Sen. Kennedy Seeks Universal Health Plan

[RedEarth]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government should join the state of Massachusetts in enacting universal health coverage, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over numerous health issues.

Kennedy's home state is the first to require everyone to have health insurance, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.

Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable.

"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care," Kennedy said.

Kennedy emphasized how Democratic legislators in his home state worked last year with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in crafting universal coverage there. He wants the same spirit of compromise to take hold in Congress.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070110/D8MIJHV80.html

[antigop]

1. So will Ted sell us out?

>>
Kennedy emphasized how Democratic legislators in his home state worked last year with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in crafting universal coverage there.
>>

Oh, yea, Ted -- the Massachusetts "universal coverage" plan is just soooo great.

[aquart]

3. Excuse me?

Pharmaceutical companies practically spit when they say the name Kennedy. He's been dogging their asses for years, and most of the controls on them at all came from Kennedy's perseverance.

[antigop]

5. If he is pointing to the Massachusetts plan as an example....

then we are screwed.

Just like Kennedy sold us out on the pension bill.

[endarkenment]

8. Did you read the post?

"Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable."

[antigop]

9. Yes, I read the post -- he says he wants Medicare for All

The question is -- and what are we going to get? I'll bet it's not Medicare for All.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. At least all people will get coverage

finally

[antigop]

22. If you force people to participate in a broken system, how does that fix anything? n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. remake-remodel

sure the system needs revamping but that doesn't mean everyone can't have healthcare

[antigop]

32. And if the premiums/co-pays/coinsurance are still too high for most folks...

HOW DOES THAT SOLVE ANYTHING???

So you force them to pay for something they STILL can't afford? Yeah. That'll work.

[jwirr]

39. I am assuming that there will still be Medicaid to take care of the

needy and long term care people. At least there had better be!

[antigop]

44. And who will qualify for Medicare?

How many people who really can't afford it, will be forced to pay? And they won't qualify for Medicare.

Universal coverage means nothing if it's not affordable.

[geiger]

41. and they can afford it the way it is?

and for those who absolutely cant, we all end up paying anyway, at inflated rates, when the hospitals are required to provide a certain amount of free care each year anyway, it all gets absorbed back in to the other bills of paying customers.

[antigop]

45. No -- that's why we have so many uninsured

But if we are going to have universal coverage IT HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE.

<edit to add> If all we are going to do is force people to pay for something they really can't afford, we haven't fixed the problem.

[geiger]

40. tell us how it is a "broken" system; it's the best around victim of bullshit propaganda nothing else

[antigop]

46. HA! Thanks for the laugh n/t

[eridani]

31. So, he wants a Senate bill like HR 676?

If so, I'm impressed. Otherwise, not at all.

[antigop]

33. Yes, Kennedy sponsored the Senate equivalent of HR 676

In the last Congress, Kennedy sponsored the Senate companion bill of HR 676.

Now, are we going to get HR 676? That's the question.

Is he going to fight for HR 676 -- or is he going to cave and give us something else?

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Is the Massachusettes plan an improvement on the status quo?

:shrug:

[endarkenment]

4. He also said his plan is medicare for all.

I think Ted learned his lesson with NCLB.

[antigop]

6. No, I don't think Ted learned his lesson with NCLB

Just look at the awful pension bill that he helped negotiate.

[w4rma]

13. Control over Congress is *most* important when crafting bills. (nt)

[antigop]

21. Ask Ted what happened on the pension bill n/t

[w4rma]

24. I read all about it while they were crafting it. (nt)

[antigop]

25. And why did Kennedy sell us out? n/t

[w4rma]

29. He didn't. The Republicans were going to pass *something* bad no matter what Kennedy did.

Kennedy went along with them to get some small additions he wanted into the bill.

Democrats weren't going to filibuster it (and no Republicans would even vote against King George's whims back then), which is the only way the bill would have been defeated with Republicans in control of the machinery.

[antigop]

34. Kennedy went along with them --- yep, he sold us out

The bill passed by the Senate was MUCH better than the House bill.

When the bill came out of the conference committee -- Kennedy was one of the chief negotiators since he was the minority head of HELP committee --- the protections that were in the original Senate bill were NOT in the bill that came out of the conference committee.

Kennedy should have dropped his support right then and there. He could have walked on the whole thing and let the Republicans own it. He didn't do that.

[endarkenment]

2. "He wants to extend Medicare to all."

Exactly. No Duh. Thank you for speaking the plain truth.

[antigop]

7. And what are we going to end up with? n/t

[rcdean]

10. Poor Ted. This is the only time in the election cycle he can speak out.

He's such a polarizing figure that he can't really surface close to election day because the right will make him a poster boy.

But he's a great man and has been like a bulldog on this issue for 40 years.

He is a believer in the JFK approach. You don't always get everything you want. But you get a start that you can build on. Or, as JFK said, "Politics is the Art of the Possible."

[Say_What]

11. They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing... Insurance in MA is ridiculously high...

double that of CA for a single, self-paying person. They don't even offer catastrophic. Instead you pay through the nose-$500/month for a single payer. Now they're implementing this universal healthcare thing where if you don't get the manditory insurance, they snatch your federal refund if you got one coming. Sucks.

