My biggest issue with this bill is it will take 4-5 years to kick. This worries me,

[ej510]

because the special interest will be weakening it over that period of time.

[Honeycombe8]

1. Me, too. But I can see that it would take a while to set up these new systems,

and get them going. All the personnel that will have to be assigned, the forms that will have to be drafted and finalized, procedures that will have to be set up and discussed in committees and decided on, all these forms and procedures distributed to care providers and millions of citizens, websites and phone numbers set up to handle questions, problems worked out, etc. It's a huge undertaking. Would it really take 4-5 years? I'm thinking it could be set up and ready to go in 2-3 years, but then I don't know the intracies of the care provider business.

[ej510]

2. The democrats better hold onto the majority, because the repukes

will fuck this bill up.

[avaistheone1]

3. Yup, 4 to 5 years to get "the system" going, 100,000 more Americans dead as a result of no health

insurance, millions more forced into medical bankruptcy. Cheer up, it works for the insurance companies they'll have raked in billions of dollars more by that time.

It could have been so simple. All the Democrats had to do was to open Medicare for everyone.

Instead we are getting this crap.

[Raineyb]

5. 4 to 5 years means it's not a priority. That kind of time line will give them a chance

to eviscerate it.

[Zoeisright]

6. Yep.

That's what people forget about - 20,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance, and their conditions become fatal with no treatment.

[dflprincess]

13. Oh, but Obama says single payer would be "starting from scratch"

go figure.

That statement along with his repeated insistence that we have to "keep the insurance companies honest" - apparently by forcing most of us to buy their shoddy products is really making me grind my teeth.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Who would pay for that? Do you have an estimate of the cost?

I don't see how we could afford to do that, esp. while we're in the middle of the worst recession in decades.

Pssst...you DO know Medicare is going bankrupt right now? YOu DO read the news, right?

[dflprincess]

18. Medicare is going bankrupt because it can't negotiate drug prices

another gift given to the those who make large campaign donations.

BTW - did Obama say anything about changing that tonight?

[Honeycombe8]

19. Yeah, that's a big part of it. Huge. Even so, it's going bankrupt. YOu didn't answer the Q.

How would we pay for it, esp. in the middle of the worst recession in decades? (After you get an estimate on the cost.)

See the problem?

We can't raise taxes to pay for it. That would really sink the economy and be a hardship for some people who are just getting by, as it is.

People want this and that (myself included), but the practical matter is...how to pay for it. If YOU had to pay for it, the cost would be uppermost in your mind.

Say you want a new car. You may even NEED a new car. One of the first things you think about is....how much will it cost, and can you afford it. That's because YOU are paying for it.

We'd all love Medicare for all. But how to pay for it is the problem.

[dflprincess]

20. Forgetting, of course, that if we had Medicare for all

we wouldn't be spending money on premiums and large out of pockets for the health insurance companies.

That's how we'd pay for it, take the money we're giving the crooks and put it in a pool that covers everyone. Besides, how are mandated premiums any different than a tax? Except we'd have a better shot at actually getting care if we were paying into a single payer rather than a for profit system.

[avaistheone1]

23. Here's how a Single Payer Medicare system can be funded.

Estimated Cost:
PNHP asserts that their plan would save enough administrative costs (more than $350 billion per year) to offset the cost of high-quality universal coverage.

Payment Scheme:
The plan would be funded by taxes and an increase in public health funding. Public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained.

The gap between current public funding and what would be needed for a universal care would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax on employers would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax on individuals would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.

http://www.reformplans.com/Plan-Briefs/Physicians-for-a-National-Health-Plan-PNHP.html


Look the solution can be quite simple, elegant and work too.

[dflprincess]

28. When I add up my share of the premium,

plus the copays and deductibles I have, a 2% income tax is a bargain. I don't hit the deductible every year, but the tax would be worth it just so I didn't have to worry about how to come up with the money if I did have a lot of out pocket expenses.

Based on my income, my employer would be paying less at 7% than it does for it's share of the premium.

[ej510]

21. He never said a thing about the pharmaceutical industry.

He never mentioned price caps. The public option isn't available to everyone.

[invictus]

29. +1

[SharonAnn]

4. Medicare was implemented in less than a year.

[ej510]

8. 4-5 years means the health care bill will be shit by the time it's ready.

[eridani]

24. If voluntary buy-in to Medicare is allowed, there is NO set-up time whatsoever. n/t

[JimWis]

7. I hear you. The time line bothers me too. But I did hear the

president say that as soon as he signs the bill, the pre-existing - no copays for preventive checkups - no caps - and all those insurance restrictions, will kick in right away. Also, and I would have to read his text again, he said something about getting some special help out to folks not covered, during the interim of the 4 years - it was something he said when he mentioned McCain. So I am hoping they realize that things need to happen yesterday.

[girl gone mad]

9. There's a reason Obama wants to phase in reforms after the 2012 election..

Not too hard to figure that one out.

[kath]

10. To repeat - MEDICARE WAS IMPLEMENTED IN 11 MONTHS.

[depakid]

11. The message is that this is too difficult to accomplish- so we'll toss out a few platitudes

and hope that we get re-elected- or maybe leave implementation to someone else. What a sham.

[dflprincess]

12. Amazing isn't it?

I also don't understand why he keeps referring to single payer as "starting from scratch" when all it would take would be expanding Medicare.

[kath]

15. I'll take "because he's bought and paid for".

[dflprincess]

17. Please phrase your answer in the form of a question.

Unfortunately, we're the ones in jeopardy.

[ej510]

22. True.

[treestar]

26. But in what year?

The population is much larger now. Everything is computerized and thus takes 10 times as long to organize.

[TheKentuckian]

14. It is mostly a budget move. Starting faster puts it on the books and it jacks up the accounting.(nt)

[NecklyTyler]

25. That gives us 4-5 years to bring in Single Payer. n/t

[flaminbats]

27. me too!!

if Congress implemented these changes within a year or two, Democrats would be re-elected overwhelmingly. But if nothing kicks in or happens until 2013..Obama and the Democratic Congress will be blamed for even more premium increases, denying coverage, and higher medical prices.

If Republicans take over in 2010 or 2012, guess who will get the credit!!! Democrats don't need to delay when the legislation kicks in, because these changes are needed to keep the economy from crashing by then.

[TheKentuckian]

30. The budget window is 10 years. All the plans seek to collect revenue

for 10 but provide service for 7.

Yes, it is gimmicky but you add 300-400 billion to the price tag otherwise and you can't keep the blue dogs in any kind of check due to sticker shock.