This is the real problem with medicare reform

[drfemoe]

Bush victory on prescription drugs sweetened by good economic news

TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent Tuesday, November 25, 2003
(11-25) 23:02 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
==snip==
The biggest development was the passage of the new drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, a step Bush heralded as evidence he is breaking the partisan gridlock in Washington. For years Medicare has been a trademark issue of the Democrats, but the Senate's vote Tuesday broke their hold.

"Some said Medicare reform can never be done," Bush said in Las Vegas. "For the sake of our seniors, we've got something done. We're acting."
==snip==
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/25/national0202EST0422.DTL

It is not safe to vote "any democrat".

[ClintonTyree]

1. This Medocare Bill.............

will be seen to all as what it is, another failure by the Bush administration. When all is said and done, the railroading of this bill through Congress by the Republicans is going to come back and bite them right square in the ass. They see this as a great victory and talking point. This examplifies what arrogant fools they are. When the American people realize what a "bill of goodies" they've been sold, there will be a backlash. A mighty backlash. The GOP in their arragance and stupidity are too blind to see this.

[ClintonTyree]

2. By the way, what an evil post this is.........................

(number 666 for you) drfemoe!!! }(

[redqueen]

3. Not IMO

IMO the real problem with this bill is that everyone... nearly everyone is whistling past the graveyard on cost.

If we don't get some reigning in of the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs (kucinich comes to mind) then we're going to be seeing an increase in the cost of these entitlements as the baby boomers start participating.

Right now I think they're 1/4 of the entitlements budget. We can estimate they'll be 1/2 if nothing is changed drastically.

We need single payer insurace. We need a socialized pharmaceutical company to compete with the private companies.

This problem isn't going to disappear because we don't talk about it.

[helleborient]

4. Oh, but the budget hole is under control....

According to Bush and his cronies!

[redqueen]

5. Yep...

who'd have guessed they'd flat out lie?

LMAO!

What ticks me off is no one talking about it, though. Grrrrrr!

[helleborient]

7. While admittedly not specifically about Medicare...

Dean has been talking about balancing the budget since his campaign began.

And at the last debate he was browbeaten by those who think he might have the audacity to attempt to control runaway spending on entitlements.

[redqueen]

12. Well the issue

isn't whether to control costs / spending. It's how to control it.

If I'm not mistaken, Dean's approach is to control costs is to cut the programs. Kucinich's is to cut the costs by addressing the reasons why the costs are skyrocketing.

If I'm wrong please do let me know the details.

[sandnsea]

6. 43% - Medicare & Medicaid

43% of all health care costs are already paid by the government, mostly by Medicaid & Medicare, but also VA and military, BIA, I don't know what else. I don't know if that includes insurance to employees or not since their insurance is actually private. 35% of all health costs are paid by private insurance. I've tried to find a figure on how much of that 35% is teachers, state, local and federal employees; but I haven't found anything yet.

Anyway, we're already paying an astronomical amount of health costs through taxpayer's dollars. I really think it's time to go single payer.

[helleborient]

8. Agreed (n/t)

[redqueen]

9. A lot of people think this.

Only some of them are willing to vote for the candidate who's willing to fight for it though.

:shrug:

[helleborient]

10. Full coverage first...

And bringing together the coalition to pass it...then head to single payer.

[redqueen]

11. Full coverage?

You're joking, right?

Whose plan promises that?

And if we don't cut the privateers out of the picture, the whole system's going to be axed due to lack of funds before we ever get close to single payer, using the incremental approach.

[sandnsea]

13. Which will work better?

Dean expands Medicaid on one end and, I think, Medicare on the other. Edwards too.

What drew me to Kerry's plan was buying in to government health insurance. And the cost controls, etc. But the reason I liked buying into government health insurance is because for all these people who don't want government handouts, it doesn't sound like a government handout. It's subsidized health insurance, real health insurance. His plan also pulls out SCHIP as a federal program, leaving the states able to fund adult programs. The new Medicare bill also pulls seniors off of state Medicaid, leaving more money for other adults. I understand that might hurt seniors, but that won't last long. That seems to put people in 3 categories, kids and seniors federal, low income adults at the state, and government insurance for everybody else.

