Don't Want a Public Plan? What Do You Think of Medicare? »
Posted By Progressive 3 months ago in Political Opinion
Opponents of health-care reform should be chanting "No more Medicare!" The arguments that have been made against the public option (a health insurance plan sold and administered by the federal government) apply with equal or greater force to Medicare.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
680 Views Share Story 217 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Progressive
There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating: people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing. -- Oscar Wilde
I ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 217 (view all)
-
4daysaleComment removed: Hard Banned40 Replies
-
36%
rbiii3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uh, yeah! Medicare / Medicaid are just as unconstitutional as this new government run plan would be.
Reply
A real reform package would include a way to phase out medicare / medicaid over a period of time that allows people who don't want to take part of in this unconstitutional program to opt out and let people who relied on it get at least some of their contribution into it back.
This "well we're already doing it" bullsh!t is NOT and never will be a good reason to continue a program that the Federal government was never supposed to implement anyway.
Same goes for Social Security.-
80%
jordan113 months ago
-
77%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rbii,
Reply
I think your point should be spoken at every town hall meeting, every senior center, every anti Obama rally. Who do these seniors think they are- expecting Medicare and Social Security? Why hasn't the republicans and cons jumped on this issue? Everyone knows republicans and cons don't support Medicare and Social Securty. Somehow they just never make a public out cry about this? Why is that? -
-
-
4daysaleComment removed: Hard Banned15 Replies
-
Mannix2009Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned6 Replies
-
42%
abntv3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This country would be much better served if we set up a program to only deal with those that have no health insurance. Not those that do not want it. Not those that do not deserve it. Why should I pay twice as much for less coverage under a federally mandated program that will be poorly run,controled by an unelected few, and still not cover those that are too poor to get good coverage.
Reply-
-
100%
Bacalao3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should I pay twice as much for less coverage under a federally mandated program that will be poorly run,controled by an unelected few, and still not cover those that are too poor to get good coverage."
Reply
Heck that sounds like what we already have as long as you change it from federally to privately. -
beavis617bComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
91%
mesodude3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should I pay twice as much for less coverage under a federally mandated program that will be poorly run,controled by an unelected few, and still not cover those that are too poor to get good coverage."
Reply
A) You're only speculating that it will be poorly run.
B) Since you don't want the government involved anyway, more than likely you'll insist that it's being poorly run no matter what. I know this because cons only think the government runs perfectly when it serves their agenda of the moment.
C) What you're speculating will happen already is happening with for-profit insurance. What control do you have over that? -
-
-
-
33%
beavith13 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the posted article is silly. if anything, once you get past the verbal diarrhea, its proof that publicly funded unversal medicine CAN'T work.
Reply
look. we pay in over a lifetime of work to cover our own medical care once retired. technically, we (us workers) are not a load on the economy BECAUSE we've paid in. of course, it doesn't work like that because there are a huge number of non-paying lampreys drawing on that revenue.
how in the world are we supposed to be able to pay for this medical liability for our entire lives? if medicare is circling the drain because the baby boomers will start using it, how is dropping everyone into the same pool supposed to work? how long could universal stay solvent? can it EVER be solvent?
there simply aren't enough resources for everyone.-
78%
albionperfides3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
my dear beavith, when Wall Street failed you decided to support the investment bankers aka jerks who had almost destroyed the US financial system with trillions of dollars. Why? Now you are afraid of doing something useful for your country: you are hopeless.
Reply -
80%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beav,
Reply
The Baby Boomer issue is will be a problem for the next 10 to 20 years after that most of them will be gone. We need to provide healthcare to non-baby Boomers, people who are going to support the Baby Boomers the next 10 to 20 years. Its a morbid way to look at it, but if we don't have healthy people to support those on Medicare the system will fail. -
100%
Tangent0013 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"the posted article is silly. if anything, once you get past the verbal diarrhea, its proof that publicly funded unversal medicine CAN'T work."
Reply
Seems like it works pretty well in other countries (MOST other first world countries, in fact). Are you saying America can't do better than Canada, where they spend HALF per capita to FULLY cover their entire populace?
-
-
58%
simonsez3 months ago
-
-
100%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have you ver had to file a claim using your car or homeowners? Good luck trying. They offer everything when selling you a policy but look for ways not to pay when its time to collect. That's a great idea but don't expect your insurance corp to come through when you need it.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0013 months ago
-
-
79%
albionperfides3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However you slice it you are the richest country in the world and if you are not willing to have a universal healthcare system as we have in Europe then what does it say about your morals? Anyone objecting to the healthcare proposals is wealthy enough to afford health insurance without blinking at the cost. It is as simple as that.
Reply-
33%
rbiii3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We could cover every single american who wants coverage by setting some very simple regulations in place and opening up the market to competition.
Reply
It is IMMORAL to force people into a government run program that isn't within the power of the Federal Government to implement to begin with.
There are other ways to provide this "moral" coverage besides socialism. -
31%
abntv3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the bills in the house and senate become law we will no longer be the richest country in the world. We will become what some people like to refer to as a third world country. These plans will not only bankrupt the government it will bankrupt the people also.
Reply -
29%
gwhiddon3 months ago
-
-
90%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We need a public plan. We can't expect these insurance companies to pay for healthcare for all Americans. Who do you think they are , some type of miracle workers? We forced them to take control these past 20 years and they have been struggling ever since to provide health insurance for all. They just can't do it. It's time we lift the burden from their shoulders. All they want to do is make a little profit. They can't do it by insuring all Americans. Let's support our insurance companies. Create a public option so they can select who they want to insure and leave the burden to the government.
Reply
Isn't that what America is all about give private corps a break so they can make a little money.-
60%
chevydog3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kind of a goofy editorial. It assumes that all who had doubtsabout the "public option" don't like Medicare. I can't speak for others but I am not in that category. The "public option" mixed metaphors. It was trying to insert a free market tool in something that wasn't a free market. It may have worked IF there was some power available to direct that every decision made by every private insurer was the "right" one. But in the absence of that power, the public option was much more likely to become a verrry high cost dumping ground for high-cost/low-profit subscribers rejected by private insurers. IMHO the people who thought of this made the fundamental mistake of believing that very astute people (albeit astute and greedy) would on no basis other than hope suddenly start to act like fools. It wasn't gonna happen. "Reform" is not a bad idea; but if the public option is the best thinking that goes into it, we may as well throw in the towel now.
Reply
-
-
-
17%
Wolfie20073 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Medicare sucks and that's a big reason not to allow government to run the health care industry. It costs $99 plus change a month for Medicare and then you will need to buy more medical insurance to cover what Medicare won't, which is a lot. You cannot opt out of Medicare it is compulsory. They just deduct the premium from you SSI check. Nice, huh?
Reply-
-
86%
chevydog3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've noticed that Medicare payments vary wildly from doc to doc. But they do provide much better service and reporting than my private insurance. I pay $300/ month (up from $80/monthfour years ago) for a rather mediocre policy. And the same insurer declined to cover my wife at all due to a condition that as nearly as any doc or we can tell has never made her ill or cost her a day of work. Kinda funky , I thought.
Reply -
100%
doppich3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They just deduct the premium from you SSI check. Nice, huh?
Reply
Wolfie, Part B - the one you're paying $99 for - is voluntary. You can drop it whenever you want. Why haven't you? In fact, why did you even sign up for it? (Part A has no premiums.)
Part B premiums cover 25% of Part B's costs. The rest comes from Medicare taxes. Bush and the Congress exacerbated the problem with Part D, which, similarly, is only about 25% covered by premiums, and thus drains the Medicare fund much more quickly while enriching Big Pharma.
-
-
25%
lloydm653 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would any intelligent person believe that medicare for everybody is the answer to health care.Obama first and fore most is going to skim half trillion off the top,then he is going to destroy medicare advantage.Worst of all medicare requires a premium,I started paying mine in ninteen sixty five, couldn't access it for forty years,then I Had to purchase part B another hefty sum.still I wasn't really insured,until I purchased a supplement policy.Don't believe me take granny to a doctors office with only a medicare card,you'll do just as well with a dog license.Been there,done that.