:argh:

[w4rma]

12. Very good. (nt)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. It's about time all American citizens had health coverage

good Ted

[jwirr]

16. Why in God's name do they want to extend Medicare instead of

Medicaid? The latter provides drugs along with other medical care and supplies. It also pays for nursing home care. Medicare does not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Medicaid pays very low rates to providers

Many providers will not see you or make if difficult to get an appointment if you have medicaid.

[jwirr]

38. I am on Medicare and that is also true of that program.

[MGD]

17. Universal coverage could be the best thing that ever happened to America or the worst

depending on how it is designed and implemented. We need serious debate and hearings but hasty action is not a good idea IMO. The universal coverage would have to be better than the average private policy. It would also have to raise taxes by no more than what the average employee already pays in insurance premiums. Medicare and Medicaid would need to be killed off and then replaced by a more comprehensive package that includes everybody. There should also be new legislation regarding medical lawsuits and pharmaceutical regulations. The cost of pharmaceuticals needs to be brought down one way or the other. The cost of healthcare needs to be brought down too. What's more, the coverage needs to focus heavily on secondary healthcare, that is to say, preventative medicine rather than urgent care/emergency room type primary care which is much more expensive. These are just some ideas.
spelling

[kath]

27. Single payer is the only way to go. Works for every other first-world

nation, and has for decades.

[MGD]

30. I wouldn't disagree with that.

It's still all about fairly implementing the inevitable tax increases though. The people who are going to carry the brunt of the tax increases are the people who already have HC insurance. That being said, to be fair, their taxes shouldn't go up by any more than the amount they already pay for premiums and the covergae they receive should be as good or better than the covergae they now enjoy under their current policies.

[jwirr]

42. I agree with you. The only way this thing is going to be affordable

is to create one program that replaces all other programs in government. If you extend medicare, it will leave all the other programs in place or it will leave a lot of people without meds and long term care. My daughter will have to leave her medical foster home. Thus we still have dozens of administrations for all the other programs and no relief from the paper work that must be filled out for the multiple programs that a really sick person is faced with. I am against this idea of Ted's. Isn't there a legislator for Oregon who has just introduced a real reform?

[qwlauren35]

19. I'm just happy to see it back on the table.

I didn't recall seeing it in the 100 hour plan, so this "development" excites me.

It's ironic. I have health insurance through my company right now, this probably (hopefully) won't impact me. But when I think about the people who don't have it but need it, especially people who are temporarily unemployed due to a medical problem, I cringe.

I realize that my socialist nature is coming out in spades here, but given our "supposed" status as a wealthy nation, we're far behind most progressive countries on this issue, and "We Can Do Better".

[antigop]

23. Won't impact you? I would respectfully suggest you re-think that

>>
I have health insurance through my company right now, this probably (hopefully) won't impact me
>>

Do you have a union contract that includes retiree health benefits?

If not, do you think you will be able to work for a company with health benefits until Medicare eligibility?

Do you think you will be ABLE to work until Medicare eligibility?

Do you realize that if you have a retiree health plan with your company, that you could
1) Lose your job before you qualify for it?
2) Lose your access to a group plan because the company can terminate its retiree health plan?

Even if you *think* your company won't terminate its plan, you could be one CEO change away from a change.

<edit> Add: Have you checked the rates for your retiree health plan, if you have one? I'll bet the retiree rates are higher than the active employee rates (unless you have a contract).

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Kennedy seeks Universal Health Plan to prepare for Bush's Universal soldier.

[Tatiana]

28. I hope and pray this does not end up being another NCLB.

Teddy had very good intentions but the actual legislation is one of the worst education bills ever passed. I hope the same doesn't happen with possible universal health care legislation. The Massachusetts model is not a very good one to emulate. It doesn't take into account the working families who lack health care not because they are negligent, but because food, rent, light, and gas are more pressing necessities. People are essentially forced into a plan they may not be able to afford.

The key is affordability. I have no problem with a co-payment of some sort. But I think it should be income-contingent.

[antigop]

35. Absolutely, Tatiana

Ted started out with good intentions on the pension bill, too. And look what happened to it.

"The Massachusetts model is not a very good one to emulate."
You are correct. And it should concern everyone that Kennedy is pointing to the bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature as a "example of bipartisanship".

WE NEED TO DEMAND MEDICARE FOR ALL.

[ihelpu2see]

36. Expanding Med. part B (office visit coverage) is a good start as long

as the Government controls that part... DO NOT Privatize it! Currently as an Eye Doctor in CT we see increasing numbers of Privatized Medicare Plans and year over year the copays go up and the senior citz get more and more confused!!!

[Caretha]

43. I want the same health care coverage as

the House and the Senate provides for members/past members. Anything less is asking for "Hamburger B, and they sure dont'- ask for "Hamburger B". Come to think of it, I want their retirement/pension plan too.

I'm tired of "Hamburger B", I want "Hamburger A".

P.S. I'll bet I've worked more hours and harder jobs in my life than they have.