Skip to main content

View Diary: Keith Olbermann's Special Comment (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let peope buy in... (3+ / 0-)

    they pay premiums (pro-rated to pay) and money problem solved.  Especially since many of the people paying into the system will be young and healthy and not using their insurance yet.

    •  Big rec for the simple answer. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah

      It would improve Medicare considerably.  Just add a nominal surcharge to your premium, and we're all set - forever.  No more worrying about when or if Medicare is going to go broke.

      Half-baked ideas for sale - cheap!

      by Steaming Pile on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 06:08:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It IS this simple (0+ / 0-)

        But if the buttheads in Washington actually got anything done, their whole scam of a job would be revealed.  They gotta make it all sound so complicated and difficult, when in reality, it is everything but.

      •  You do have to watch costs (0+ / 0-)

        I generally agree, but costs must not be allowed to continue to spiral.

        Canada actually invented the term Medicare and now essentially has Medicare for all. I don't think we would (or should) put up with the extensive wait times for non-emergency procedures.

        Just read T. R. Reid's excellent book analyzing the health care systems in many other countries which cover everyone.  It can be done. I was especially interested in how Switzerland changed its system in 1994.

        I'm so mad at the Democrats over this I'm not sure if I can stay in the party.

        makfan, San Francisco, -4.25 / -5.33

        by makfan on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 01:37:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How does "pro-rating to pay" (0+ / 0-)

      solve the issue?  Whether Medicare is currently broke (which it would be if it were required to prepare a balance sheet showing its actuarily determined liabilities) or is going broke, having more people "buy-in" isn't going to fix the fundamental problem of Medicare, especially if some of those "buying-in" are entitled to "pro-rationing".

      And in any event, what would the price of the "buy-in" be?  I haven't seen any of the "Medicare for all" proponents with these details.

      •  Becuase the fundamental problem isn't Medicare (0+ / 0-)

        it's the healthcare "system". If healthcare costs weren't going through the roof Medicare would be OK for far longer and Medicare for all would be better still.

        If you restored the insurance thief's 20% off the top to the system and included everyone in the system then costs would be far more evenly distributed across the system reducing the relatively bigger burden of seniors care no borne by Medicare.

        There are of course a host of cost containment opportunities that need to be pursued as well.

        Democracy is a contact sport...

        by jsmagid on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:02:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, not only will I be paying for (0+ / 0-)

          a senior's medical insurance through my payroll taxes, I'll also be paying for it when the costs are "more evenly distributed across the system"?  Do you even think about what you write before you hit the post button?

          •  Do you ever actually read what is written? (0+ / 0-)

            If more healthy folks are paying premiums into a system that actually allocates the premiums to health care instead of 7 and 8 figure salaries for health care execs, advertising and figuring out how not to pay claims then your payroll tax contributions will go a lot further in covering the cost of seniors health care.

            I guess you'd prefer to be able to opt out of Medicare, fend for yourself when you're 65 and not worry about the increasing deductibles and life-time cap on the private insurance you'd be paying for when you retire.

            Lest I forget, I should point out that it was Saint Ronny who cut income taxes on the rich and raised payroll tax rates for everyone else that was supposed to "fix" the Medicare funding problem. Guess that worked out pretty well.

            Democracy is a contact sport...

            by jsmagid on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:06:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think (0+ / 0-)

            we have a moral obligation to pay for health care for everyone and we need to stop this "I'm paying for so and so" attitude. We can afford to cover everyone if we remove the fat and waste layered on by the insurance industry.

            I just hope your current health insurance doesn't start denying claims when you most need it.

            makfan, San Francisco, -4.25 / -5.33

            by makfan on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 01:39:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site