Zeke Emanuel is a health care advisor to Obama. Wants to phase out Medicare and Medicaid.

[madfloridian]

In an article in The New Yorker Ezekiel said that Rahm is now his boss; he works at the White House as an adviser to the budget director on health policy.

In a post at Fire Dog Lake today it is suggested that Zeke Emanuel might even be in line for the Health Czar post.

And who is auditioning for that White House office? Why, it's Rahm Emanuel's big bro:

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, big brother to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is quickly emerging as a key player in Obama’s health-care overhaul, the biggest push to expand coverage in two decades.

Known as Zeke, Emanuel has labored behind the scenes on the issue for years, well-known to people who follow it closely. But he has significantly raised his political profile by signing on as a top adviser to White House budget chief Peter Orszag. And there he was Thursday, a fidgety presence at the back of the briefing room, nodding in approval as Orszag detailed the budget, and trading conversation with aides around him.

I am concerned very much about something he espouses as a health care plan. He proposes vouchers. He thinks as people get guaranteed health care, that no new people are added to Medicare and Medicaid.

Here is a summary of what I think he believes, and I do not like the idea. He wants to phase out the public choices of Medicare and Medicaid and phase the programs out.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Sustainable Health Care

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan proposes to repair the health care system by giving all Americans a voucher to select a standard benefits package offered by insurance company. In most areas, American will be able to choose between 5 and 8 insurance companies. And the insurance companies will be required to enroll anyone who wants and cannot exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. The standard benefit package is based on what Congressman and Senators receive, and is more generous than what most Americans currently have through their employers or government program. Americans will also decide if they wanted to buy additional services, say wider selection of doctors and hospitals, more mental health benefits, or coverage for alternative medicines.

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan will be administered by a National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System with fiscal, administrative, and political independence to make tough decisions based on the merits, not special interest lobbying. There will also be an Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to assess the effectiveness of new drugs, devices, procedures, and other interventions. It will also assess and make publicly available data on the clinical outcomes of patients in different insurance companies. This will permit comparative shopping based on real quality results.

No one (I think he means to say "anyone") receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program will not be forced out, but there will be no new enrollees. People who turn 65 will simply stay in the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. The special tax benefits related to employer based coverage will be eliminated and most employers will stop offering health insurance.

No new enrollees under his plan.

I realize Governor Dean is out of the health care picture now, but I remember the words he said on Hardball the other day. Think Progress kept a record.

Wonk Room

Video link plus this statement:

Howard Dean: Real Health Reform ‘Rises And Falls On Whether The Public Is Allowed To Choose Medicare’

Today, during an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) said that a public insurance option is essential to any health reform effort:

"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again."

I know that one of the options in the Obama/Baucus plan is choice.

• Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. People will be allowed to keep their own doctor and their employer-based health plan.

It does not indicate a public option. I can't tell if that has been changed in the plan.

I will be curious to see if any of the vouchers and phasing out of Medicare and Medicaid come into the bill. I certainly hope not.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I for one am certain that Obama won't be satisfied with his betrayal...

unless every last American is dead.

[cliffordu]

83. That's exactly fucking right.

:rofl:

[leftstreet]

2. Dean: "we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years"

"before somebody tries it again"

:cry:

I am sooooooo tired of fighting the amply insured Ruling Class for single payer healthcare.

[madfloridian]

3. What worries me...

I know that with Obama as president there will be a watchful eye on the private health care programs....but think ahead to another "drown government in a bathtub" Republican. There will be no oversight.

And there would be no Medicare.

We need the public option.

[leftstreet]

6. Now there's a thought!

No one considers that.

[iamjoy]

98. Did They Actually Mean Like the Federal Reserve?

In light of the current financial mess, does anyone really think we should trust a politically driven government agency to provide adequate regulation and oversight for private businesses? In twenty years, would we be spending trillions to "bail out" insurance companies like we are now throwing money at banks?

I can imagine insurance companies bundling policies and reselling them until no one knows what they really hold.

[jwirr]

105. That is a consideration. This approach will also allow us to pass it

damn thing as the insurance companies will be all for it. However, as an elderly person who is trying to figure out what part D program is best for me, this idea really puts me in a depression. The biggest thing I want is to be able to walk down the aisle of the store and be able to easily know which product is the best. I do not want another cereal aisle.

[demodonkey]

75. If I have to live through 20 more years of goddam bake sales for kids with cancer...

...bankruptcies left and right because of goddam "medical debt"...

Fuck them all.

Of course I have no healthcare at all so I might not live 20 more years.

[truedelphi]

91. Know exactly how you feel. n/t

[defendandprotect]

4. Like overturning most of the New Deal . . . Reugs can't do it alone ....!!!

[angrycarpenter]

5. I don't like it.

It leaves private insurance companies standing between us and health care. It leaves a cold profit motive in the mix that is half the existing problem. As long as the insurance companies are allowed to dictate terms in any way they will find a way to make it fail.

[jwirr]

106. Oh, they will not make it fail as long as they are profiting at the tit of

government - we will have our own health industrial complex. And it will be too expensive to maintain.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Some Tavis Smiley action, hey?

All, based on this "In a post at Fire Dog Lake today it is suggested that Zeke Emanuel might even be in line for the Health Czar post."???

Wow. :wow:

Why don't I just yell fire, madfloridian?.....cause that's all you are doing.
Guess this is due to tonight's emerging news on Obama Choice of Sebelius, I presume.

[madfloridian]

13. Sebelius is a good choice, I think.

Even if Zeke is not in line for czar...he is working as an advisor and has Obama's ear.

Why don't you allow the rest of us room to breathe right now? I love Obama, and I think he is doing a great job.

But I do not care for the ones with whom he has surrounded himself.

Rahm's brother wants to phase out Medicare. I find it alarming, and I used his own words.

