Establish Medicare Part "E" for All Americans Under the Age of 65: Keep It Simple President-Elect Obama

Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 10:49am.

EditorBlog

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

by Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher of BuzzFlash.com

In Canada, the universal health care system is simply called medicare -- and that's what it should be in the U.S. And instead of the 1342-page proposal Hillary Clinton put together that was a politically jerry-rigged, confusing plan -- or the Obama proposal that would leave insurance companies pretty much intact (whose goal is to make money by reducing care as much as possible) -- it would be the simplest and boldest political move to simply propose to Congress this sentence to become law: "All Americans under the age of 65 will be covered by Medicare Part 'E.'"

Simplicity is often the most audacious and successful strategy. Since Medicare for seniors became the law in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," it has become the government program most embraced by Americans. Any Republican or Democrat who would dare run against Medicare risks a landslide defeat at the polls in any statewide or national election.

You can't tinker with a broken, for-profit medical insurance system and make it work.

The Republicans are scared to death that if all Americans were covered by Medicare (with the health insurance companies shoved to the sidelines of supplemental insurance), it would lead to a new confidence in government. In fact, we could be wrong, but we don't know of any government that adopted single-payer medical care and then rolled it back. That is because even when it is flawed, it is wildly popular. Just do a poll among seniors in South Florida. Even Republicans on the West Coast of the Sunshine State love Medicare, as they -- ironically -- denounce "socialized" medicine!

There is no reason not to cover all Americans under Medicare through Medicare Part "E." Of course the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms will send their squadrons of lobbyists out in full force. But as far as effective public policy and returning our nation to competency in government after an administration that let the multiple incompetencies and greed of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex run our nation into the ground, there would be no restorative as powerful as extending the Medicare program to all Americans.

So we are a bit discouraged to have read in the Boston Globe that the Obama Administration, through HHS Secretary-designate Tom Daschle, is going to negotiate with Congress -- and that there is already an 89-page "policy paper" being circulated on Capitol Hill representing the Obama position on health care reform.

That's 89 pages too long.

All that's needed, as we said, is this sentence: "All Americans under the age of 65 will be covered by Medicare Part 'E.'"

It would keep any plan from death by a thousand GOP and lobbyist cuts, and it would provide America a health care plan beloved by those who are currently using it.

And it would restore a respect for government among millions and millions of Americans who have become disenchanted by the disastrous legacy of the Bush Administration.

It's the kind of savvy, brazen move that gives the Republican leadership cold shivers.

Because it is stunning in its simplicity and effectiveness.

And the only way that you could argue against it is to make a case against Medicare.

And let the GOP just try to do rip Medicare to shreds. They'll go down in flames.

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

This article is to my

Submitted by goodxo.com on Sun, 08/15/2010 - 7:47pm.

This article is to my feelings, thanks for your sharing, hoping to see more useful content, refueling,We are a Chinese supplier, we provide the best bag bag and clothes,ghd Moncler clothing P90x ghd Moncler Jackets Men Moncler Jackets Women

Would love to see more designs. vey cool!

Submitted by www123 on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 2:48am.

Very interesting stuff for

Submitted by dimok on Sat, 09/12/2009 - 3:38pm.

Very interesting stuff for the reading indeed.

Thanks for sharing this

Submitted by petersonpol on Wed, 06/23/2010 - 4:29am.

Thanks for sharing this useful info. how to complain

But that's not what you voted for!!

Submitted by alankdkd on Sun, 12/28/2008 - 1:58pm.

It's good to see all the people here who recognize that single-payer is desperately needed by Americans.

But that's not what you voted for! You voted for the party that stands united with the Republicans AGAINST single-payer health care.

Why should the Democrats listen to you? They already got your vote. If 5% of you had voted for a party that DOES stand for single-payer (among other good things) like the Green Party, you would have gotten the Democrats' attention.

You liberals keep voting for that other corporate-funded party, hoping it will start to act in the citizens' interest. And you're always disappointed. (There's a word for people who repeatedly follow the same course of action, expecting different results, but it escapes me at the moment.)

I used to vote straight Democratic. I'm better now. I voted for Clinton, then he and Gore passed NAFTA and the WTO agreements, which are economic treason against working Americans. I started voting for Ralph Nader and the Green Party at that point.

Subsequent actions by this other corporate-funded party have told me I made the right choice. The Democrats allowed all the outrages of the Bush Administration to occur. (It only takes ONE senator to fillibuster a bill.)

