Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!




Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Anti-BVBL
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blacknell
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Blueweeds
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
ChangeServant
Coarse Cracked Corn
CobaltVA
CvilleDave
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
DemocracyUpsideDown
DemRulz
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Fred2Blue
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
RockDem
Shad Plank
Sisyphus
SlantBlog
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Tokatakiya
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll
xcurmudgeon

Facts Most Americans Don't Know...But Should

by: Elaine in Roanoke

Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:36:08 AM EDT


( - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)

One reason that Americans are so easily manipulated in the health care debate presently raging is that they don't even understand the health care system we have in this country right now. So, we see elderly citizens screaming for the government to keep their hands off their health care. Also, we have to listen to people yelling, "No socialized medicine!"

Guess what? Right now, the United States already has a huge single-payer health insurance program. It also has one health care program that is "socialized medicine." That single-payer program is what I would like to see become the basis for health care in the United States, but more on that later.

America's "single-payer" insurance program is so popular that it is called the "third rail of politics." Not a politician in Washington, not even the most conservative of Congress' wingnuts, would dare to suggest that because it didn't follow "free market principles" it should be scrapped. Nor would any DC politician dare to demand that we eliminate the "socialized" medical program.

Elaine in Roanoke :: Facts Most Americans Don't Know...But Should
Medicare is, at heart, a single-payer health insurance plan (So is Medicaid and SCHIP). Throughout one's working life, a portion of both employee and employer social security taxes go toward the Medicare program. That money theoretically covers the cost of Medicare Part A, which insures hospital stays and other costs while hospitalized, with the exception of about $1300 per hospital stay that is the patient's responsibility.

Additionally, after a person reaches 65, Medicare Part B, major medical coverage, is available - as a choice - for a monthly premium that is approximately $97 this year (annually adjusted for inflation).

When Medicare recipients go to the doctor, their bills get paid (80%) by Medicare Part B. The other 20% is the responsibility of the patient. Guess what? That is single-payer health insurance. One entity pays the bills, with the exception of the amount due from the patient.

So, has that single-payer program, which covers over 35 million Americans, driven private, for-profit health insurers out of business? Hardly. For years, policies called "Medigap" with various levels of coverage have been offered. For example, my huband has the best Medigap policy he could find and pays $225 per month for it. It makes financial sense for him. It wouldn't for everyone.

Additionally, when Republicans controlled both the presidency and Congress recently, they passed a "Medicare Advantage" system of insurance that is absolutely great for seniors but financially a very bad deal for the government and for the Medicare trust fund. That's what the purpose of the legislation was...to slowly starve the Medicare trust fund until it would go bankrupt. Or, at least, that's what I think the purpose was...

My point is that Medicare actually has created a diverse new program of private insurance, whether it is for Medigap policies or for the Advantage plans that the government is subsidizing.

Now, let's move on to that "socialized medicine" right here in the good ole USA. Any veteran who receives medical care through the Veterans Administration is participating in "socialized medicine." Now, I define that term the way many do, as medical care dispensed by doctors and other medical practitioners who are on salary and working for the government. In such a system, the government also owns and operates the hospitals and clinics in the system.

In 1999 the Veterans Administration served 3.5 million patients. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, the VA has seen a huge increase in its patient load. The system also serves the families of active-duty members of the armed services, thus providing care for additional millions of Americans.

So, has the existence of the VA socialized medicine driven out private, for-profit methods of receiving health care for all veterans. Certainly not. Many veterans have other health insurance and prefer to use that for their health care.

Now, on to my point that Medicare could be the cheapest and most reasonable way to have a "public option." If Medicare became open to all, with some changes, we would have a public option up and running in no time.

What are the changes necessary to be fair to the private insurers? First, since people below 65 have not paid fully into the system to justify giving them full coverage under traditional Medicare Part A for under $100 per month, a new premium would have to be devised that would cover all the cost of providing care, both in-hospital and for major medical coverage. Said another way, this form of  "public option" would have to pay for itself.

Second, physician and hospital reimbursement rates should not be what Medicare pays. (That's something for another article...reasons why Medicare reimbursement is causing far too many doctors to refuse Medicare patients.) It should be comparable to what private insurance pays and derived the same way private insurers get their payment rates - by negotiation with providers.

Will my dream "public option" ever be implemented. Nope. It's too simple and to obviously destined to run for-profit insurance with its bloated profit margins and huge executive salaries and enormous advertising budgets out of the market. But a body can dream, can't one...:-)

"Politics in the art of the possible."

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
From (0.00 / 0)
The Hill-dems coming out against a po. Perriello and Boucher in VA.