I don't mind that you support Obama completely, so do I. But I don't like the ones around him. Only the DLC Dems are getting his ear, and it worries me.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Well Obama is his own man.....and any influence that anyone has

is countered by others who have different views.

[silverojo]

25. Re-read what you wrote:

I love Obama, and I think he is doing a great job.

But I do not care for the ones with whom he has surrounded himself.

A man can be judged by the company he keeps.

I fear that Obama is going to continue Clinton's decimation of the New Deal. Younger boomers and Generation X are screwed.

I know McCain wouldn't be any better, but I wish to hell that John Edwards had kept his eye on the ball, his @#$% in his pants, and become President.

[madfloridian]

28. That is why I am on guard.

Because of that company.

[bertman]

66. Madflo, your post #13 about covers it for me. Thanks for summing up.

[Demeter]

94. I'd Rather Have a False Alarm than a Coup D'Etat

We have to yell and yell and yell and throw out the jerks until we get what we need.

If health care was designated only for men, it would be a Cadillac program.

Because women and children are the largest users, it's a broken down beater. There isn't anything more sexist, agist, and just plain un-American than that.

[WCGreen]

8. Insurance companies have to be out of the picture...

A go between stands in the middle of the provider and the patient. That is the problem, not the solution.

[SoCalDem]

11. Employers must be out too.. as long as "some" people

have access to "special benefits" there cannot be a universal plan..

No insurance companies and no employer-plans..


Until EVERYONE has the same coverage and access, it won't work..

[FrenchieCat]

9. This is what the good doctor Dean said on Hardball....

So, what do you think about this? I mean, the Democrats have been promising health care for this country since Harry Truman...

DEAN: Sixty-some years ago.

MATTHEWS: ... and have failed relentlessly.

Ted Kennedy, according to this new book about him, which is pretty favorable, by "The Boston Globe" said that he regrets that he didn`t cut a deal with Nixon back in `71, when Nixon declared for a total national health care program, which included mandated benefits requiring employers to provide health care for all their employees. That was an opportunity.

OK. I`m just asking you to set that up. You don`t have to revisit that.

DEAN: All right.

MATTHEWS: Is the answer here not to go left and move to the center, but to put together a real coalition with the pharma people, with people like the Chamber people, who are business people, who do know they need health care funding to help reduce their costs, and go at it a new way, try some new way to go after this thing?

DEAN: Barack Obama`s health care bill actually does that. It`s a very, very good bill.

And the reason it`s a good bill is...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: He has a bill?

DEAN: Yes, he has a bill. He talked about it in the campaign. I have not actually seen a written bill, but I know he has got a plan and he had it in the campaign.

I have been doing this since `78 or something, when I was a medical student, chasing around Ted Kennedy and Jacob Javits. This is the best one I have seen. And the reason is, the change comes at the pace the American people are comfortable with it.

The bottom line, to make a very complicated subject simple, is, if you have no insurance or you work for a small business, you get to choose, just like the Congress people do, from maybe 15 insurance companies. One of those insurance companies is essentially Medicare. It`s a public entity.

If Americans can do that, they will change the health care system at the pace they`re comfortable changing it. And that -- if that bill passes, he has succeeded in restructuring health care.

MATTHEWS: Won`t everybody choose Medicare?

DEAN: Not everybody will choose Medicare. But a lot of people will, which is why the health insurance industry..

MATTHEWS: People love Medicare.

DEAN: People love Medicare. It works.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DEAN: And it`s -- a lot of people will choose it. It is the solution for the car companies, for example, to get the retiree health care costs for -- 55 -- if you retire at 55, which many autoworkers do, they have 10 years with no government benefits of any kind.

The companies pick that up. It`s one of the reasons they`re in trouble financially. You could do a lot for small business and American business by enacting Barack Obama`s plan for universal health care. And the American people will be completely comfortable with it, because there`s -- all we are doing is rearranging the options that people already have. We`re not introducing any new options.

There`s nothing they have to understand that`s different or complicated or "Harry and Louise"-like...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, look, this country has got 40 million, 50 million people out there that don`t have health insurance.

DEAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: They have got to go the emergency rooms.

If Barack Obama is successful, will he be able to fix that problem, so they don`t have to go to emergency rooms anymore?

DEAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: They will have a doctor?

DEAN: You will have a doctor, because, if you`re on Medicare, if you choose that option, you will have a doctor. And you don`t have to choose that option. The...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. We haven`t been able to do this in good times.

DEAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: We haven`t been able to do this, Republican, Democrats. It`s just not gotten solved. Why do you think we can solve it during the worst economic crisis we have had since the `30s?

DEAN: Because it is the worst economic crisis we have had since the `30s.

People finally get this. The business community has been really in trouble for years over this particular issue.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DEAN: And, finally, they can`t afford it anymore.

Because we`re in terrible economic times, the large number -- a large number of middle-class people are either losing the health insurance or know somebody who is.

MATTHEWS: OK.

DEAN: Small businesses get bailed out by this.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Give me hope.

You have got Mitt Romney up in Massachusetts. He wasn`t much of a politician, but he did get through some health care plan. Schwarzenegger had some problems in California, another Republican who has got a health care plan.

Can you put together their modicum of success and progress with the fact that businesspeople, like the Chamber, Tom Donohue, people like that, I assume are for health care, and pharma people, people like that, the insurance companies, the health companies, the pharmaceutical companies, can you put it together politically, so it`s actually going to happen, for once?

DEAN: You can`t put it together without making some enemies.

In this case, the enemies will be health insurance companies, because when you can choose Medicare, they don`t like that.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DEAN: But the truth of the matter is, you want to maximize the American people`s choice.

MATTHEWS: Can they beat you?

DEAN: We are going to find out.