So why should the Democrats go against their pharmaceutical and insurance paymasters? What are you going to threaten them with? Voting for them again??

What Corporate America fears

Submitted by nelsonaddison on Sat, 12/27/2008 - 8:36am.

...is that Americans will realize that there is a difference between a product (goods and services) and a societal liability -- like health insurance. With a viable product, the free market paradigm states that you a) create a better product; b) sell it for less and, thus, capture a larger portion of the market and maximize profits. Health insurance does not fit this paradigm. You cannot create a better health policy (one that Guarantees more coverage), offer it at a lower premium to wider customer base and expect to maximize profits. The only way a health insurance company can maximize profits is by reducing coverage, raising premiums, denying valid claims, and avoiding the sick. Given that set of parameters, you have to wonder what it is you're paying for in the first place! Indeed, if our government wasn't in the back pockets of these scoundrels, the health insurance cartel would be indicted under the RICO Act. If Medicare For All were ever achieved, people might start wondering, "What other social functions are being performed by corporations that don't really fit the free market paradigm?" Does Wackenhut really provide better prisons at a lower cost? Are we really saving money by privatizing large portions of our military? The free market provides its own litmus test for answering these questions. And, with any societal liability, the free market will fail right out of the gate. Education is another good example. I can understand how a corporation that makes widgets can sell better widgets at a competitive price to more people and make bigger profits. I don't see how a for-profit school could possibly offer a higher quality education to a greater number of children for less money per student and, at the same time, maximize profits. They can't -- and they're not trying to. School vouchers are a scam similar to free market health insurance. They don't want to provide a better education for all our kids at a lower cost. They want to take a portion of kids -- I'm sure the chosen population would be based on profitability -- and provide a comparable education at a comparable price while defunding the public system. The question that needs to be asked is: "If the free market can provide a better education at a lower price for some students and still turn a profit, then why can't it do the same for ALL of our kids and reduce the total education budget at the same time?" Likewise, if free market health insurance were actually better and cheaper and more efficient than the current non-system we have now, and profitable to boot, don't you think the health insurance cartel would have brought a universal plan to the table a long time ago. If the free market system is a force of nature, always cheaper and more efficient, then why aren't the forty-seven million Americans without insurance seen as an opportunity for additional profits? And why don't we see those Americans without insurance for what they are? -- a failure of the current system. I have been studying the health care crisis since Hilary's failed attempt at an overhaul in the early nineties. The only conclusion I can come to -- in logical terms -- is that universal single-payer health insurance is a totality. I can find no benefit to health insurance coming from profit motive or competition. On the other hand, a single-payer system would simpler, cheaper, and, most importantly, cover everybody. I love Dennis Kucinich's quote on the subject: "We're already paying for universal single-payer health insurance. We're just not getting it."

What about the Congress plan

Submitted by Freedem (not verified) on Sat, 12/27/2008 - 12:18am.

The only way we will have honest Health care is if Congress has to live by the same medical system that the rest of us have. If not their's will become gold plated and ours will have "Cost Containment" provisions constantly added in, like that "Donut Hole" designed to make a financial barrier that only those rich enough can get over and the rest can just die.

Only a Universal system of quality care for everyone, Congress, Veterans, and Citizens will have long term support, and cost containment that makes sense. Anything else will have profitable gold plating for wealth and all expenses shoved off on those who cannot afford it.

There was a time when all hospitals were Government run until the camels nose got under the tent and all the most profitable treatment went to private hospitals, and all the expenses went to public hospitals that were also under pressure to cut costs, and most went out of business or were sold to for-profit companies. Even "Charity" hospitals run by religious organizations are no charity and just another pig at the trough. It all has to stop.

Given Political Realities H.R.676 passed as first order of business before the "Grand Wurlitzer" can kill it would be a very good start.

If the Gang Of Pirates think that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, only a fool would think it bipartisan to accommodate them.

HR 676

Submitted by nasrudin on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 9:59pm.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel -- using broken components -- why not support the Conyers bill ("United States National Health Insurance Act") introduced 1/24/2007? Here's the Congressional Research Service summary: United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) - Establishes the United States National Health Insurance (USNHI) Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services. Prohibits an institution from participating in the Program unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that actually deliver care in their own facilities to participate in the Program. Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions. Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits. Sets forth methods to pay hospitals and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization. Establishes the USNHI Trust Fund to finance the Program with amounts deposited: (1) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners; (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and (4) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions. Requires the Program to give first priority in retraining and job placement and unemployment benefits to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration. Establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to provide advice on quality, access, and affordability. Provides for the eventual integration of the Indian Health Service into the Program. - - - Here's the text of the bill: http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final.pdf and here's a support site: http://www.hr676.org/

Medicare - without private for-profit insurance companies

Submitted by Pete Ross on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 7:57pm.

