Thursday, October 22, 2009
Medicare for everyone.
Medicare for everyone. That's being hyped now. By the liberal caucus. And I think it has a chance of passing. I have Medicare. As my primary insurer. Doesn't pay for everything. But a goodly chunk of it. And I have supplemental private insurance to cover the rest. Of course, I qualified for Medicare when I turned 65. Thank gawd. But I see no reason why people under 65 shouldn't have the option of Medicare. Make it voluntary. But have the public option available. To compete against the private insurers. Seems fair to me. The public plan isn't out to make a 20 percent profit, like the private insurers. If that puts the private insurers at a disadvantage, so be it. Health care is an essential service. Every citizen needs it, and deserves it. Regardless of income. And at affordable rates. Medicare is a popular program. Strongly supported by senior citizens. And even by some Republicans. Wow! Yes, many GOPers know better than to bad mouth this socialist program. Because it's recognized as serving the common good. Much like social security. Another socialist program. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Are you in favor of nationalizing the entire economy?
Anon2
It doesn't have to be everything. But essential services should be public. Or a combination of public and private. Such as we do with education. Usually, the public options are more affordable than the private ones. The aim of the public options is to provide the service for the common good, without having to make a profit. --Jim
What is essential to one, is useless to another. What services get cut at the got-go, when budgets are in the red? It should be illegal for our officials to cut education, fire, police to balance a budget.
Don't we now have a "public/private option" in Medicare? Can't you , for example, choose to use your own money, instead of "ours", for health care?
Why not shore up the system already in place? Not having to create new bureaucracies and departments, to get a brand new system up and running, would save a ton of dough. Eliminating the waste and abuse would save the current government social programs, for sure.
Why is is that, when people are elected to a public office, they lose all common sense?
Anon2
Yes, we do have a public /private option in Medicare. One that applies primarily to senior citizens. Old people like me. And I choose to supplement my Medicare coverage. With private insurance. The liberal caucus in Congress is now proposing extending the Medicare option to everyone, regardless of age. Seems to me that Medicare is a good program, in part, because it helps to hold down health care costs. By establishing limits. Caps. On various services and procedures. And by operating at much lower administrative costs than private insurers. And even more cost-savings measures are being proposed in the Medicare program. I'd also like to see Medicare negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices for prescription drugs. And we need far more debate in this country over the concept of the common good. Seems to me that greedy capitalists aren't working for the common good when they reap enormous and obscene profits -- on such things as basic health care. Which I argue is an essential service. Ideally, I'd like to see a single-payer health care system. With the government running the show. But I'd gladly settle at the moment for a public/private option. A blend. Seems to me that's a fair compromise. I think the vast majority of Americans would opt for the Medicare option. Because it will be more affordable than private insurance. That's why many private insurers oppose a public option. It's too competitive. They don't want competition. Because that makes it more difficult to bilk the consumers, their customers. --Jim Broede
Many people lose common sense without being elected to public office. Or they have no sense to even lose in the first place. --Jim
Medicare for the elderly. What about medicaid?
I am not saying health care is not essential. In fact, I am saying it is. What I am saying is that, in a budget crunch, the powers that be, start to chop up the money going for these things, because they know how essential they are to us, and we will be less opposed to tax increase, if it means we keep our health care, police, fire, etc.
If my household is short on cash, we trim out the NON-essentials. We cut out going out to dinner, entertainment, or extra clothes, or the beer. We do NOT stop paying for electricity, water, or heat.
I also do not think the government is capable of "running the show" as it is. If they were, we would not have so many problems with the programs they DO run.
Anon2
I'm not convinced that the private sector is capable of running the show better than the government. Our economy is in a shambles because the private sector screwed up. Because of greed, greed, greed and more greed. We need more government regulation. More government involvement. Unregulated capitalism will lead us down the path of financial ruin. It's far too exploitive. --Jim
Post a Comment