Bipartisanship sometimes means putting together new coalitions. We would like the Republicans to support Barack Obama`s bill.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DEAN: If Barack Obama`s bill gets changed to exclude the public entity, it is not health insurance reform.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DEAN: And, if it -- if it -- but if it stays the way he talked about in their campaign, it is major health insurance reform.

And the goal of Harry Truman from 60 years ago, the goal of the business community, the goal of doctors -- even the pharmaceutical companies will be on board for this -- this bill that Barack, his folks have put together.

But the -- it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they`re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform.

MATTHEWS: Right.

DEAN: If they`re not, we will be back fighting it -- about it for another 20 years ago, before somebody tries again.

MATTHEWS: Who`s point person inside right now in the administration? Who`s health care...

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: That`s not clear to me. I don`t know the answer to that, although there`s an awful lot of talk that it`s the director of the OMB, who happens to know a great deal about health...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Orszag?

DEAN: Yes, Peter Orszag.

MATTHEWS: Yes, he`s a smart guy.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:931481208&start=6

[inna]

12. and... what is your point, FrenchieCat?

[FrenchieCat]

14. My point is that somehow we are supposed to fear that

Rahm Emmanuel's brother is gonna come and take away Medicare....
which is a bunch of shit.

Madfloridian might not like who was chosen for HHS, and I understand that,
but attempting to bring on some unfounded fear about Medicare with this OP is desingenious.....
She writes as though President Barack Obama has no mind of his own, and will do
what that sinister Rahm Emmanuel and his sinister brother will decide.


My point is that Dr. Dean believes that Barack Obama will do what is needed in terms of
health Care reform, and part of that will not be taking away the public option,
considering that part of what Obama has always stated on the stomp is public options
will be available.

[madfloridian]

16. Stop misquoting me, Frenchie. I used Zeke's own words.

He SAID he wanted to no longer enroll people in Medicare and Medicaid, the public entities.

He is a close advisor to Obama, and brother to the CoS..

I make good points.

[madfloridian]

17. You need to be more objective right now.

We have to fight for healthcare not dominated by the health care companies.

It may not be pretty, but we have to be aware.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I am well aware of what needs to be done.....

and speculating on what" someone suggested might" ain't getting it for me.

I remember too well those who insisted that Obama was a right wing wolf in Dems Clothing.

I'm tired of the speculating.

I've read what Obama has had to say about our Health Care, and I read about the story of his mother dying at age 53 of cancer, and fighting insurance companies for coverage.....and so I'm not sure why Rahm's brother is suddently in control...in your mind.

Health care is a right: something’s fundamentally wrong now
Q: Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?

OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills--for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Health tax credit is bad idea; it will cost taxpayers more
OBAMA: I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage. McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn’t tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits. So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here’s the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you’re getting from your employer, and if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you’ve got to go out on the open market and try to buy it. It is not a good deal for the American people.
Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

$15B subsidies to private insurers was a lobbyist giveaway
We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. It doesn’t work any better through this private insurers; they just skim off $15 billion. That was a giveaway, and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works. They did it on the prescription drug bill. They’ve done it with respect to Medicare.
Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

McCain also misrepresented Obama’s plan when he said that his opponent favored “handing the health care system over to the federal government.” McCain made a similar claim in his acceptance speech, when he said that Obama’s plans would “force families into a government run health care system.” We called it false then and we stand by that. Obama’s plan mandates coverage for children, but not for adults, and it does not require anyone to be covered by a nationalized system.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 first Presidential debate Sep 26, 2008

Give more help to those denied a life of dignity & respect
When any human being is denied a life of dignity and respect, no matter whether they live in Anacostia or Appalachia or a village in Africa; when people are trapped in extreme poverty we know how to curb or suffering from diseases we know how to prevent; when they’re going without the medicines that they so desperately need--we have more work to do.
Source: McCain-Obama speeches at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 2008

Guaranteed health care for anyone who needs it
I’ll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We’ll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we’re not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we’re going to do it by the end of my first term as President.
Source: McCain-Obama speeches at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 2008

End-of-life self-medication ok; euthanasia by others not ok
Q: In “The Audacity of Hope,” you write very movingly about your mother’s fight with cancer, and the pain she was in, especially at the end. In that situation, if someone wanted to take active steps to end his or her own life, do you think that would be OK morally?
A: I believe in everybody having a living will so that their views on these issues can be factored in by family members. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to empower doctors themselves to make that decision. But I think that it is important for us to be able to allow people who are terminally ill, in excruciating pain, to get the medicine they need to relieve that pain.

Q: By “relieve that pain” you mean hasten the end of life if they choose to?

A: I think that there has to be very strict guidelines to ensure that somebody who is making a decision to relieve their pain . That is distinguished from euthanasia in which someone else is making the decision for them.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

The problem with health care is about affordability
The problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can’t afford it. My plan emphasizes lowering costs, not only setting up a government plan so that people who don’t have health insurance can buy into it and will get subsidized, but also making sure that those who have health insurance but are struggling with rising co-payments, deductibles, premiums. Under Bush, families are paying 78% more on health care than they were previously. We put in a catastrophic re-insurance plan that will help reduce those premiums for families by an average of about $2,500 per year. Every expert that’s looked at this has said there is not a single person out there who’s going to want health care who will not get it under my plan. My plan also says children will be able to stay on the parents’ plan up until the age of 25. Both Edwards and Hillary have a hardship exemption, where, if people can’t afford to buy health care, you exempt them, so that you don’t count them.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Subsidies to people who can’t afford care--not single payer
If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Bring GOP & Dems together to make healthcare affordable
Text on screen: “Obama offers universal health care plan.” Obama speaking:
“I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable to every single American by bringing Democrats and Republicans together. I’ll be a president who ends the tax break for companies that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans. And I’ll be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home. We are one nation and our time for change has come.”
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch on 2008 TV ad in Nevada, “President” Jan 17, 2008