We need national coverage for every citizen and legal resident in the United States! Original Medicare (government - not private insurance) is what we need and Medicare would be just fine - it is efficient and works well. The amount of money that the government will save by not subsidizing private insurance companies (about 13% on average) as they do now so they can "compete" with Medicare should enable the elimination of co-pays, deductables and donut-holes. The current part D was written by insurance and drug company lobbyists to rip off the insureds and the government.

BINGO

Submitted by Ali on Sat, 12/27/2008 - 12:19am.

But private insurance companies pay physicians and hospitals more than government funded insurance (Medicare and Medicaid). Doctors in rural areas are going out of business... there is a lot to fix.

Agreed

Submitted by anagitator on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 7:15pm.

Keep it simple and keep it restricted to LEGAL American citizens and make it on par with elected officials. That way if there are problems they will correct it for themselves and for all Americans. No complicated formulas and provide a base level medical care that is both preventative and is based upon standard of care protocol by the CDC for all diseases and conditions. Allow people to pay a premium for a higher tier that would provide extras such as private rooms, experimental treatments and overseas coverage on their own.

One more word needs to be in there ...

Submitted by lilsuzq32 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 4:46pm.

This wording:

All that's needed, as we said, is this sentence: "All Americans under the age of 65 will be covered by Medicare Part 'E.'"

Needs to be changed to THIS wording:

All that's needed, as we said, is this sentence: "All LEGAL American CITIZENS under the age of 65 will be covered by Medicare Part 'E.'"

PLEASE leave the illegal aliens out of this ... they already get free medical help and I don't!

And Legal Aliens?

Submitted by urthsong on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 6:09pm.

They pay taxes too. It's time to get real about these exceptions and five year delays. People need health care when they need it. Period. Did you know that there is a two year waiting period for Medicare from the date that a fully disabled person is officially recognized as that? Did you know that many people die or deteriorate before Medicare kicks in for them? I'm sickened by the malevolence of hatred and greed. Pat Williams

USE the ( V.A. example ) as the way to go 4 all Earth Citizens

Submitted by RogerARTcom on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 5:47pm.

USE the ( V.A. example ) as the way to got 2 HEALTH CARE 4 all Earth Citizens Also see - HOUSES 4 all Earth Citizens here... http:..www.EarthBall.org www.RogerART.com /and/ www.OneGlobalCommunity.com /and/ www.EarthBall.org

medicare part E

Submitted by RICKAMAVEN on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 3:54pm.

this part of medicare is the worst kind of prescription drug insurance available. the cost is about $500.00 a year, less if you only use generic drugs. all new drugs are what most doctors prescribe because they are most effective. why would you want an older drug that is not as effective as a new drug. the deductible is $300.00 and it pays to a maximum of $2400.00, which means you are paying 25% of the value of the insurance. if you asked your insurance agent how much it would cost to insure the new car that cost $20,000.00 for collision damage and he told you $5,000.00 a yer, well you get the point. the second bit of small printing is whoever you are buying this policy from, and they are all the same, as dictated by the federal government, is that the cost that the insurance company claims it is, not your co-pay, is what is applied against the $2400.00. example: the drug byetta costs the insurance company about $240.00, and your copay is about $70.00. simply put 12 months of byetta @ $240.00, costs the insurance carrier, if the carrier paid it all is $2880.00 and you are now $480 over your coverage. add the $500.00 to the deductible to the overage and you end up backwards. $ 500.00 cost of insurance $ 480.00 cost of overage $ 700.00 the cost of your co=pay for 10 months $1680.00 out of your pocket there are a number of discount prescription plans, i use freedom benefits @ $50.00 a year for the family. the byetta cost my with the discount plan about $90.00 a month plus discounts on all my other prescriptions. wall mart and wall greens sell most generic medicine at $10.00 for a 3 month supply, one pill a day. if you take 2, $20.00 for three months. buy whatever you want, just make sure that you understand what you are buying and make sure it is worth the cost.

Wrong Medicare Part, RICKAMAVEN

Submitted by lilsuzq32 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 4:48pm.

The prescription drug coverage is part D (not part E) ... and you're right, it's atrocious. That's mostly because Shrubbie-boy and his cronies wrote it to milk the consumer and enrich the pharma lobby.

