House Democrats Consider Making Public Option Out of Expanded Medicare

Any government subsidized and controlled plan will make it impossible for private insurers to compete. So we'll have no choice in picking our coverage. Considering the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are already plagued with fraud and red ink, how much more will expansion of Medicare contribute to deficit spending?

Obama promised that he wouldn't sign any health care bill that wasn't budget neutral. Can anyone believe that this new proposal could pay its own way? Bigger federal deficits, more declines in the value of the dollar and major tax increases are certainly coming if the new mandates are imposed.

Already, many medical doctors refuse to accept patients under Medicare because of the lower payments they would receive compared with reimbursements from private insurers, and their numbers have increased recently because of the threats posed by the pending health care plan. This new twist will unquestionable cause MD's and other health care providers to rebel or take early retirement. So, as the government moves to provide coverage for more people, we'll have fewer doctors to care for them. Rationing and prolonged waiting lists will be unavoidable.

Does the administration really believe that American taxpayers will be fooled into supporting their socialistic agenda? Even with their control over our media, facts about the leftist power grab are bound to leak to the public.

Answer me one question, Beck: does the public option, as practiced in all the other industrialized democracies, provide health care at a MUCH lower percentage of their GDP than the present US system does here? Yes, or no?

You can put all the right-wing lipstick on it that you wish, and call it by any name, but the answer is still, "Yes". That's the point, Beck, and I can't make it simpler than that. NOW do you finally get it?

Glad to be of help. Your friend, Tim

Cush, I've got a question for you, too. Do more than 2/3 of doctors support offering consumers a public option? Yes, or no. Put whatever spin you want on it, Cush, dress it in right-wing rags and call it "socio-Nazi-Obama Death Care", but the answer is still, "Yes".

So your claims look, shall we say, "unfair and unbalanced".

Your friend, Tim

And one more question for both of you propagandists: Who is it, who actually DELIVERS the health care for Medicare, Medicaid, and for that matter the health insurance companies and those who pay out of pocket?

Would your flinty right-wing hearts (or your granite right-wing minds) be astonished to know that...it's the same doctors, through their own practices (small businesses), in the same hospitals and clinics?

Gosh, it looks like Cush and Beck have some studying to do!

Your friend, Tim

Timothy, I have two questions for you. a) why, when confronted with disagreement, do liberals get so petty, sour, and vindictive? Can't we disagree on issues and still have a respectful debate? That's how most people in "industrialized democracies" act. b) What PLANET are you living on? The countries you mention that pay less for health care than we do GET LESS HEALTH CARE. I am talking about rationed, inferior care. Besides, we can lower costs WITHOUT government intervention. There is PLENTY we can do to lower costs--like allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, but democrats don't really want to bring costs down at all, now do they? WHY--(HONESTLY)?

Second, DOCTORS DON'T WANT AMERICAN SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. They receive as little as 70 cents on the dollar NOW for Medicare patients, aside from all of the paperwork involved. Many times, this doesn't even cover their COSTS. Third, once government gets involved, we will have shortages from all of the medical professionals forced out of the system, yet those with government subsidies crowd in to this overburdened, broken system you invision as NIRVANA. I hope you live on Mars, and this is all a simple misunderstanding.

Timothy
10:57AM Oct 21st 2009

It would help if you stated facts rather than leftist propaganda. Let's review the true story about where physicians stand.
It is true that the American Medical Association (AMA) and most doctors believe that our health care needs reform, but not what the government is now proposing. The AMA's early endorsement of the proposed health care plan (which did not necessarily represent the views of a majority of doctors) was based on promises made by President Obama, Senator Baukus and others in Congress. Recent changes, including those described in Mr. Session's article do not comply with those promises.

If you visit the AMA website, you can learn what the AMA wants from health care reform:
(1) Expanded coverage for those who can't afford insurance (no one will disagree with that).
(2) TORT reform, not only to eliminate excessive awards and predatory lawyers' fees, but also to cut back on the cost of defensive medicine.
(3) Reduction in the needless complexity of current administrative paperwork.
(4) Please pay careful attention to this: Repeal of the current laws which limit payments to physicians under Medicare. AMA claims that Senator Baukus was sympathetic to this request!
(5) Decisions about what care a patient should receive should be determined solely by the physician and the patient.
(6) The AMA does NOT advocate a single payer system, like theone described in the article above.

The AMA also admits that the "pent up demand" resulting from increasing the number of patients would impose stress on our health care system. They didn't say so, but that translates to rationing and delays for all of us.
I found no commentary from the AMA about the impact any new plan would have on federal spending or the resulting tax increases needed to pay the added debt. But all of us should be concerned.
Surely no one believes that medical doctors want to accept a cut in their fees to the level (which they consider inadequate) currently employed for Medicare patients. If this provision is added to the bill, I doubt that you could find 0.01% of physicians in support of Obamacare.