Reforms in prevention and drug price negotiation save money
I emphasize how important prevention & cost savings can be in the Medicare system. Many of the reforms in my healthcare plan will reduce costs not just for the overall system, but also for Medicare. We’re not going to make some of these changes unless we change how business is done in Washington. The reason we can’t negotiate prescription drugs under the Medicare prescription drug plan is because the drug companies specifically sought and obtained a provision in the Bill that prevented us from doing it.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007

Tackle insurance companies on reimbursement system
We need to deal with the insurance companies. On Medicare and Medicaid, the reimbursement system is not working the way it should. Instituting a universal health-care system that emphasizes prevention will free up dollars that potentially then can go to reimbursing doctors a little bit more.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Help young people deal with the cost of medical education
We’ve got to deal with the cost of medical education. We have to deal with college costs generally, and that’s why I put forward proposals to get banks and middle men out of the process and expand national service to encourage young people to go into these helping professions where we need a lot more work.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Morally wrong that terminally ill must consider money
Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007

FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007


Reform failed in ‘90s because of drug company lobbying
are going to have a plan . I’ve got a plan. But we’ve had plan before, under a Democratic president in the ‘90s and a Democratic Congress. We couldn’t get it done because the drug and insurance companies are spending $1 billion over the last decade on lobbying. And that’s why we’ve got to have a president who is willing to fight to make sure that they don’t have veto power.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Take on insurance companies; drive down health care costs
My emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage, and the drug companies have to do what’s right by their patients instead of simply hoarding their profits. We’ve got very conservative, credible estimates that say we can save families that do have health insurance about a thousand dollars a year, and we provide coverage for everybody else. We provide mandatory health care for children
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting
Q: Currently there are major disparities in both access to insurance and health care for racial and minorities. How will your plan address this issue?
A: One of the biggest reasons that there are disparities is that African-Americans & Latino Americans are much more likely not to have health insurance. And so if we set up a system in which everybody’s got health insurance, some of those disparities are immediately going to be reduced. Folks who are working but don’t have health care benefits- those groups are disproportionately minority. would be the first step. There are some particular issues within the minority community that I think we can address in a targeted way. Lead paint may seem like an ancillary issue except for the fact that incidence of lead poisoning among African-American & Latino youths is sky high. It has huge ramifications in terms of their long-term health. Obesity and diabetes in minority communities is more severe.
Source: SEIU Democratic Health Care Forum in Las Vegas Mar 24, 2007

Health care tied to balancing costs and taxes nation wide
We know that as progressives we believe in affordable health care for all Americans, and that we’re going to make sure that Americans don’t have to choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families, the party that won’t just throw a few tax breaks at families who can’t afford their insurance, but will modernize our health care system and give every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference Jun 14, 2006

Allowing seniors to bulk purchase will save taxpayers’ money
Q: What do you think is wrong with the new federal prescription benefits for seniors?
A: It was fundamentally flawed as a piece of legislation. The central premise of this prescription drug bill that was passed by Bush was that the federal government, through the Medicare program, and senior citizens could not negotiate for the best possible price with the drug companies, so that they could actually get the kinds of discounts the Canadians enjoy for the drugs that are manufactured here in the US. That was done because the drug companies didn’t let it happen. What we have is a bill that’s bad for taxpayers and bad for senior citizens. Taxpayers are hit with a half-a-trillion-dollar tab that was originally estimated at three hundred billion. And about 3 weeks later, seniors have a big donut hole in the middle of their benefits. What I would do is I would say that senior citizens, through the Medicare program they can go and negotiate the best possible price as a consequence of being bulk purchasers.
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#Universal_Coverage

[inna]

87. very cool, thanks for the quotes! :) nt

[Mithreal]

97. FC, you made some very good points and I think you overzealously

mischaracterize MF's op.

Is it unimportant to know what advisors opinions are? Posting their quotes does not scare me, so I don't call it fearmongering. Speculation is not a sin either. It is not the Obama Presidency at stake here, we are talking about saving family members' lives, homes and jobs when we push for single payer healthcare.

I really like that you posted more of the Hardball interview and Obama Q&A, it adds much to the conversation.

I USUALLY K or R both MadFloridian and FrenchieCat posts, so sue me for being a fan of criticism and wild praise ops.

Thank you both.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. He either believes that or is attempting to paint Obama into a corner. n/t

I suspect that it's the latter.

[madrchsod]

10. the united states health care system is going to collapse.

the weight of tens of millions who have no way to pay for health care is going to collapse the system. the collapse will make the banking problems trivial compared to the amount of people who will be dieing because of the lack of health care. by this time next year there will be hell to pay for not insuring one of our basic rights as a citizen.

[girl gone mad]

35. I think it could.

I'm self-employed and I refuse to buy private health insurance. I think it's a scam. I pay for everything out of pocket and I've gotten pretty good at negotiating. Of course, if something catastrophic happens, I'm screwed, but too many people I know with "full coverage" insurance have ended up in the same position: with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills the insurance cos refuse to pay.

Something has to give.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Evidence Is For Losers

So what if *every* other industrialized country has far cheaper health care, and every other industrialized country also has better medical outcomes?

We Americans simply can't afford less-costly health care that works better - what kind of raw deal would that be? Fortunately, the DLC is here to save us from that fate.

[bottomtheweaver]

20. We'd rather die young than give up our freedom to choose an HMO.

Or so we're told.

[inna]

47. +1 to MannyG, great post. nt

[bottomtheweaver]

19. He's "a top adviser to White House budget chief Peter Orszag"?

Huge red flag right there. Orzag is an "entitlement" privatizer from the late Clinton years. This is very alarming.

[madfloridian]

21. I did not know that.

Don't like the sound of it.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Do you ever ask for evidence as to what people tell you?

