- 2,908
Pelosi Beginning to Cave on Public Option
- Thread starter Winter_123
- Start date
Define "hot".
Is that Truman Capote over her right shoulder?
Seems Prince Harry isn't able to buy 60 votes without compromise on total health care (insurance) reform, so they are willing to concede some points just to get a bill, any bill, out of their hands in on to PresBO to sign.
The way I see it, even if he doesn't get to sign a bill he should still be given an award for trying. Isn't that the way the Nobel prize worked? Seems that is the way everything should work.
Is that Truman Capote over her right shoulder?
Seems Prince Harry isn't able to buy 60 votes without compromise on total health care (insurance) reform, so they are willing to concede some points just to get a bill, any bill, out of their hands in on to PresBO to sign.
The way I see it, even if he doesn't get to sign a bill he should still be given an award for trying. Isn't that the way the Nobel prize worked? Seems that is the way everything should work.
Expanding medicare should be seen as a win for the dems, better than a public option, at least I would think. It gets them closer to single payor, building the infrastructure to go all the way, but one big piece at a time.
Way back in the beginning of this debate, I asked for a description of what problem this plan is supposed to solve. Nobody risked answering. There were some stated objectives, such as better access for all, lower premiums, etc, but, the truth is, most of this started because medicare is broke and needs a major revision to stay afloat financially.
This 'solution' doesn't address any of the stated problems. Nobody in congress seems to understand the adverse selection that will occur in medicare if this expansion happens, and what the true costs will be. Also, starting down this path will cause hospitals, drug companies, doctors, and others to come out in pretty strong opposition, since usually the reimbursement rates are so low, they can't afford to take on many patients that don't cover their own costs.
Why should someone with a PPO have to pay more just so that someone with medicare can pay less? Fix this. One price for a procedure, posted, for everyone, regardless of the payor.
I probably don't care much on what they do, but, I just wish they would be honest about what they are trying to do. Failing honesty, keep the government out.
Dan
Way back in the beginning of this debate, I asked for a description of what problem this plan is supposed to solve. Nobody risked answering. There were some stated objectives, such as better access for all, lower premiums, etc, but, the truth is, most of this started because medicare is broke and needs a major revision to stay afloat financially.
This 'solution' doesn't address any of the stated problems. Nobody in congress seems to understand the adverse selection that will occur in medicare if this expansion happens, and what the true costs will be. Also, starting down this path will cause hospitals, drug companies, doctors, and others to come out in pretty strong opposition, since usually the reimbursement rates are so low, they can't afford to take on many patients that don't cover their own costs.
Why should someone with a PPO have to pay more just so that someone with medicare can pay less? Fix this. One price for a procedure, posted, for everyone, regardless of the payor.
I probably don't care much on what they do, but, I just wish they would be honest about what they are trying to do. Failing honesty, keep the government out.
Dan
- Thread starter
- #4
- 2,908
They dont have the expansion of medicare thing in the bag by any means yet. I suspect that will blow over or get lobbed in with some plan to phase something in sometime and somewhere in the future if certain conditions are met or not. Whatever.
Frigging Harry Reid is doing a cloak and dagger thing where there was supposed to be total transparency, and then they are coming up with ideas like this medicare bit just days before they want a vote on a reform bill. How thought out and transparent is that?
I wouldnt put any money on the medicare expansion thing. It could happen but I am just saying I would not put any money on it. This contorted plan where there would be no public option but the government personnel agency would oversee a private plan offering could fly though. It is sufficiently lame, tepid, and whacked to pass. And it is like a Rorshacht test where you could look at it and if you needed to see a public option reform there you could see it but if you were a Republican and needed to not see it then you could do that too.
Change you can believe in.
- 990
How about a response to this from yesterday?
This thing on whether or not a possible expansion of medicare to people as young as 55 got me thinking.
Why would they need to expand medicare to 55 if they are going to have GI for all?
I know medicare pays 80% where indie plans do not, but ...?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This from yesterday?
This thing on whether or not a possible expansion of medicare to people as young as 55 got me thinking.
Why would they need to expand medicare to 55 if they are going to have GI for all?
I know medicare pays 80% where indie plans do not, but ...?
Last edited:
- 10,275
I would not like expanding Medicare. Like some of you, I tend to talk to a lot of people in the 40-63 range.
- 3,863
So when do the commissions get cut then?
- 990
What have I been ranting about for like 4 days Chumps?
I put this one to you.
What is the point of expanding medicare to age 55, whether the people involved are gimps or not if they are going to, and i still do not believe it, pull off enacting GI?
P.S. Will you guys or munchmeat up the font a tad?
I'm goin blind ova hea ...
Last edited:
Similar threads
