Is Blue Dog leader calling the Democrats’ bluff on health care by suggesting Medicare for all?
Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Interesting question. Is Mike Ross (D-Ark.) smoking out the Socialists?
From The Hill.
“I – speaking only on behalf of myself – suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates,” Ross said in a statement to The Hill.
The Democrat leaders say they want choice and competition. The public option is not competition; it is an insurance industry killer because the government doesn’t need to make a profit and can undercut private company premiums. It is a Trojan Horse toward nationalized health care.
But if people have a choice to keep their current policy or select Medicare, all other things being the same, nobody would take Medicare except those who have no insurance, and, voila, everybody is covered. The big caveat, of course, is whether all other things like taxes on employer benefits stays the same. While I would not favor a massive expansion of Medicare, it forces the Dems to explain why this proposal doesn’t provide choice and competition, while insuring everybody.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
If the insurance companies want competition they should favor the abolition of their exemption from anti-trust laws.
Laws that promote competition.
Agree.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Kelley, Bill_Dupray. Bill_Dupray said: Is Blue Dog leader calling the Democrats’ bluff on health care by suggesting Medicare for all?: Inte.. http://bit.ly/1W1bP9 #tcot [...]
Mr. Dupray,
I am bit confused about your posting. “Medicare for All” is not Mr. Ross’ idea but former Sen. George McGovern’s
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102406.html
I would point out that Medicare has been around for decades and has not driven the health insurance industry out of business, any more than Medicaid or the Veterans Administration did. Nor did FEMA’s national flood insurance program eliminated the home owners insurance industry or the FDIC eliminated the private bank deposit insurance industry. The federal government runs all of these insurance programs and has for decades. Not only did these Federal insurance programs not drive insurance industry out of business, I have not heard a peep from the Republicans about repealing them. So evidently, the Republicans do not have any problems with those programs. If not, why this one?
None of the programs you mentioned competes with private insurance. And Medicare, Medicaid, and let’s throw in Social Security for good measure, are all going broke.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
You quite mistaken Mr. Dupray, there are indeed private insurers for bank deposits that do compete with the FDIC. There are also insurance companies that provide health insurance to the retired (Medicare) and to veterans (VA).
However you raise in interesting point, you are correct that there are no insurance companies that provide flood insurance (FEMA) or health insurance to the indigent (Medicaid). Why is that? Because private insurance companies cannot provide coverage profitably. This is the entire point of health care reform, at least for me, there are many millions of Americans who cannot get either any or enough health care insurance in a manner that is profitable to private insurance companies. Exactly as with FEMA’s flood insurance, the Federal Government needs to step in and provide a needed service that the private sector cannot.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just goes to show: all roads lead to Rome.
“But if people have a choice to keep their current policy or select Medicare, all other things being the same, nobody would take Medicare except those who have no insurance, and, voila, everybody is covered”
Why your assumption that nobody would choose Medicare unless they are uninsured? .As I understood the proposal, Medicare would open to all those who do not receive coverage through employment. If I understand you correctly (I might not), you appear to think that people would elect private insurance if they can afford it and only Medicare if they cannot?
No, because he’s saying that this version of Medicare wouldn’t be tied to its reimbursement rates, essentially neutering it. Another ploy to protect the idiotic and inhumane private insurance industry. And yes, they are idiotic and inhumane and they don’t need to exist, either. Not sure why so many progressives are so afraid to say that, but they shouldn’t be. They are the problem.
“The public option is not competition; it is an insurance industry killer because the government doesn’t need to make a profit and can undercut private company premiums.”
You’re wrong, what it forces private insurance companies to do is clean up their own act and that’s why you of the right hate it. Anytime corporations are forced to rein in their profits for the betterment of all your side goes apoplectic. Your argument is an old one, just recycled from political battles of old, be it child labor laws, anti-pollution measures, regulating the food supply, etc. It always amazes me how the party that claims to the protector of “Christian values” always puts the all mighty dollar above the welfare of people. Bill you wouldn’t happen to be a member of The Family by any chance?