Reply -
18%
lloydm653 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I forgot to warn you, progressive has not been schooled in logic,he only knows what he wants,and who to get it from.He is taking the gibberish Obama is spitting out,as gospel.Obama doesn't have a clue,the far left yellow cur dogs in the congress are putting this crud out as a type of utopia to garner votes for twenty ten.
Reply-
75%
Progressive3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, I'm not a "he", lloyd.
Reply
Secondly, Obama may very well be giving up any chance of reelection by pushing heathcare reform through Congress, which he is willing to do.
Thirdly, the Republicans have no interest in healthcare reform--their ONLY purpose is to defeat Obama.
-
-
33%
jimdoze3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Of course, not even the most strident opponents of reform are saying that Medicare should be eliminated. Not only would that be political suicide, but it would create an enormous policy catastrophe. Can you imagine putting 40 million seniors, all of whom have high expected health-care costs, into the individual market? Or can you imagine shifting retiree health-care costs back onto American companies?"
Reply
Thus are bankrupting entitlements created.
The key is to create permanently dependent constituency, with enough voting power to render any questions about it as political suicide. Promises to "pay as you go" are uttered as palliatives while overwhelming evidence tells a different story to all but the blind, clueless and perniciously power hungry.
While this essay purports to point out the duplicitousness of Republicans, it really stands as an excellent example of the overall duplicitousness of those who would foist government health care upon the citizens with the full knowledge that future generations will pay dearly for the power grab.-
67%
mesodude3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The key is to create permanently dependent constituency, with enough voting power to render any questions about it as political suicide."
Reply
--That's what's sad about this whole issue. Cons aren't even pretending to be genuinely interested in making sure all Americans are insured. And it's not even that you believe we can't afford to cover everyone. It's that you don't think the GOP can afford for Americans to discover that they like government run insurance the same way they like Social Security and Medicare.
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
100%
Progressive3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, it's an unfair comparison because Medicare covers the elderly, whose healthcare costs are highest, while private health care insurance denies coverage to those with preexisting conditions, thus shifting the cost to Medicare.
Reply
-
-
100%
dxxy4u3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Want a "Vick" style Dog Fight? Just ask the American people for their advice on an issue. Just look at the National Health Plan, nothing but a dog fight.It first started out as offering Heath Care to the now uninsured. The way it's going, the uninsured will still be uninsured, and the Insurance Company lovers will still be paying their high premiums. What a bunch of jerks the American people are.
Reply -
-
-
67%
TonyByron3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sure others here have said it but I will say it my way.
Reply
Attacking opponents of Obamacare by saying they should be attacking Medicare (or Medicaid) is illogical and an embarrassingly weak attempt to divert attention.
Medicare is all that tens of millions of seniors have right now for health care. It is going to be bankrupt soon. Obama is talking about carving out $500 billion from Medicare, an already unsustainable program, therefor causing it to ration or cut current services.
Medicaid is also going to be unsustainable soon.
Obama wants to start yet another government-run health care program.
That is the problem my liberal friends. -
33%
gwhiddon3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why doesn't anybody realize that paying personally for routine health care will cost a LOT less, with either a HSA, or catastrophic health with a high deductible?
Reply
From what I've heard from different people, when the bill is paid in person, or payment arrangements are made, it sometimes costs 1/3 of what insurance companies are charged
Car insurance would cost a fortune if it covered routine maintenance, such as oil changes.
What we have for "health insurance" is really a prepayment system, with the insurance companies as a third parties being charged a fortune just because they can be charged a fortune.
If people had to pay for their own routine visits, it would probably be amazing how many necessary visits would be eliminated.-
50%
mesodude3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What we have for "health insurance" is really a prepayment system, with the insurance companies as a third parties being charged a fortune just because they can be charged a fortune.
Reply
If people had to pay for their own."
--So the problem is that insurance companies are oppressed? Wow... ;-x
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.