glad you picked it up

Lower the age limit to at least 50. 55 is not low enough.

Over 40 and you can’t find job normal economy, now it’s impossible and no insurance when you need it the most. This is when health starts to decline also.
I think instead of public option, they should’ve opened up medicare to all – this would have been much easier sell.

What happened to passing healthcare with 51 votes in senate? The option is open they won’t use it. Just because 3-4 senators have been bought off, the country has to suffer? Not a single vote for democrat again.

Buy-in by younger folks will strengthen Medicare. The younger the better!

Older parents with dependent kids would benefit if their children had some participation as well.

Professional services could be made available for a cost-adjusted basis which would benefit the uninsured individuals too. If a head of household (like me) wanted pro-active protection and professional care… I’d buy it!

Sign me up for ProCare! The Enhanced Eligibility Medicare for Pre-Seniors and their families…

There has been multiple unsourced reports that at least some Senate Democrats are considering a possible early Medicare buy in for older Americans. The numbers I have seen indicate that the idea would be to allow people over 55 or 60 to buy into Medicare.

this to me is the best “Public option” and should probably be available for everyone

at whatever is determined to break down to per person cost, plus 10 percent so it’s not only cost nuetral it’s actually cost positive

I believe thom hartmann suggested this first

and here it is

Dear President Obama,

I understand you’re thinking of dumping your “public option” because of all the demagoguery by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and their crowd on right-wing radio and Fox. Fine. Good idea, in fact.

Instead, let’s make it simple. Please let us buy into Medicare…that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

So it’s revenue neutral!

have a read at the link, there’s more

Buy-in by younger folks will strengthen Medicare

How so? Are the copays that high?

because younger people don’t get sick as often, the payout pool grows faster then when just older people are in it

that reasoning sounds sound to me, what do you think?

if it’s a correct assesment it also makes the case for medicare for all

But there are no additional premiums by adding people to the pool. So the payout is just greater, with no additional income. (The income is the tax on employed people.)

And add to that lower age the people who have tried to find work but cannot for what ever reason.
Yes, I agree with perris @ 7

No, I pay 27% of my soc sec as a premium for medicare.

I don’t think that’s what a public option is, I think there are premiums, thus the public “option”

I am thinking pre- a certain age there must be premiums and I believe that’s what “a public option” means, you are buying into it

“medicare for all” without premiums, (funded by taxes) is single payer

Whatever else, it will make the Insurance industry more profitable.

PS and if I add the damnable Part D it is over 30%

Really? What a bummer.

You’re thinking that. Is there evidence.

Medicare, Medicare Part B or Medicare Advantage?

don’t consider this official but here’s something;

brave new films

So people who “buy in” to early Medicare will be charged premiums over & above what they already pay thru payroll taxes? And what will the premium be? More or less than their call on services? And if more … And why wouldn’t they be pissed about paying for Medicare twice? I can’t see paying twice for something is a winning tactic. (Yes, I know, early eligibility is not the same as paying for something twice; only pointing out that’s how it would seem.)

NO can’t afford the advantage so I only have the basic basic which demands a ridiculous copay so I do not do doctors these days. I also, if I get very sick, can go back to Europe where I can still get FREE health care. Just waiting for my wife to retire so that we can get the fuck out of America.

All this is just to show how stupid it is to do anything other than just having a single payer, paid for by taxes, and price controlled. Anything else has blowback of proportions that are likely to be enormous.

Can you give me an example of the copay?

Managing cost is the advantage Medicare brings to the party.

Insurance companies manage costs by denying services or coverage. If younger folks have the opportunity to coattail on Medicare’s infrastructure then marginal costs are funded by the premiums paid by newcomers. Nothing has to change as far as traditional Medicare, it is just that there are more premium payers, and co-pays reflect a portion of specific costs.

A perk would be to earmark working folk’s Medicare deductions towards a buy-in premium, but the revenue impact would need to be calculated there.

Perris points out my thinking quite well — the more (younger) payers, the more net revenue for the Medicare infrastructure.

I think Progressives are great!

How does Medicare manage costs? Price controls(which I guess is the way that medical costs are controlled in developed countries with universal coverage)? Also see my 18 and 20.