Poster who has just "informed you" of what you didn't not know and don't like the sound of has also been accusing Barack Obama of planning to convert Social Security into Universal Savings Plan....and then the evidence presented is some 1999 information tied to Clintons.

Shit, I should start selling bridges around here, cause it appears that there will be buyers lined up from here to eternity! :eyes:

[madfloridian]

27. Obama did say something about that.

"Now, to preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

I agree that Medicare needs to be strengthened. I don't see why he must discuss universal savings accounts as we talk about Social Security.

I don't see how the two have anything to do with each other.

And I would like for you to quit talking down to me. It is not worthy of you and your excellent posts.

I do my research.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Because tax saving accounts would involve The government.....

just like Social Security and Medicare.

Poster however implied that Pres. Obama would convert Social Security to Universal Savings Accounts...and that's a lie with no evidence.

I'm not talking down to you....I'm just not buying what you are selling.

[madfloridian]

34. The USAs would eat into Social Security even as add ons.

They make no sense at all. We already have similar programs. Tweak Soc. Sec. by raising what some pay into it...and let it be.

[bottomtheweaver]

57. Yes.

And lack of any real necessity for USAs is disguised by introducing them as a kind of Social Security "reform."

[FrenchieCat]

68. You are paranoid.......

and I can, to some degree, understand why......
But you are simply yelling FIRE in a room,
and hoping that folks panic.

I'm bookmarking this thread,
so we can revisit it later.

It is obvious that to you, President Obama doesn't have our best interest at heart.

I'm noting that fact, bottomtheweaver.

[bottomtheweaver]

29. "Saving Social Security: The Diamond-Orszag Plan"

This is the 2005 Brookings paper that's been getting some attention recently, which starts right off with a big fat lie:

"Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones? The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions."

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf

No mention of the fact that the SSA trust funds have been growing like kudzu thanks to Ronnie's fix in the 1980s. Just the same propaganda Bushler was catapulting at the time. Anyway, in 1999, Orszag was also one of the private-sector geniuses behind Clinton's "universal savings account" plan, which thankfully went nowhere, that was supposedly going to transfer part of the budget surplus to the SSA to be used for individual retirement savings accounts invested in you guessed it, the stock market.

More here:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/12/obama-social-security-and-the-diamond-orszag-plan/

[madfloridian]

30. I am getting a post ready about Soc. Sec. manipulation and the spin they use.

Thanks for the links.

They do NOT need to reduce benefits.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Did you read the pdf that you linked to......?

as it reads......

Our plan makes the painful choices that are necessary—selecting a combination of benefit and revenue changes to restore long-term balance.

To offset the cost from further increases in life expectancy, we propose a balanced combination of benefit reductions and tax increases.

this cost would be offset by a reduction in benefits, which would apply to all workers age 59 and younger.

Our plan gradually raises the taxable maximum, so that the percentage of aggregate earnings above it returns about halfway to its 1983 level—that is, to 13 percent—by 2063. (This raises the payroll tax for roughly six percent of workers each year, those with the highest earnings, and raises the marginal tax rate for even fewer workers.)

Furthermore, people with higher earnings and more education are increasingly tending to live longer than less-educated, lower-earning workers. This hurts Social Security finances and reduces progressiveness on a lifetime basis, since the highest earners receive payments over an increasingly longer period compared to everyone else. To offset this trend, our plan would gradually reduce the highest tier of the benefit formula, affecting the 15 percent of workers with the highest lifetime earnings.

These two changes would reduce the seventy-five-year actuarial deficit by 0.43 percent of taxable payroll.

Our Plan Properly Does Not Include Individual Accounts, Which Are Problematic as a Substitute for Traditional Benefits

Our plan shows that Social Security can be saved without dramatically changing its form. Many recent reform plans have instead replaced part of Social Security with individual accounts. That would be a grave mistake.

Individual accounts, such as 401(k)s and Keoghs, already provide an extremely useful supplement to Social Security, and can be improved and expanded (as will be discussed in a future column). In our view, however, individual accounts are not a desirable substitute for traditional Social Security which provides the core layer of financial security during a particular time of need.

Perhaps that is why Dr. Dean said that Orzak was good and smart!

[madfloridian]

42. I just posted that.

We need to get Obama to stop using the words now...Universal Savings accounts.

They are a distraction.

[FrenchieCat]

45. The health Summit is next week.....

and I'm not the one with a problem in how he uses the Words Universal Savings Accounts.

He explained what he meant, and I was listening.

$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. "The best way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the future," said Obama. "My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put money in a retirement plan, whether it's an IRA or an employer based 401(k), and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions up to $2,000."
Today, only about half of workers participate in an employer-based pension plan. Participation rates in other savings plans are substantially lower. Only about five percent of people contribute the maximum amount allowed each year to an IRA or 401(k).
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_social_security.htm

[madfloridian]

49. Why not just shore up Social Security instead of bringing in personal accounts.

That is just what Bush proposed under another name, basically.

The money the government puts elsewhere could destroy Social Security.

USAs do nothing to SAVE Soc. Security...it does not need saving just a little funding tweaking. NOT giving the government's money to private companies.

[FrenchieCat]

59. That is so not true!

If money is taken out of your check every month for social Security, and in addition, you opt to have a small amount of money put into a tax free savings account that buy government bonds, and therefore generates interest....how does the savings account destroy Social Security? :shrug:

The savings account would be optional.....for employees who are not offered 401Ks through their jobs.....but those funds would not be put into the stock market.

And part of what Obama proposed in the past (and I'm certain will part of the what is used to strenghten social security) is raising the cap on SS.

What are you talking about?

