Wednesday, December 09, 2009

The public option of Medicare at 55

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. There are loads of self employed who write off everything from their cars to their gas to many meals to seem "poor". I know because I helped with the free and reduced lunch forms at one of my schools. I hate the idea that they could now drop off insurance and declare for Medicare.
I think SS disability takes care of those who are in poverty and truly disabled. Yes, it needs to be cleaned up- but it is in place. There needs to be some sort of buy in for the rest. This is not what Obama proposed.
I am sick of the Democrats in the House and Senate! Fortunately, I never have to vote for one-lol. I don't think any live in Kansas.

2 comments:

RAnn said...

I know you and I have many different opinions regarding the role of the government in healthcare, but I'll say one of my biggest complaints about what is going on now is that if we see healthcare costs as a monster that is trying to devour us, nothing I've heard talks about killing the monster; it is all about getting someone else to feed it. Those who are young, and just out of school can't afford to to buy health insurance, even catastrophic plans,rated with the health of the young in mind, because of their low pay--but they do buy cars, clothes, ipods,.....They think that healthcare reform should result in them paying less money for more healthcare. Families with kids think they deserve a break, because after all, kids are expensive. The sick say that they shouldn't be charged more; after all its not their fault they are sick, and its not right to charge them more after they get sick--but if you don't charge more after someone gets sick, the other option is to charge the healthy enough to cover those costs,and then the healthy balk at the cost. I read somewhere that the average 50 year old has six times the medical costs of the average 20 year old; yet at least one bill will only allow insurance companies to charge the 50 year old twice what they charge the 20 year old--which means the 20 year old, who is young and low-paid (generally) will subsidize the better-paid (generally) 50 year old.

If you go to a universal one-payer system, then you get a quick savings from not paying for underwriting and sales, but since claims will still need to be processed, you'll just change from one set of paper-pushers to another--but unless something is done to rein in costs, as opposed to shifting them, most people will pay more than they pay now, not less.

Janette said...

So---what do you want?
You are getting to the age that you should be charged double of a twenty year old according to your plan. Sit and look at it in the situation you were in a few years ago when you were the only breadwinner....
I don't know how to fix the system. I am NOT for universal coverage(European style), but I don't see how the current system can work. I hate to pay more taxes fro those who do not bother to be covered- but I am already paying for them to go to the emergency room and clog it up!
What is your idea?
Should we limit health care? I am for that in certain ways. I plan on not being anywhere close to a hospital when I am close to my end. I do not need another surgery for cancer to prolong my life for six months at 80 years old. I do not need a feeding tube when I know that the lose of appetite is simply a way of God letting you know it is time to go. Why should I soak up 50% of the national income at the last six months of my life and not permit a nephew have a surgery without bankruptcy at the beginning of his.
Brave New World sort of stuff- isn't it?