Dems rebranding Public Option, but its still govt-run healthcare

Democrats are aiming to have "Medicare for All", and are trying to revive the single-payer Trojan Horse known as Public Option by giving it a new name. Some reactions on the comments that make powerful arguments for how unrealistic and wrong-headed the concept is:

FLyer 574: I just love the quote that "Medicare is a public option." There's no option at all! You automatically are enrolled in Part A-Hospital and Part B-Medical. You have the right to opt out of Part B if you're still working, and your company insurance becomes your supplemental Duh!These fools—and I mean fools—don't know what they're doing. Shakepeare was right: "Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing" Oh yes, I'm a Senior, on Parts AB, and an insurance broker dealing with Seniors. Just for the record…

Medicare is NOT free. To get Part A-Hospital coverage, one must have 40 quarters of contribution, which was a portion of FICA taxes in a working lifetime. If you don't have 40 quarters of coverage, you pay nearly $400 per month for Part A. Part B is also NOT free. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries pay $96.40 per month (adjusted for income at the higher levels). That covers approximately 80% of Medical Expense, and the 20% is covered by a purchased Medicare Supplement. Unless of course, you have a Medicare Advantage plan which is subsidized by Mediare. Offering Medicare to all those that want it will be a horrendous expense, since no monies have been contributed to cover ir. Gee, where will that money come from? My 6 and 8 year old granddaughters? No, probably from my unborn great-grandchildren…and yours!

Rebranding PelosoiObamaRei dCare (PORC) as Medicare Part E is just pink lipstick on a fraudulent, flatulent, and frighteningly fascist pig of a plan that threatens to violate the rights of patients, doctors, business owners, and insurers on a massive scale.This massive dose of statism in medicine would induce grave waves of arrhythmia - inflation, price controls, lower quality, doctor shortages, waiting periods, and rationing. These disturbances would become so emotionally distressing to the American people that Alinsky-inspired statists — opportunists that they are — would be able to exploit each new “health care crisis” as another opportunity to inject another dose of statism into the system.Call Congress NOW and tell them to oppose this War of Choice on Choice in Medicine.Dr. Gregory GaramoniDoctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike .com

BY Wary Independent on 10/21/2009 at 11:59: TAXATION BY MISREPRESENTATI ON. 2010 can't come soon enough.

It was only a few weeks ago that Obama said that Medicare is going bankrupt. Now they want to put 300 million people on a bankrupt system?

judithod: Oh, yes, why not expand a government-run program that's running a deficit of $38 trillion and on the road to bankruptcy by 2017. Who elects these nincompoops?In his speech to Congress concerning his "plan," Obama stated, "The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that to to insurance companies. . . ."Can the same government that allowed this corruption to mushroom suddenly eliminate it? Inquiring minds want to know how and when!

Jam: Have they ever considered that some seniors might prefer to have the option of not taking medicare. I personally do not want IT and have never liked it because I think it is government intervention into my life. Yet, when I reach the age of retirement, I will be required to take it or not be allowed to get insurance. This takes away my freedom and eventually invades my privacy. I do not believe any one has ever challenged this. I have considered challenging it when I am REQUIRED to take MEDICARE OR HAVE NO INSURANCE. Why doesn't Congress give all of us a little more freedom. In addition to requiring insurance agencies to write policies for pre- existing conditions, why not ask them to stop requiring seniors to take medicare and just open it up to those who want it. Why should we be required to take medicare and have it automatically deducted from our social security yet still pay the full amount for social security as income? I would rather keep my present policy and not have it be affiliated with medicare.

House Dems want medicare for everyone except themselves.BY speedzone on 10/21/2009 at 12:35

Medicare only pays about half of the doctors bill now, causing many doctors to refuse Medicare patents, how do they expect it to get better upon expansion of the failed program . . . Duh!BY Pip on 10/21/2009 at 12:35

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!!!!BY Roger Mac

Medical Coverage for all. Save little Timmy. Whatever you want to call it, asnwer this FIRST… How are you going to pay for it when the program is is meant to work with is ALREADY 37 TRILLION in the HOLE..?!?!?!?!?!?That is 15 times the national debt. wrap your small liberal minds around that first and then lets talk you to do this.BY TheTruth on 10/21/2009 at 13:04

I am 71 and on Medicare.I pay out of my pocket $3700 per year for Medicare Part A, Part B and the drug benefit. Medicare is NOT free - nothing is free in this world.When will Liberals learn this?BY Peter Stone on 10/21/2009 at 13:05

An important political negative of the public option concept has been the $500 million transfer from Medicare to fund the public option. This latest scam to rename the public option as a component of Medicare means the $500 million would appear to stay on the books in the Medicare program and the political hicky goes away. Regardless, current recipients of the Medicare program will be worse off.BY Dean Ferguson on 10/21/2009 at 13:17

Payment from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to an orthopedic surgeon for a total knee replacement is $1750. Medicare is $840. Medicaid is $260. This is supposed to cover at least one pre-op office visit, surgery and post op hospital care, and at least 2 follow up office visits. With the amortized cost of at least$100 for someone to walk into the office each time, how long to you think Dr.'s will work for next to nothing or lose money? How long would you?BY Richard Brown on 10/21/2009 at 13:36

If the Dems want to lower the cost of Health Care, eliminate the restrictions that interfere with health insurance competition across state lines. The Republicans have been saying that for months now, but are being ignored. We don't need another giant government bureacracy that will go bankrupt in a few decades. How about true market-based competiton?BY TALON on 10/21/2009 at 13:37

My take:

I can't understand why anyone would think this public option or Medicare Part "E" or whatever the heck they are calling it today would be a good idea. I just dont understand. "

Just understand this: IT'S A SCAM. There's is no way to do what they want without a crushing load of new taxes and spending.

They are rebranding and repackaging old idea - Single Payer - into new names like "Public Option". When people see the details, they turn it down. So the Dems and libs keep looking for new names and labels. Now it's "Medicare for All" on the assumption that Medicare for all is beloved by all. (But if that was so, why won't they let us opt out of it?)

There is no specific actual program in "Medicare for all", it's just a label given to the standard of care for those who need insurance. They have not explained how people pay for it. Do people pay their own way? Not the uninsured!

In the end, the cruel, crushing and evil parts of ObamaCare are the limits, mandates, taxes, rules, and rationing that are hidden in the 1500 page bill. They need to paper this over and hide the question "who pays? how?" Apparently, some think they can conscript healthy young uns into medicare as a way to 'save' medicare. Fools! The working young are ALREADY SUBSIDIZING MEDICARE VIA THEIR TAXES. I mean how badly do you want to screw Obama's best voting demographic? It's bad enough they are now losing millions of jobs and have life prospects worse than before, but now they are draftees in this war too?