I would certainly benefit from this idea, but it divides us further as a political group and becomes a way of weakening support for real reform. I think we should hold our approval until we have something that works for people of all ages. There’s always a catch, and not a good one, with the members of the liars club.

How does this help otherwise healthy young people with pre-existing conditions?

they won’t ecahn, it’s an optionon

payroll tax funds later years for no premium, what they pay for early buy in has nothing to do with that, one is not the other it simply uses the same infrastructure

they can opt into private health care for that fee or they can opt into medicare for that one

they’ll pick the one that gives them the best bang for the buck, the payroll tax still funds their retired health care

You point about paying twice is a concern (18). Folks who pay now get nothing. That is why they should be able to participate in some manner — They’ll feel like their money is going to have a positive effect for them personally, even if there are other premiums as participants.

As for (20) I have to agree that there has already been an incredible amount of blowback and the bill isn’t even written yet!

My point of view is that fairness, the ability to get in on the seniors’ action, is worth the extra cost.

(24) As my Pop uses Medicare, I see his costs are controlled by an agency which limits the billed price of services. How they do it is sausage — I have no idea. But the cost to the individual is in line with the individual’s ability to pay — at least in my Dad’s case. I can’t speak for other people or the system at large here.

let’s also not forget the title of this thread, “seante possibly looking at early medicare buy in”

What about declaring preexisting condition.. immediate qualification for disability /medicare?

“Liberal Democrats are demanding several concessions in exchange for deferring on the public plan, including a possible buy-in program that would allow older Americans under age 65 purchase coverage through Medicare.”

The Above is a quote from the NYT’s article about Democratic Senators nixxing the public plan. Damn those liars.

It is also possible that due to stringent qualification restrictions and high cost, the program would only be a fig leaf that helps almost no one.

AND, there would be no public option. Bend over and grab your ankles, you’re going to get fucked again.

to me that’s the way we should go in the first place, it’s playing the republicans game by offering as “a compromise” a better program then the one on the table

nice if we can pull it off

Statistically, the older uninsured groups are much smaller than the younger groups of uninsured persons. Younger persons who are uninsured are a much larger group of uninsureds than the older pre-Medicare eligible group. Younger persons are more likely to be vulnerable to unemployment at this time. The older group of uninsureds are likely to have more illnesses and need more care. Because of the danger of a split between older and younger groups of uninsureds, I vote for continuing to pursue a public option if we can keep it on the table.

If the folks who make the laws in this country wanted to be fair, they would let anyone who is ill and uninsured at this time, buy into a subsidized plan. Why? Because it is inhuman to deny health care to anyone.

There should be a way to get health care for the destitute (no taxable income) using free clinics.

If the government can spend billions spying on text messages, there’s no way the government can say no to free clinics. There must be a free clinic clause in the bill. Even if they grow pot and use the proceeds to fund free clinics.

There has to be a way for the man on the street to get affordable health care or the government is lost to us.

Here is the compromise I think I can live upto- just allow everybody to buy into Medicare (individuals, small businesses etc). Then i am willing to chuck out the public option.

At a bare minimum they should allow a buy in for people who take early Social Security. That gap constitutes serious problem for lots of folks.

This would create jobs as well. Older workers could leave a job to start a business without giving up affordable healthcare. The jobs they left would also need to be filled, creating even more jobs. The older people who do not have insurance would save us money in the long run by not showing up for Medicare after years of untreated high blood pressure, etc.

This is great. The best strategy for real reform would have been to have the White House and Democratic majority push for improved Medicare for All. But the White House didn’t want real reform. And the Senate Dems are too comfortable and too wedded to the folks in the White House. So they thought they could get something like the insurance friendly Medicare Plan D thing through again. But the people are pissed. Contributions have dried up. So what to do? Ok. Maybe give the stupid masses something.

I hope they try this. Call it a pilot program. It will be extremely successful. Then we pass Medicare for All.

I think Progressives are great!

Okay, perhaps I’m making a little progress! (You folks remember Progress, don’t you?)

Yes, the FDL censor’s hand has fallen heavily on MrC in the past few days, and I thought that I had finally been silenced like some prisoner in a Chinese dungeon or Soviet gulag. But my little test suck-up was allowed.