[bottomtheweaver]

62. The Diamond-Orszag plan and USAs are two different things.

The USAs introduced by Clinton were intended to allow stock market investment:

"We look forward to working with Congress and experts from the private sector to devise the best way to administer the accounts, as well as to explore whether it would be possible to provide account holders with the option of investing directly with private sector fund managers."

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/proposals/usa_accounts.html

[FrenchieCat]

65. But no one is talking about Clinton's USAs plan BUT you!

That's why I have a bridge to sell to folks who are following this debate.
Because you are attempting to confuse various offerings and then
making folks feel afraid.

And you have been at this for a few days now.

And The only thing you ever refer to is this USAs 1999 Clinton document.

What's your agenda?

[bottomtheweaver]

69. And the President, as of Tuesday.

"And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

We all heard the speech.

[FrenchieCat]

72. And what else did he say,

about tax-free universal savings accounts in his speech?

[mmonk]

120. Yes, a big red flag waving.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Please provide your source for this.

Thank you.

[bottomtheweaver]

32. Read all about it:

Saving Social Security: The Diamond-Orszag Plan
Peter A. Diamond Peter R. Orszag†
Summary
Social Security is one of America’s most successful government programs. It has helped
millions of Americans avoid poverty in old age. To be sure, the program faces a long-term
deficit and is in need of updating. But Social Security’s long-term financial health can
be restored: the projected deficit is small enough that it can be eliminated through a
progressive reform that combines modest benefit reductions and revenue increases.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf

[madfloridian]

37. I see something very good at the link from Brookings about USAs.

This made me feel better. Now if Obama would just quit talking about them. It pleases me they are against it.

"Our Plan Properly Does Not Include Individual Accounts, Which Are
Problematic as a Substitute for Traditional Benefits

Our plan shows that Social Security can be saved without dramatically
changing its form. Many recent reform plans have instead replaced part of Social
Security with individual accounts. That would be a grave mistake.
Individual accounts, such as 401(k)s and Keoghs, already provide an
extremely useful supplement to Social Security, and can be improved and
expanded (as will be discussed in a future column). In our view, however,
individual accounts are not a desirable substitute for traditional Social Security
which provides the core layer of financial security during a particular time of
need.

This is especially true given the trend in private pensions of moving from
defined benefit plans to 401(k)s; that trend increases the correlation between the
risks already being borne by workers and the risks that would be borne if
individual accounts were to be created.

Moreover, even apart from considerations of risk, individual accounts
would create a massive cash-flow problem for Social Security. To understand
this, consider a system in which individual accounts are combined with a
reduction in traditional benefits in such a way that the expected present value of
traditional Social Security finances over the accountholder’s lifetime is
unaffected, as is roughly the case with the President’s proposal"

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf

[madfloridian]

44. Oops...spoke too soon.

They were speaking of "within" Social Security.

They are also talking about add ons.

"The bottom line is that individual accounts that are above and beyond
Social Security can be substantially improved. But such accounts are simply
inappropriate within Social Security itself.

Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of millions of Americans
and in the federal budget, and reform will inevitably involve perceived pain for
some voters. Reform should be particularly sensitive to the needs of the one-third
of elderly beneficiaries who receive at least 90 percent of their income from
Social Security. Our plan demonstrates that Social Security can be mended in a
safe, realistic way, while protecting the most vulnerable beneficiaries. Other
plans, in contrast, often simply assume the availability of funds from the rest of
the budget that are not likely to be there, leaving future benefits at grave risk."

I don't like the tone of the last part.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Amazing!

This is a 2005 plan written by two people, one who is Orzak....

and somehow the "tone" of the last paragraph...of which I'm not sure what part you are talking about, you don't like.

Could you isolate the text for which you don't like the "tone" from this old plan, and break it down for me, cause I don't get it. :shrug:

[bottomtheweaver]

53. My take on this is just below..

Hope it helps.

[FrenchieCat]

56. It doesn't.....

beyond proving that you operate in a world of paranoia!

I understand why that might be, but I believe that you are seeing things
that aren't there, to be nefarious.

One day sooner than later, you will have more trust that Barack Obama is not going to privatize social security, cut Medicare, or attempt to force folks to put their retirement money into the stock market.

Till then, speculate all you want. You will be proven wrong.
Just like those who insisted that Barack Obama was not a progressive,
and that John Edwards was the only one that could get anything done,
simply because he railed against the Corporations.

Good luck to you...and I'll be glad when the plan is proposed,
and it proves to be better than even anything that you could have imagined,
short of Single Payer Health Care.

[madfloridian]

58. This whole paragraph disturbs me.

"Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of millions of Americans
and in the federal budget, and reform will inevitably involve perceived pain for
some voters. Reform should be particularly sensitive to the needs of the one-third
of elderly beneficiaries who receive at least 90 percent of their income from
Social Security. Our plan demonstrates that Social Security can be mended in a
safe, realistic way, while protecting the most vulnerable beneficiaries. Other
plans, in contrast, often simply assume the availability of funds from the rest of
the budget that are not likely to be there, leaving future benefits at grave risk."

They don't need to change it. That's BS

[FrenchieCat]

63. They are simply talking about Shoring it up......

that's the reform they are talking about.

You can tell that is what they are talking about
by simply reading the 9 page document.
In 2005, the talk was of Social Security Reform.....
which is why they framed it that way....
but in reality, as they explained in the text,
they are simply strengthening social security.

[madfloridian]

81. You don't "shore up" a valuable program by starting new private investments.

Sorry about that.

[bottomtheweaver]

52. LOL, you beat me to it! (n/t)

[bottomtheweaver]

50. That's encouraging, but there's this caveat at the end:

"The bottom line is that individual accounts that are above and beyond
Social Security can be substantially improved. But such accounts are simply inappropriate within Social Security itself."