Obviously,

cypress674
12:31PM Oct 21st 2009

I checked the AMA site and agree with most of what you said. It should be noted that the AMA's support of the promised health care was NOT based on a poll of member physicians. So it tells us nothing about how many MD's favored even the promised plan.
I'd agree with the statement that no one could object to universal health coverage IF WE CAN AFFORD IT. With today's weak economy, record levels of federal spending and fiscal deficits and climbing unemployment rate, now is not the time to incur more costs to support illegal aliens, ex-cons, alcoholics, drug addicts or anyone unwilling to earn his or her own welfare. We taxpayers, our children and those seeking jobs all deserve protection from the reckless spending now undermining the American way of life.

What a brilliant idea! Medicare coverage for everyone, and they certainly wont exclude illegal aliens from coverage.
The next step will be to send Social Security checks ever month to everyone who votes Democratic. ACORN may even help us to get a few extra voter registrations so we can earn multiple checks. If that isn't enough, why not grant income tax refunds to every proven liberal?
Never could I imagine that government could be so generous. My only concern is how China will react when we declare national bankruptcy and all those treasury notes it owns turn into Monopoly money. But who cares about the future any more?

Stella, I asked Beck one question, and though he didn't answer it, you did: all those other industrialized democracies do indeed get their health care for FAR less than we pay, and they get more of it than we do, because everyone is covered.

You state, but you offer no proof, that the care they get is inferior. You offer no proof, because you have none. The best proof that those citizens are displeased with their model, would be if they voted it out, in favor of private insurance.

The time you wasted calling me silly names would be better spent researching the subject, and trying to find evidence for your unsupported claims and accusations, Stella.

Your friend, Tim

Cypress, let's get to facts on this: I didn't mention the AMA (the physician's union); you did. I got my information from a survey (to which 2,130 physicians responded) that was conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/product.jsp?id=48408

You'll notice that these physicians include both members and non-members of the AMA, and that 62.9% of them favored combined private and public options, while another 9.6% favored a public option ONLY (no private insurance at all).

Do the math, Cypress.

Your friend, Tim

BTW, Cypress, your feeblest point of all, was this: "The AMA also admits that the 'pent up demand' resulting from increasing the number of patients would impose stress on our health care system."

Are you seriously arguing that we CAN'T DO THIS, because we'd have to actually deal with more sick people? That's the whole point, knuckle-head (I apoligize, I apoligize! You got me going there, Cy.)! It's like saying, the United States couldn't possibly do what other countries have done; we Americans don't have the right stuff to deal with the stress!

Under Democrats OR Republicans, we're a better country than you think we are, Cy. I promise you that.

YOur friend, Tim

I know what you mean about some people not wanting to "waste money" by going to the doctor "unnecessarily". Furthermore, their notion is often that "when I feel REALLY sick, then is the right time to go". Sometimes, though, it's the little things that portend the worst outcomes; sometimes even problems presenting NO clinical symptoms at all, that can only be detected by a test or a scan. So urge your mother, if she's determined to be "frugal", to try to be prudently frugal.

Good luck, Mavis. Your friend, Tim

You seem to be missing the point. Health care reform is necessary to keep costs DOWN. If you think paying for health care reform is going to be expensive, you need to look at what it's going to cost if we don't do it.

Bobjim (Is that what your friends call you? Just asking!), I have some news for you that will relieve your fears: Universal health care is NOT an "ill thought out program", not by any means. In fact, it has been not only thoroughly thought out, but it has actually been put into practice in nations whose governments are democratically elected (that should be a relief to you), and whose total population is even larger than ours, as well as being on average even older (if that worries you) AND ALSO healthier (I hope THAT doesn't worry you, BJ!).

So you can just go back to watching Fox Network, listening to Rush and reading Mark Levin. Everything's gonna be just fine. BTW, I'd leave it to Sarah Palin to worry her pretty little head about the "Death Panel" thing.

Your friend, Tim

Bobjim, I've got some good news for you: Universal health care is NOT an "ill thought out program".

Universal health care is a program that has been thought out, and put into practice, by many industrialized nations, all with democratically-elected governments (that's a relief, eh?), with a total population larger by far than ours, and even somewhat older than ours (another relief!). They're all saving hundreds of billions of dollars (sounds good, eh?). [Info: in the US we're spending over $2 trillion on health care this year, BJ.]

So don't worry, because everything's going to be fine. You can go back to watching Fox Network, listening to Rush, reading Mark Levin...and drinking your Kool-Aid. ;^) And you can leave it to Sarah Palin to worry her pretty little head about Death Panels.

Your friend, Tim

Sorry about the unintended duplication. My Internet Provider seems to have a spastic whatever, this morning!

Timothy, friend, you might want to step outside your MSNBC bubble and get some real facts. For instance, do some research on one of the nations you claim is doing so wonderfully under Universal Healthcare--Germany. It has so destroyed their healthcare system and put them in so much debt that they are now moving to private insurers. Or maybe you would like to read the remarks from Canada's Health Minister who says that despite the rationing they have experienced there, their system is also bankrupt and isn't sustainable.

Or perhaps you would like to buy a clue as to why our system is a greater portion of our GDP--because most innovations, research, and development comes from the US. We can cut costs to the bone, but then we won't have new life-saving drugs or medical equipment. But hey, at least we will all get equally crappy care and that's all you care about, right?