Medicare Part E

Submitted by sandiegogramma on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 3:23pm.

This is the most thoughtful, intelligent plan to be offered to the public. I currently have Medicare and Tricare for Life and consider myself one lucky gramma. I would like to see anyone, regardless of age , enjoy the same benefits. I suppose letter to Obama, Daschel, etc. are in order. Ready....begin!

Help the economy

Submitted by issyk on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 3:15pm.

Our businesses need to be able to compete on a global scale, which is impossible with the heavy burden of medical costs for their employees. Other countries' businesses do not have foot the bill for medical insurance so they are free to charge less and make more on the products they create. It's time for everyone in this country to realize that the insurance-company/healthcare-for-profit scheme has hurt our ability to be on an even par with the rest of the world. We have become a "second-world" country in the last 10 years. It's time to grow up.

Yes to Medicare for All Americans!

Submitted by mckathiki on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:58pm.

My husband and I have not been able to afford health insurance for almost 10 years. We are "working" poor and our 14 year old daughter has excellent coverage through CHIP. We are honest, educated people with superior work ethics taught us by our upper middle class parents and patriotic Americans who have always paid our taxes. It is not fair that we may die earlier than we should because we cannot afford simple preventative health care or treatment for our chronic medical conditions (he is 44, I'm 54). Before some troll says we deserve where we are at because we didn't play the game and keep job-provided insurance - I quit a good corporate job with excellent benefits 10 years ago to move back to Texas and care for my mother as she died of cancer (thank God she had Tricare). We do not regret our decision to help her through the last years of her life. There are millions of Americans like us or worse off than we are. None of us are asking for charity, just a chance for better quality of life. Medicare for all is a better expenditure of our taxes than war, policing the world and Wall Street bailouts. It's time for Americans to insist on taking care of ourselves.

Medicare for all..was a Kucinich and Edwards

Submitted by Chabuka on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:56pm.

idea...and the main reason why I supported their candicy..it eliminates the for-profit insurance companies..(think AIG) and puts the health care of every American back into the hands of the care providers and the patient.....where it belongs...it is the less expensive, easiest answer to our health care problems...after all we have been paying for Medicare by payroll deductions since we first started working..why should we wait for 45 to 50 years to be able to use it....? There is little operating overhead costs in Medicare, not like the the corporate owned insurance companies (no fat CEO's or Board of Directors to skim off the top, and then tell us "hey..you don't qualify for that treatment" (it would cut into our profits and dividend checks!) Get the damn corporations out of our every day life..this is not Italy in the 1920's - 1940's (Mussolini's fascist Italy), we are not a fascist country, we are not supposed to be run by corporations, we are supposed to be "free" and "self-governing" it was what "our Founding Fathers" intended, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that they so carefully crafted when forging this "nation"..the GOP (and some Democrats) have done every thing with in their power to destroy "our" government (that's us, we are the government, people)..proving their propaganda with mirrors and smoke..."See..I told you...Government doesn't work!!"....and then letting their fat-cat corporate friends and the wealthy, step in and "privatize" every aspect of "we the people's government" (destroying the government, checks and balances and organized labor movements...that puts them in complete control!!) ..for profit...(and campaign donations for the GOP)

Affordable Health Care is no good unless we demand

Submitted by quidam56 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:47pm.

Google wisecountyissues.com. We need higher standards of health care in America, especially what is on record as to acceptable standards of care in East Tennessee.

MEDICARE For All

Submitted by jimspi on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:41pm.

Captain Jim is all for it. He served on active duty for 25 and a half years, through three ars and a destroyed marriage. He's served by MEDICARE and TRICAFE For Life (TFL) and so far hasn't used Veterans Affairs (VA) care. Works for him, Why not for all?

Interesting you should bring this up

Submitted by mike1001 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:38pm.

We had a Christmas visit from my daughter, who lives in Australia and is a citizen there, and has a medical condition that requires daily meds. She has informed us that they have a 2-part system there, public (called Medicare, BTW), and a private one, for the rich (who'da thunk it, those John Howard, Kerry Packer, and Rupert Murdoch supporters----Google them!). She says the public one works quite well, and her meds cost 25% of what they would here. There is still a wait for major surgical procedures (the ones that here in the U.S. make doctors, hospitals, and Big Pharma lots of dough), but they are available, and there is more emphasis on regular visits and health maintenance, not heroic procedures and massive drug use. The thing is---IT WORKS---WELL. For all you damned Repug Corporatist trolls out there reading this----if you are a worker, this is what you WILL NOT SEE HERE. If your pride makes you blind to this----well, misery and a slow death (through medical experimentation if you still have insurance---plain old slow death if you don't) await you while you kiss the whip. Deal with it, fools.

