Why can't the solution just be simply: open Medicare to anyone to buy into?

[begin_within]

That could bring billions more into Medicare, making it stronger. It would mean nobody who is happy with their private insurance would have to change anything. It would mean still nobody is forced to buy insurance if they don't want to. It would mean millions of people who are not insured now could buy insurance at a reasonable premium (say $100 per month) and not have to face the threat of financial ruin if they have a large medical bill. Medicare is already set up and popular, so it would be able to take effect quickly. It would put an end to the petty squabbling over this and that in the current bills. Why can't this happen, when it seems like the simplest and most effective way to reduce the number of uninsured people in America?

[leftstreet]

1. Where's the profit for the insurance industry?

What are you, nuts?

:hi:

[salguine]

6. Exactly, which is why it won't happen.

[Vincardog]

2. What you want a simple effective proven solution? Good luck with that. Obama made it

a priority that the Insurance parasites not be harmed.

[avaistheone1]

3. Medicare for all would have been the most simple and effective way to go.

[iceman66]

4. Good question!

They should be able to do that through reconciliation, too.

All that is missing is the political will.

[walldude]

5. Been saying this for months..

Don't need 60 votes, program is already up and running, you can raise the premiums slightly on higher income people to offset subsidies for low income folks, the baggers get to keep their crappy insurance, everyone is happy. Except for the insurance companies, who seem to be in control of this debate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. But..but..who would bribe...er..donate to..the politicians?

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Too straightforward and no corporate profits...

[branders seine]

9. because the politician's future employers in insurance and pharma

don't want that.

[Hepburn]

10. Because a FUCKING medical corp would be cut out...

...and that would violate its personhood...:puke:

[closeupready]

11. Because that's "single payer" and Max Baucus took that off the table before

negotiations had even started.

[begin_within]

25. I see Medicare-for-All and Single Payer as two different things.

To me, Medicare-for-All would be optional, nobody would be forced to buy it, you could still buy private insurance instead, if you wanted. To me, Medicare-for-All simply means that Medicare is offered as a health insurance plan to anyone who wants to join it, all you have to do is sign up and pay the monthly premium, and you're in. But it's not mandatory and it's not the only choice. To me, Single Payer means that all medical bills in the entire country are paid by the federal government, and the money for them comes from taxation. So I don't see Medicare-for-All and Single Payer as being the same thing.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

12. Because providers don't like the Medicare reimbursment rates.

If those could be improved, you might get them to sign onto this idea

[LeftinOH]

13. Health Care Reform has badly needed a name (besides "Health Care Reform");

"Medicare" -specifically "Medicare For All"- should have been used to describe the general idea. Not giving a name to the process was a huge mistake, and a thoughtless mistake -considering that the patented & familiar name 'Medicare' was ripe for dusting off.

[sharesunited]

14. We will need to federalize the licensing of medical professionals in order to do this.

With so many new patients on Medicare, you can expect them to be turned away en masse by a majority of practitioners.

The only way to assure them treatment is to impose a requirement on the licenses of medical professionals that they accept Medicare.

[mmonk]

15. It would take away the corporate person's rights to those customers

and reduce their free speech.

[fmlymninral]

16. you do realize

that you pay into medicare every month while you work. And for people who have not worked at least 30 quarters the premium for medicare A & B would be about $570 per month, it goes down if they worked between 30 and 40 qtrs to about 360 per month and if worked 40+ qtrs it is 96.40 per month. Part A pays hospital bill minus 1100 deductible per event in a 60 day benefit period so if you had an hospital stay at the beginning of year and at the end of year you pay deductible twice(could pay deductible 4 times). Part B pays doctors and you are responsible for 20%. Medicare does not pay for physicals. Most seniors buy additional insurance to cover these costs. premium is 89-125 dollars a month and go up as we get older.

[alc]

17. because of who would buy into it - at least initially

The fear is that a disproportionate number of people with serious medical needs would buy in since they don't have other options. That would make the cost per person go up which means premiums go up across the board, or doctors reimbursement goes down, or coverage goes down. People on medicare now don't like those options. Doctors & hospitals don't like one of those options.

That's why one of the "medicare for all" options is to create a separate "medicare" pool with different premiums, coverage, doctor's rates, etc. than current medicare.

[begin_within]

20. Or, the way I look at it is,

rather bluntly, that Medicare now serves only people over 65, who typically have higher medical costs than younger people. Bringing in millions of people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s would add a lot of money to Medicare, while those people typically have lower medical costs than people 65 and over. On average anyway. So it would make Medicare stronger and more solvent, by bringing in people who will pay the premium but are likely to have fewer claims. Like me, for example, I rarely have a claim. I'm a net profit for them. Why should the private insurers be able to have me as a customer but Medicare not be able to?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Medicare needs a little reforming (real reforming) before it goes to the general population

In order to prevent fraud, the regulations have erred in the direction of being too nit-picky, and the reimbursement rates are too low.

Yet Medicare sometimes does things the expensive way instead of the cheap way.

I'd like to see a panel of practicing physicians and other providers reform it (without any input from insurance companies) and THEN open it to the general public.

[Juche]

19. They'd need to offer high deductible plans

I'd buy a plan if it had a $2500 or more deductible. The premiums for medicare would be something like $800/month from what I remember hearing.

[librechik]

21. Because We the People don't rule through elected representatives anymore. We are wholly owned

by whatever corporation writes the largest check. Or, rather, by the totality of corporations which all write large checks.

[alberg]

22. K&R!

[rateyes]

23. If they did that, I would even support mandates with supplements

to those who couldn't afford the premium.

[bunkerbuster1]

24. Because it's simple, and it could be passed through reconciliation

and it would work.

Of course, it would mean shit-canning a lot of campaign funding.

hmm... I'm a senator or congressman... decisions, decisions.

[Mithreal]

26. True, Dem Leadership has ZERO incentive to change that system.

[begin_within]

28. The big problem is doing what's right for the citizens means they lose their campaign warchest

that comes from the corporations. They have to decide who they're going to serve, it's either the citizens or the corporations. Both helped them get into the office, one with votes and the other with money. If they keep siding with the money, they may lose the votes - as may have happened in Massachusetts...

[Edweird]

27. That would mean putting the welfare of the people over the wants of the corporations. Not happening.