch. You can go on-line and try to figure out which plan will cover the meds you are on, sign up for it, and the plan can discontinue any of those meds without penalty.

That is one part that needs total re-vamping. Talk about single-payer -- the prescription part is the most glaring of abuses. No one should have to use a computer to figure out over and over again who will cover their medications, as opposed to who won't.

As long as our system requires that someone make a profit simply for pushing papers, and providing NO OTHER SERVICE whatsoever (!) people will get the short end of the stick.

Why is it so hard for anyone to understand that if all medical dollars are spent on medical care, we will have better care? That is such a simple concept. Makes me think that those who are against it just might have some of that profit to skim off for themselves.

--Or in the case of Congress -- they don't want to give up their gold-plated coverage and join with the HoiPaloi.

I agree with dd. Outpatient medications are hugely expensive and the insurance companies are making a bundle by denying needed meds.

That is not due to the Medicare program, but as dd says, it was a republican give-away. That needs to change!

Very good point, but I think the focus needs to be on shifting our entire system over to a single payer first. We can fix the problematic anti-patient provisions of previous Republican Congresses. Even with the kinds of flaws you point out the nation would be better off than with what we now have.

I would point out also that it is clear from all the polling and research that has been done (oft repeated by the Obama folks too) is that whatever is done for health care, it needs to be simple, easy to understand and done all at one time. I don't care what they call it, but embracing the Medicare for All idea is the only way to achieve these things and it really is the only appropriate and practical solution.

All those that argue it is not practical to institute a single payer plan are the ones who are being impractical. Without exception, those who voice that opinion or viewpoint propose complicated, expensive options that attempt to preserve and sustain as much of the bad system we now have. Our current system is set up as a for profit enterprise. Could there be any more inappropriate endeavor to be operating on the basis of profit being the goal than health care? I think not.