Single-payer universal health care

Submitted by willymack on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:28pm.

Call it an extension of Medicare if you like, but make it government run and keep the insurance and drug companies OUT of it. We all know damn well they'll fiercly oppose any change in the status quo, and if a plan is enacted, they'll work tirelessly to undermine it from day one. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that either action will be met with harsh legal action and possible revocation of their licenses to do business here in the US or seizure and nationalization of their companies. We've tried unregulated and unfettered capitalism, and it SUCKS for everybody but the obscenely wealthy. Time to give the rest of us a piece of the pie.

We need Nationalized Medical and We need it Permanent

Submitted by Citizen over 50 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 1:39pm.

I am on Medicare because I am disabled. I am very familiar with how it works and what it costs. I can't live without it. I can't wait until my husband qualifies so that we can discontinue paying $976 a month for HIS policy. Imagine if all the households of America had $1000 a month FREED UP to invest or spend how THAT would stimulate the economy?

As for Part D? I never signed up. I refuse to be intimidated by the "rules" that it will cost more if I don't. The rule of thumb for me is "if it comes from the Bush Administration, by definition it HAS to be a crooked ripoff". Under that operating policy, I am faring better without it. The donut hole makes it valueless anyway.

We need to jettison Part D altogether. Open Part E and make it full coverage including full coverage for pharmacy AND while we are at it, add prosthetics, hearing aids, eye glasses, and dental coverage. THEN we would have a true nationalized program.

But there is an important thing that MUST happen. It HAS to be put into the CONSTITUTION as a RIGHT or the republicans will win back the government sooner or later and KILL THE PROGRAM.

Remember this: Back in the 1950's and 1960's we still had free medical and dental coverage (and hearing and glasses) at the county level in every state. It was part of the New Deal and it was still up and running until the inglorious Ronald of Reagan-ism killed it. He felt we could heal the nation with catchup or some such foolishness. His illness was justly deserved.

So to put it succinctly, and precisely, the republicans have ALREADY KILLED NATIONALIZED MEDICINE ONCE AND THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN. We need it in our CONSTITUTION. Quit allowing our politicians to use the people as political ping pong balls, thereby damaging us financially, and physically. They are ruining our lives. They have been doing so for a long long time.

A minor fix

Submitted by SpikeHeels on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 12:50pm.

Fix Part D by allowing the government to bargain for drug prices like the VA does and then add Part E. That has my vote. Neither will happen as long as Congress gets its marching orders from Pharma and the insurance companies so I am not holding my breath.

Of course that is what is

Submitted by bigbillhaywood on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 12:00pm.

Of course that is what is needed. It is far past time that the US joined the civilized world in guaranteeing access to healthcare to all its citizens. But as "Nancy's" response below indicates, some have been convinced by republican incompetence and corruption that it can't be done. That's what happens when people turn the government over to those who don't believe in government. Medicaid for everyone is the only sane antidote to America's shameful healthcare system.

Health Care and the Stimulus Package

Submitted by KnowNothing on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 11:54am.

Not only should there be Medicare for all as a moral issue but its impact as a stimulus for American business would be immediate. Instead of doling out billions to CEO's with no oversight to ensure that the Americans who will be paying the bill will have its benefit, the Feds should immediately take over health insurance payments (for US citizens!) of troubled companies. This will begin the transition to Medicare for all and infuse needed capitol into companies to help them weather the economic storm.

Medicare part E?

Submitted by solacel on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 11:44am.

Oh goodie - then we can ALL be further fleeced by Big Pharma! If you like the prescription 'benefit' program provided by Medicare part D (especially that tasty 'donut hole'), you will no doubt be overjoyed when the pharmaceutical companies have the whole population as a captive audience for a new, improved and greatly expanded national program. If Medicare part E becomes a reality, there had better be a way to opt out, or else a major overhaul of the part D drug 'benefit' plan. The only parties benefiting from it right now are the makers of the toxic nostrums that are tossed to the public with as little interference as money can buy from the FDA. Namaste, Nancy

Right on Nancy, you hit the nail on its head

Submitted by efields on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 12:22pm.

what a ripoff, more of the same business as usual. Part D was a step in the quest to privatize Medicare.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login