John Adler (N.J.), Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.) Rick Boucher (Va.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Betsy Markey (Colo.) Eric Massa (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Charlie Melancon (La.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Tom Perriello (Va.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Guess Perriello doesn't want to dance with the one that brung him. His office says he is getting ZERO calls for the public option, all calls are against it. So it appears the rethugs are more motivated than us. Who knew?


"The Hill" is wrong (0.00 / 0)
I know that will shock you...  For them to conclude that Tom Perriello will vote "no" on a public option is, at best, premature.

Tom has said that he is against the present bill (HR 3200) because, in large part, it doesn't do enough to rein in costs.  At the town hall meetings that I have attended (two), he sounded to me as though he thought that the public option or perhaps co-ops (that idea had just come out the day before the second town hall meeting that I attended) might help do that.

Tom has been frequently -- and accurately -- quoted as saying that if had to vote specifically on HR 3200, as it stands now, he would vote "No."  However, he hopes that the bill that he will eventually vote on will do more to curb costs than HR 3200 does.

From Tom's website:

I have not yet backed a particular reform plan, but some principles have emerged from my listening tour that will inform how I evaluate various proposals:

First, under the current system, people who pay for their own health insurance are stuck paying higher premiums to cover the costs of those who have no insurance.  In fact, economists estimate that families who already have insurance pay an extra $1,300 every year in premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured. Many of our Southside hospitals are straining to the point of breaking; at certain facilities, over 10% of their annual costs go towards covering those without insurance, and they must pass these expenses on to the rest of us. We must cover the tens of millions of uninsured in our country or else they will continue to bankrupt the system and send premiums sky high for those who already have insurance.

Second, reforms must move us from "sickness care" to health care. Right now, hospitals get paid a lot for procedures in the emergency room, and get paid almost nothing for preventing someone from having to get rushed there. Both doctors and patients have told me they would prefer a system that rewards personal responsibility and preventative medicine. Such improvements might eliminate co-pays and premiums for check-ups and screenings, and increase reimbursements to primary care doctors such as pediatricians. Also, the Safeway Corporation has shown great success with a program that provides its workers with discounts on health insurance if they lose weight or reduce cholesterol. Ben Franklin's famous saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has never been more salient.

Third, we must make sure that Americans living in rural communities and small towns still have access to quality primary and specialist care. From Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, Community Health Centers, and support to primary care physicians in "underserved communities," we can improve access in Southern Virginia. Also, technological advances can allow rural hospitals and doctors to share data about best practices and receive benefit for incentives for meeting.

We must protect the doctor-patient relationship. Today, many insurance companies threaten that relationship in two ways. First, they often override the doctor's recommendation for the patient on type of care. Second, 23% of all healthcare dollars go to administration and overhead at insurance companies, taking those dollars away from the patient and away from investing in better care.

Finally, healthcare reform must provide long-term cost savings to patients, providers and the entitlement programs related to Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' health. We are being choked by healthcare costs rising over 9% each year, and any reform worthy of my support would have to show serious cost savings over time.

If you look at the factors that are important to him, they are entirely consistent with a public option.  That doesn't mean that he might not vote against a public option, but I am pretty sure that he has not yet made up his mind.  I would be surprised if he tipped his hand much before he absolutely has to.


[ Parent ]
The working uninsured (0.00 / 0)
I've never heard that rationale for Medicare, i.e., that people below 65 have not "paid fully" enough into the system to justify giving them full coverage.  

I suspect in reality it was more like an actuarial calculation that enough of us would die before getting to 65, that the program might be affordable.

Today while driving to work I heard Sen. Grassley on CSPAN radio, and a caller accused him of living in a bubble after 30 years of elective office and of not knowing what it is like to choose between buying food and buying health insurance.  Sen. Grassley bridled at that, and said he had been a factory worker for ten years, drilling screw holes, and had to make the choice between health insurance and other things, and since he was in his 20's and early 30's and thought he would never get sick, for 7-8 of those years he didn't get the health insurance his employer offered.

I found it fascinating that someone who was once uninsured is now in the position that he is in.  Of course, since this was CSPAN radio, no follow up questions about what his current view is towards mandated insurance and why.

Grassley said that there are 2-3 million of the uninsured who fall into the same category that he was in.  I suspect it is a much larger number.  In Massachusetts, that category of uninsured was 20% of the total uninsured.

To me it is self evident that people in that category have to be brought within the system and buy a policy, albeit one with a lot cheaper premiums based on their good health.  


Recent Comments

Recent Diaries
What's Gov. Bob Running For?
by: kindler - Mar 12
3 Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox