Senate Dems now talking about radically expanding Medicaid and Medicare rather than public oprtion

[Perky]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/07/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic liberals are seeking expansion of two large federal programs, Medicare and Medicaid, in exchange for dropping a government-sold insurance option from health care legislation sought by President Barack Obama, several lawmakers said Monday.

Under the potential trade-off with party moderates, near-retirees beginning at age 55 or 60 who lack affordable insurance would be permitted to purchase coverage under Medicare, which generally provides medical care beginning at 65. Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, would be open to all comers under 300 percent of poverty, or slightly over $66,000 for a family of four.

Senators and aides said the changes have been discussed extensively in recent days as a small group of moderate and liberal Democrats search for a middle ground to assure passage of the bill atop Obama's domestic agenda.

Given the complexities of the two programs, and the White House's goal of passing legislation by year's end, it wasn't clear whether the negotiations would ultimately prove successful, or whether they merely were a last stab by liberals to salvage some concession in a monthslong debate.

As the search for compromise intensifies, several Democrats said a plan by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was receiving new interest. It gives states an option to negotiate with private industry to provide group coverage for lower income residents. Currently, the bill allows that for any state's residents up to twice the federal poverty level, about $44,000 for a family of four, but that could be raised if negotiators decide they want to do so.

''There's push and pull,'' said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has been involved in the discussions. ''We have to find the right balance that satisfies the party as to how much government involvement there should be and how much private involvement.''

[kestrel91316]

1. Medicare for ALL. Now.

[Blasphemer]

10. It's the only thing that makes sense and they know it

Anything less is an insurance industry sellout.

[Vincardog]

2. I hope they open it (Medicare) to EVERYONE NOW. Medicaid in my state sucks

It only covers care at one teaching hospital 100 miles away from me and it covers quit smoking treatments.

[truedelphi]

3. But before we see this as the solution, we MUSTfocus on the fact

That in the Senate bill as it exists today, there are 500 billion dollars in cost cutting expected to rip away at MediCare!

[SharonAnn]

8. That's the $500 billion in "profits" currently paid over and above Medicare costs.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Can you provide a link with that number? n/t

[Cleita]

4. I they do that, they won't need the rest of the hogwash

I don't believe any state or federal program that uses government funds should be bought from the privateers. The coverage should be sought from government programs that already exist.

[Occam Bandage]

5. That is a much better idea than the public option. nt

[Oregone]

11. Probably

After the public option got so whittled away, it remained little to cry out for

[PopSixSquish]

6. This is a Good Thing Right? I'm Supposed to be Happy About This? I Can't Tell on DU Anymore

:hide:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this might actually work...

[Clio the Leo]

9. lol NT

[proud patriot]

15. !

my fingers are crossed too

[drm604]

7. Why the age restrictions?

:banghead:

[jenmito]

12. I hate how most of the media divides them into "moderate and liberal Democrats" instead of

"conservative and liberal Democrats." Ben Nelson et al are CONSERVATIVWE-not moderate.

[travelingtypist]

13. What they should've done all along.

At least that's what I've been hearing when I listen to Dr. Dean. They wouldn't have to create a new bureaucracy for the public option. Eventually it will be Medicare for all.

[tex-wyo-dem]

16. "Eventually it will be Medicare for all. "

Which will eventually lead to a full single-payer system.

Beleive me, the for-profit insuance industry sees this as a very slippery slope NOT in their favor, and they will fight it to the very end.

This is why I thinkb the insuance lobby has overplayed their hand...they fight the current PO legislation, which is highly in their favor, but still not the status quo like they would like, only to force the hand of the progressives to push for something that could sink them...dumb (on their part)...which is an artifact of blind greed.

[Dragonfli]

14. It's not open to everyone over 55, just a small percentage...

... just like the watered down pubic option, at least in the form they are discussing now.

Also, still no competition or price controls to keep the mandate from financially ruining working people that don't wear ties to work.

Most of us will just have to pay the fine with a credit card or food/rent money. Yipee! mandates we can't afford so CEOS can make even more millions!

[dionysus]

18. so what you're saying is, you're going to complain even if there's some good news...

[Dragonfli]

20. I will complain about any legislation that hurts way more people than it helps.

I will in fact actively oppose legislation that is harmful to me and others. Is that a problem?

Should I be grateful I will be financially destroyed so that profiteers can make yet more money off of me?

I really don't understand how you can expect people to not complain if their situations are made far worse under the guise of reform.

What do you expect?

I assume you are not going to be harmed by this, well, good for you, but why must it be a fuck you to working people that are already cutting back on stuff like food?

Are the "special few" that much better and more important than the rest of us that we should applaud our own screwing to help them profit?

WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN WHERE THAT IS EXPECTED OF PEOPLE?

[ipaint]

19. Once again, put the sickest and the neediest

into a government program. Let's the ins. companies off the hook. No public option and no sick older people. I'm sure they are giving the ins. companies time before this is enacted to drop the sickest, much like the credit card "reform".
The only non-negotiable element of this whole fiasco is the mandate.

Now they can move on to cutting medicare and social security for baby boomers to balance the budget.

People are so easily conned.