So which one would likely lead to single payer and which one would likely lead to being scrapped? I think anything that puts too many families into Medicaid is going to end up scrapped. It's already happening in Vermont where the Republicans are outraged that 25% of Vermonters are covered by Medicaid. That program is, and has been, in alot of financial trouble for a long time anyway.

Or is getting programs scrapped so we can go to single payer the way to go? Dean has said repeatedly he is against single payer, so I don't know what his goals would be. And I don't know Kerry's views on single payer at all. But his plan seems more practical and more likely to appeal to more people and more likely to pass. And it seems like a real step towards single payer because it shows it can be done without stuffing people into Medicaid and Medicare HMO's.

[redqueen]

15. Only one will work

If we leave private insurers in the picture, the end is in sight. Not if, but when.

Subsidized insurance is taxpayer money funneled to corporations. The same corporations that have used fraud and greed to pad their margins and their shares. These profits are on the backs of the ill and the elderly. This is unconscionable and the fact that we're arguing about window dressing is really abhorrent.

Dean isn't against single-payer, he just doesn't believe he can get it done. Therefore he goes the 'incremental' route which Clinton already tried and which already failed.

We're facing a crisis. Krugman says he can't sleep sometimes thinking about it.

Both parties are ignoring it, to our great detriment.

[sandnsea]

16. He's against single payer

It's in the Medscape interview but that site is down right now.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405541?RSS

Login name is hd2004 and the password is abc123, I found that on the Dean blog when googling up this interview again.

My question wasn't really which one would work, rather which one would lead to the obviousness of the need for single payer solution. Which one will make people comfortable with it?

Or, if we have astronomically expensive programs that still aren't working, will the failure lead to single payer? Which one will fail first? New way to vote, on who will create disaster first so we can move forward. Maybe Bush is the answer. What a friggin' nightmare.

[redqueen]

17. Good lord

I can't keep track of his stances! LMAO!

I could have SWORN he'd said either in a debate or an interview that he thinks single payer is the way to go, and that he would do it, but it can't be done... anyway... waffles aside...

Nothing will make people 'comfortable' with it. It's been demonized to death. Just as Nader says this country has to go down to third-world status before most people pull their heads out and see that most POLITICIANS, of BOTH parties, are totally whored out; similarly it won't be until the system is GONE that people realize how we could have (SHOULD have) fixed it.

The complete failure might lead to single payer. I would hope so. :shrug:

I agree... it's a complete nightmare, and it's sad that we have to keep learning by experience, instead of by observing the experience of others.

[Fleshdancer]

14. I think the republicans will experience a Medicare hangover real soon

Sure it was fun to pass, but true conservatives are feeling the pain the next day.

We're spending a ton of money on a program that really doesn't make anyone but the the bush/cheney'04 campaign happy. Many republicans are already scratching their heads in confusion.

[drfemoe]

18. exactly the point

... a step Bush heralded as evidence he is breaking the partisan gridlock in Washington ...

He doesn't go on to say that he "broke" the gridlock with threats to junior house members and the longest vote in history. Leadership, *u*h style . har har

[sandnsea]

19. Medical gatekeepers?

This interview talks about Dean signing the Civil Unions bill, so it was given after that which I don't think was too terribly long ago. I've had to deal with the consequences of managed care because of the way Oregon implemented our Health Plan, before Vermont I might add. That's why I kind of know he's full of it on that ground. Anyway, our health delivery system has gone from choice to one clinic in rural cities. However the local clinic delivers health care, you're stuck with. I hate it, it's stupid, and delivers lousy health care. Eugene has more choice because it's bigger and most people go there. Even to deliver babies, 60 miles away. So what do we think of having 'gatekeepers' in charge of our medical care instead of doctors? How is this different from having rules and regulations before a woman chooses an abortion?

And isn't the best 'gatekeeper' money? If we had single payer where every person contributed some percentage of their income, and I mean EVERY person, wouldn't that be a better 'gatekeeper'? You'd know if you overuse services it would cause costs to go up and your rates as well.

Healthplan: Considering managed care's unpopularity with many politicians and physicians, what makes you-as a doctor-a fan of managed care?
Dean: First of all, I think it's very important to have gatekeepers. Too many people can go to their specialists in fee for service when a specialist is not appropriate. In a health plan, there's not just one person involved in looking after a patient's health care. Secondly, (managed care) does definitely decrease use of the emergency room. Thirdly, it has the potential to continue to improve patient satisfaction and physician practices.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405541?RSS