So let us now dip the proverbial toe a little deeper into the swamp and say, “I think Progressives are misguided!”

Let’s see it that gets censored. Let’s see if there is free speech here.

that is a public option, that’s my point, and it’s a very efficient public option with the infra structure already in place

Right now, my recommendation to progressives is don’t hold your breath.

This is a complete fucking farce. This will NEVER happen. The public option is being bargained away for something, when whittled down, will help virtually NO ONE. Progressives: Pull your heads out of your collective asses.

At first glance this seems like a very good idea and would serve to mollify whatever further erossion the PO undergoes in the final bill, I think.

Firstly there is a complete equivalence in the roles that private insurers and Medicare play in the health care field. They are both simply payers of health care services and so they are completely interchangeable, the difference being that Medicare is not for profit and much more efficiently managed.

With the expansion of Medicare to the aging group above 50 0r 55, you also are insuring a relatively more costly group and this represents savings to overall health care as this group is now contributing to the finances of Medicare and are no longer uninsured.

This arrangement may still leave the mandate in place for those uninsured under the neww Medicare cutoff age, what ever that may be, which is definitely still a big drawback that would need to be dealt with.

If we don’t get a satisfactory health care reform bill, those senators who sold us out will find their own heads in an awkward, sun-less configuration…

Plus, they’ll need to look for a different line of work. Finding themselves unceremoniously cast amongst the legions of us unemployed, that would be quite a lifestyle change for them.

I suppose they’ll find some new master to serve — same as the old master… Mammon.

Everyone on medicare pays roughly $100 per month for very basic care. Most then buy a supplemental policy between $100-$175 per month and then you can buy a drug policy for around $50 a month. This gives you almost total insurance care for everything. It’s not cheap for an individual, but it is way less than the private market and you can’t get private-non group coverage like this from anywhere. That is why medicare is so beloved. The younger the pool that would allowed, the lower the cost should go because younger people tend to be healthier and use less medical care. It is a good start to single payer universal care. Over time Congress could continue to lower the age limit. Private insurers still get to write the supplemental coverage under government regulations.

TomThumb:
I would like to address your post #34:
1. You say: Statistically, the older uninsured groups are much smaller than the younger groups of uninsured persons. Younger persons who are uninsured are a much larger group of uninsureds than the older pre-Medicare eligible group.
Please tell me what evidence you have for this, as I’m not inclined to believe it. Older people are much more likely to have been denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions or been victims of recission (having the insurance company drop your coverage because your claims are costing them too much money).

2. You say: Younger persons are more likely to be vulnerable to unemployment at this time.
I would also like some evidence for this claim. When it comes to saving money by laying people off, older workers, i.e., those collecting the largest salaries and costing the most in insurance premiums, are among the first to be let go. These older folks then have a more difficult time finding new jobs, and when their COBRA coverage runs out (if they could afford to pay for COBRA at all) then they are left completely without insurance coverage of any kind.

3. You say: The older group of uninsureds are likely to have more illnesses and need more care.
This is absolutely true. And your point is…?

4. You say: Because of the danger of a split between older and younger groups of uninsureds, I vote for continuing to pursue a public option if we can keep it on the table.
There is already a split between older and younger uninsureds, and you have the insurance companies to thank for that. Older people are charged much higher premiums for what insurance they can get, and are more likely not to be able to buy insurance at all, than younger people. Making Medicare accessible to people 55 to 64 may not be the optimal plan, but if a public option will not pass (and the conservative Democrats in the Senate are hell-bent on making sure it doesn’t), then this may be the best that can be done at the present time.

5. You say: If the folks who make the laws in this country wanted to be fair, they would let anyone who is ill and uninsured at this time, buy into a subsidized plan. Why? Because it is inhuman to deny health care to anyone.
Under the senate bill, as well as the House bill, anyone who is uninsured (whether they’re ill or not) will be eligible to buy insurance through the exchange, if the exchange makes it into the final bill. Even if there is no public option available through the exchange, a subsidy will be available to anyone in the exchange to buy private insurance if they’re not able to afford a policy without subsidy.