This suggests that they have no objections to establishing a parallel system of payroll deductions used for privatized pension schemes, two of which are mentioned in the Obama-Biden campaign literature: "Create Automatic Workplace Pensions: The Obama-Biden retirement security plan will automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan. Under their plan, employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out if they choose."

And: "Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families": "The savings match will be automatically deposited into designated personal accounts."

The problem here is that once you have privatized investment plans running parallel to SSA, and administered in an identical way, inevitably SSA deductions will become a "choice," which is what they've been clamoring for all along.

Anyway I'm still looking for the reference I found a couple of nights ago to Orszag's participation in Clinton's USA scheme.

[FrenchieCat]

54. So let me see if I understand this....

You are against any saving plans established by the government outside of Social Security? And any suggestion for such, in your mind, is suspect because....???

Do I have this right?

[bottomtheweaver]

55. Privatized savings plan. But the real problem is, these aren't really "savings plans"

anyway. They're retirement plans, and as such, compete directly with the SSA -- which, incidentally, is far more efficient and profitable than any private retirement scheme I'm aware of.

[FrenchieCat]

61. You are just talking out of your ass.

They are savings accounts that would supplement SSA for those who don't have the good fortune of being offered 401K investment options.

The whole point is to start getting this country to save, cause part of the financial problems we have currently is that everyone is living on credit. That is what the Tax Free Savings accounts encourage; savings.

[bottomtheweaver]

64. They are very clearly retirement plans, and we already have an excellent one.

It's called Social Security.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Well see, I'm an accountant.....

and I'm telling you that you might want to confuse folks,
and it may be working, but not while I'm manning these boards.

The savings plans are not retirement plana.
They are a plan to help folks save who are not participating in a 401K plan,
and who do not historically save. and there are a whole lot of folks like that.
It also encourages this nation to save, as most of the population has been buying on credit,
and not saving a goddamn dime......

[bottomtheweaver]

70. I hope your accounting is more accurate than your politics.

A USA is very clearly a retirement plan:

"Withdrawal Rules. No amount could be withdrawn from a USA before
age 65, unless the account holder dies. Once withdrawals commence
after age 64, no additional contributions could be made to the account."

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/proposals/usa_accounts.html

Does that sound like a savings plan to you?

[FrenchieCat]

71. Your definition of a USA is from 1993!

and does not preclude that this is the only way that it would work.

Again, as I stated in your other threads you started on this topic,
you are pulling this out of your ass.

[bottomtheweaver]

92. 1999, and Orszag was behind that scheme too.

Go to page 77 of this book and look at note 47:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jaij7iiA4MQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

There are probably more direct sources showing Orszag's participation in the Clinton USA plan but the fact is he's been behind some form of privatized retirement scheme, whether USAs or "universal 401ks," since the Clinton years. Here's a 2006 article from the NYT, when times were a little less grim:

"Just as the earned-income tax credit pays poor people to work, the universal 401(k) would pay poor people to save. The idea is to bring the benefits of markets and investing to the poor. An H&R Block study (“Saving Incentives for Low- and Middle-Income Families: Evidence From a Field Experiment With H&R Block,” by Esther C. Duflo, William G. Gale, Jeffrey Liebman, Peter R. Orszag and Emmanuel Saez, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in November) indicated that lower-income Americans have a strong demand for easy-to-use matching retirement accounts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28scene.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=tyler%20cowen%20sperling&st=cse

Did you catch that? "The idea is to bring the benefits of markets and investing to the poor." And I'm sure the "strong demand for easy-to-use matching retirement accounts" has been overwhelming, not.

[flyarm]

76. so Frenchie cat..you are now "MANNING THESE BOARDS"???

now that is a scary thought!

and who would you be "MANNING THESE BOARDS" for exactly???????

Are you being paid to "MAN" these boards?????

Who requested you to "MAN" these boards..sorry dear, I didn 't, and I have not seen any request for you to "MAN" these boards, but I can not say I didn't think you were "MANNING" these boards for someone, that thought has crossed my mind many times reading your posts!

Most people here are adults, with our own opinions and thoughts..are you now the thought police "MANNING " THESE BOARDS?????????


DON'T EVER "man" MY POSTS , THANK YOU, BUT I AM A PERSON OF FREE THOUGHT AND MIND. I didn't like or appreciate the bushbots,and how they "MANNED" boards..many for pay.. and I sure as hell don't want you manning anything I write or think!

Tell me Frenchiecat..how do you defend Obama sending Kissinger to Russia representing Obama's administration and US...the same Kissinger most of us objected to Bush putting in charge of the 9/11 commission..and one of the worst criminals in our government in my lifetime..or do you have to get talking points on that???? or will any of you " board patrols" ever answer that question?????????

[FrenchieCat]

84. You funny!

I'm manning these boards for myself.
I don't get paid for, nor have I ever been requested to "man" boards.
Neither have I have been a communist, far as I know.

What it does mean ("manning these boards) is that I read what is put up,
and if I read anything that is false or tries to mislead,
I attempt to correct it.

You, on the other hand sound hysterical.

[Emit]

26. And replace it with Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan

I assumed if Obama et al came up with viable health care reform, that Medicare/Medicaid as we know it today would be phased out and replaced with the new system. I'm not sure what the concern is.

[madfloridian]

33. It could be all private companies.

Probably not a concern under Obama's presidency. But what if a Republican comes next?

[Emit]

36. I see where you're coming from - this part "modeled on the Federal Reserve System"

Meaning it would be quasi-public - a government entity with private components.

[Greyhound]

85. Except that the Fed system is just the opposite, private with governmental components. n/t

[eridani]

46. "Access" at what fucking price?

The price that the parasite private insurers need to make profits off of the chronically ill? Fuck that!

[many a good man]

38. Is this reverse psychology?

Propose a new plan that keeps insurance companies in the game, but are overseen by a National Health Board to mandate full coverage and cost controls. Insurers buy in. Say no Medicare and the people revolt. Compromise solution: people get to choose Medicare OR private insurers.

