Instead of "Medicare for Everyone" how about

[pnwmom]

"Medicare for Anyone"?

"Medicare for Everyone" might be taken to mean that the individual doesn't have a choice -- and certainly would be pushed by the Rethugs to mean that.

"Medicare for Anyone" has a more voluntary sound to it.

[Cleita]

1. I always framed it as access to Medicare for all who want it. n/t

[Oregone]

2. "Self-sustaining Medicare for those few who qualify"

I hope it doesn't become that

[JBoris]

3. How about "not-for-profit insurance option". That seems more clear to me.

[clear eye]

6. Seems they don't want it clearer.

They want people to think they are becoming elegible for a plan just like the one for the elderly.

Won't everyone be surprised a couple of years after it passes and they see what they've really got.

[pnwmom]

8. So you don't trust the Democrats who are advocating Medicare for everybody?

What are you objecting to? The fact that non-elderly with adequate incomes would be required to pay to join?

[clear eye]

10. Please read my post in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6828159&mesg_id=6828159

One thing I didn't mention in it is that I object to anyone trying to con me, and calling something Medicare that doesn't remotely resemble the current Medicare that most people know at least a bit about, is an attempt at a con.

[pnwmom]

11. The House still hasn't come out with an official plan. Where did you get your

crystal ball?


And just today, I read that the current idea is to limit payments to providers to 5% above Medicare rates. You say that there will be no limits to payments to providers. Where are you getting your information?

[clear eye]

14. Mostly from an article by the expert Kip Sullivan on the PNHP website,

but it is a little outdated. When he read the proposal it only included a recommendation to use the Medicare provider payment rates. A mandate would be an improvement.

My strongest objections still stand--that there will be a gov't mandate requiring individuals to buy private insurance at an unspecified cost, and that calling a press conference to say that they are opening Medicare to everyone, and justifying it by renaming their privatized "public" option, "Medicare pt. E" is an intentional effort to mislead. And has largely succeeded if you read the replies on this thread.

[pnwmom]

16. There won't be a mandate to buy private insurance -- the bill they're talking

about today will include a government-run plan, not just a choice among private plans.

Kip Sullivan's article IS outdated. Let's wait for the REAL House Bill to come out next week before we rush to condemn it.

[clear eye]

19. People involved say there WILL be an individual mandate

and the "gov't" plan is required to set its premiums to match what the private insurers are willing to accept. Also the "gov't" plan is only underwritten by the government, but, unlike Medicare pts. A & B, will be administered by an outside private entity. In other words, out-sourced. And unlike Medicare, plans in the exchange must include prescription drug coverage.

[pnwmom]

7. No, because there already are non-profit insurers. That isn't equivalent to

a government plan.

[JBoris]

9. I didn't mean an NGO. I meant not-for-profit, as opposed to the money-grubbing execs who

run the system now. I would assume that a government option would not have a "maximizing profitability for the next quarter" mentality. I think that's a great quality to highlight. Calling the PO a not-for-profit government created organization might help counteract the "government run" label.

[valerief]

4. It's like Water for All Horses. You can bring them to water but you can't force them to drink it. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Medicare for only the 3-5% of the population that have no other option.

[CTyankee]

13. I think that will change over time. People will demand it.

Let's get our foot in the door first, then people will see that the PO is not some communist plot and want it. Look at Medicare: at first people had reservations (because of the right wing hysteria) but then they got used to it. Now there would be riots in the streets if you got rid of it!

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. I agree totally.

I would just like to see it optional for those of us who are afraid to use the insurance we have.

[WatchWhatISay]

17. No way with the get our foot in the door stuff

A plan that only covers a small amount of otherwise uninsurable people is doomed to fail. The insurers will see it as a way to dump the highest risk people, which is who will be in the plan to start with. The costs to care for this group will be much higher than average and the mortality/poor outcome rates will also be high, because they were unhealthier to start with.

[CTyankee]

20. You are right AND it will be up to us to make sure that it is changed.

Just going around wringing our hands and saying "Ain't it awful" we must be pro active enough to get it fixed right. Sure, it's gonna be hard work, but why give up before you even start?

[Johonny]

12. I don't like that

that's how many progressive programs get passed by congress. Republicans love no mandated programs because they know many people that are eligible and need it won't sign up for it. Just like a lot of the tax credits the poor need but don't get now because they need to apply for them. Good progressive programs come as mandates or else the people that need them most often still get left out.

[TexasObserver]

18. Recommend