Do we need Medicare-for-Everyone OR Baucus-care for corporations?

[Faryn Balyncd]

House . . . . . .OR. . . . . . Senate?

[midnight]

1. Medicare for all.....

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I assume this is a rhetorical question.

BTW, it's spelled Boughtkus.

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. i stand corrected

[Occam Bandage]

3. Neither.

Medicare as it is isn't equipped to handle the entire nation efficiently (though it is a good starting-off point for discussion), and the Baucus bills doesn't go far enough.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. My problem with the Baucus bill is not in how far it goes, but that it goes in the wrong direction.

[Occam Bandage]

5. All bills short of full single-payer will be going in the wrong direction,

because they will amount to a preservation of a bad system that would otherwise collapse under its own weight within a generation. It's more-or-less been a given that any health-care bill will be headed in the wrong direction since, oh, 1993.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. The Baucus bill subsidizes the inefficient and corrupt private insurance industry....

Rather than moving in the direction of Medicare-for-All, the Baucus bill is more attuned to Zeke Emanuel's plan of a voucherized private-insurance-only plan which, in Zeke's plan, would eventually privatize Medicare by denying future retirees the right to join Medicare, requiring that they continue their private insurance.

Medicare-for-All would, on the other hand, move significantly in the direction of Single Payer, albeit voluntarily, because of the financial incentives.