What I do not like about the senate plan is that everyone will be mandated to carry health insurance, and without a public option – but offering subsidies to those who can not afford a policy – our tax dollars will be used to subsidize the purchase of private, for-profit insurance policies, which would amount to shoveling taxpayer dollars into private corporations under penalty of law. That’s already being done with Medicare Advantage, and it’s a damn shame, but at least no one is mandated to have a Medicare Advantage policy.

I simply do not believe that it is even constitutional to force citizens to buy the product of any for-profit corporation, and if a mandate passes which mandates this, I predict lawsuits will start being filed the minute Obama signs the bill.

But what about kids? Lowering it it further than 55 brings up the otherwise unimportant issue of how you insure children under age 27 of people on Medicare.

Lowering the Medicare age to 55 (even at-cost) would also improve the unemployment problem. You have no idea how many people are eligible for retirement at age 55 (most gov’t workers especially) but can’t because they can’t afford insurance, even COBRA.

Ken Strickland, NBC News, in a dispatch updated 8:39 a.m. MT today (Dec . 7, 2009) provides the details widely reported this evening:

Majority Leader Harry Reid said he tasked the group “to work things out” on the public option and other issues. The moderates are: Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Mary Landrieu, D-La., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Tom Carper, D-Del., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

These 5 so-called “moderates” are those who, with Joe Lieberman, vote most often with Republicans on crucial issues, as I showed in my Seminal diary on Blue Dogs in the Senate. These are DINOs who voted with Republicans not just most of the time on critical issues, but at least 10 times out of 12.

We see here the alignment that might happen if the Republican party self-destructs and the Democratic Party splits. These conservative Democrats, besides being characterized as “moderates,” or DINOs, might be characterized as Lieberman Democrats– at least with respect to the dozen critical issues in my Seminal Diary.

Bob in AZ

If they include a lower Medicare age in the bill, I’ll support it. The public option in the bills is a joke, not implementable, a phrase with nothing behind it but a promise to loan money to someone to try to get a new insurance program established in 50 states. Medicare is in place and can compete effectively against iprivate insurance. As a headline remarked, “Medicare for some is the road to medicare for all.”

If they include a lower Medicare age in the bill, I’ll support it.

That’s my thought. Lower it by 10 years to start, and then lower it another 5-10 years in the next Congress.

“Medicare for some is the road to medicare for all.”

We already got that. What we need is Medicare for more.
Bob in AZ

Y’know. the more I watch these congress-critters scamper around their cage up there on The Hill, the more convinced I become they all suffer from an attention deficiency. As an example is a remark made today by Ben Nelson (D-Neb), who is opposed to the idea of a public option in health care. He states his willingness to go along with a compromise:

“The discussions are going in the right direction, in moving away from a government-run plan. To the extent that they continue to go in that direction is obviously very positive.”

The problem is the compromise he is willing to go along with:

“Under the compromise, the public option would be removed from the bill and replaced with a new government-administered national insurance plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which serves members of Congress and federal workers.”

Or, how about this:

“To sweeten the deal for liberals, people 55 and older would be able to “buy in” to Medicare and purchase coverage in the popular government program for the elderly.”

Mavbe it’s just because I’m an old country boy who doesn’t understand the sophisticated concepts like them city fellers keep talkin’ about, but doesn’t “government-administered” mean the same thing as “government-run?”
And, the last time I looked, Medicare was a “government-run” program also.

It’s enough to make a strong man weep.

You may be weeping, but you made me laugh. And you’re right.

I also agree with the comments of those who note that allowing those 55 and older to buy into Medicare is probably the best way to start a movement towards Medicare for All. It makes all kinds sense. The main caveat is that it needs to be made widely available–not just to people who do not have access to group plans at work.

It will be interesting to see if this idea gets any traction. I’ve contacted my senator (who happens to be–wait for it–Ben Nelson) to urge him to support the proposal. I haven’t had any success with him before; we’ll see if this proposal makes a difference.

Yes, that is exactly my point also.

As I live in Nevada, I sent a fax the Harry Reid
supporting the Medicare Option for those 55 and over,
as a compromise
between the Insurance Corporations and “no public option.”
PLEASE GET JANE HAMSHER ON THIS ASAP.