The door is not opened a crack. It's blown wide open. Mandate employers to pitch in for workers and base premiums on ability to pay.


I'm 100% for single payer, but it is still an unrealistic dream at this point. This plan is a giant incremental step towards that goal. It is much more likely this country will adopt a solution closer to the French model than the Canadian. Create a single universal pool and divide it up among private insurers who are forced to control costs and can't deny basic coverage mandated by the national formulary. Insurers can then sell premium policies that go beyond the formulary, allow for private rooms, etc. The number one goal is universal affordable coverage and the French system beats our current "system" in every way.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Very smart you are!

"I'm 100% for single payer, but it is still an unrealistic dream at this point. This plan is a giant incremental step towards that goal."

[madfloridian]

41. Don't we have that in Medicare right now? Why do away with it?

I don't know Obama's views on that, but I am quoting Zeke in his own words.

[FrenchieCat]

43. I cannot opt into Medicare. So no, we don't have that right now.

[madfloridian]

48. I am speaking of the expansion of Medicare to all... to offer it as a public option.

then you could opt in.

[FrenchieCat]

60. So we are speaking about the same thing.

Which is exactly what Dr. Dean stated in his hardball interview.

A plan that makes Medicare one of the options, opens Medicare to everyone, no matter your age. Private insurance companies would have to compete with Medicare, or folks would just select medicare, and that would drive the cost of all health insurance plans down. Further, folks who want to keep what they currently have could....and the price would still go down.

I'm not sure what you are referring to? I find your posts confusing.

[madfloridian]

79. Obama advisor Zeke wants to phase out Medicare. You are defending it.

Why is that? Why do you find me confusing?

[mmonk]

73. Having no medicare option would be political suicide.

[madfloridian]

122. Agreed. But I think that is going to be left out as an option.

:hi:

[Vinca]

74. If we have true universal, single payer healthcare, we won't

need umpteen different programs. Do away with Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, everything and combine it into one government-managed program. It would be cheaper, easier to manage and easier for patients to understand. It wouldn't affect the quality of care because everybody gets the same care regardless of age, income or anything else. Providers could get off the insurance company hamster wheel and stop raising prices. That's why healthcare is too expensive for many of us. The insurance company tells the provide they'll pay 50% of the cost of a procedure so the provider ups the price so they can still rake in the original amount.

[mzmolly]

109. That's my take as well.

He's not interested in eliminating health care, he's interested in expanding it and having everyone under the same umbrella.

[madfloridian]

110. That is not at all what I said. That is not he said.

Why not expand Medicare as Dean and others have suggested and make it public, not dependent on private companies.

Zeke wants to phase out the public entity and turn it over to private companies entirely.

I am seeing people here at DU quite willing to see Medicare stopped.

I am stunned.

[mzmolly]

111. Zeke is not the

President. And, having medicare stopped is not the same as having "health care" stopped. I don't care what we call universal health care, personally. That said, what's important is the Obama Plan and the fact that people like Dean have endorsed it. I've not heard Obama say he's going to phase out Medicare, have you?

[madfloridian]

113. People on Medicare care greatly.

Oh, gee, mzmolly....you really think you need to be sarcastic enough to tell me that Zeke is not the president?

I never thought I would see Democrats cheering on someone who wants to phase out Medicare turn it over to private companies only.

That is your choice, but trust me....people do care.

Obama's summit has no one invited that supports the public options. That sends a message loud and clear.

Next...Social Security if we are not on guard.

Thanks for talking down to me.

[mzmolly]

115. Who's cheering on Emanuel?

And you accuse ME of talking down to people?

How many times did Dean say he'd like to offer Americans the same plan that congressmen and their families have? That's what Emanuel appears to have stated?

The message of Obama's summit could simply mean that he's looking or opinions that counter his own?

I'm not going to concern myself with anything but the Obama plan, personally. Here it is if you are interested:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

[madfloridian]

117. I am more concerned about those around him..

who want to phase out Medicare and Social Security. And they do, trust me.

[mzmolly]

118. I think the President

is a strong minded, intelligent man who will resist such advice.

Have a nice evening Mad.

[DemocracyInaction]

77. For what it's worth

Some "moderator" or whatever, today introduced his next segment about the "budget" referring to Obama's huge cuts in Medicare and Social Security that are being proposed and how that will fly with the people, etc. I clicked it off. I always assume that in the end, we, the people, always end up with a steaming pile of shit and a shiney new spoon to eat it with.

[slipslidingaway]

78. PBS interview

This interview is from April 2007
http://www.pbs.org/now/news/315.html


Food for thought, previous thread here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4794449&mesg_id=4794449


"...I think the universal part appeals to the Democrats. The voucher part appeals to Republicans. And I think it should make us one big happy family," Dr. Emanuel tells David Brancaccio in a web-exclusive interview.


...DR. EMANUEL: Absolutely. I think—I think—some of the biggest supporters of this plan will be businesses. They want—their employees to have insurance, but the costs are becoming too high, too astronomical for them.

So they would get out of the game entirely. And I think that's a good thing. One of the benefits for employees would be they would probably see their wages go up. 'Cause, right now, employers—are playing whatever it is, ten, 15 percent, of—of their labor cost to health insurance. That money would be, if the economists are right, transferred as increases in wages...

...DR. EMANUEL: Right. Well, if the states aren't paying Medicaid anymore, and employers aren't paying for insurance, we would have to find the money to pay for this. We wouldn't add more money, but we'd—you'd have to get basically—recoup somehow how employers are paying for it and how the states are paying for Medicaid. And that would be—we've proposed to finance this by a value added tax. That means that, when you buy something, the added value is taxed. The tax would be about eight to ten of purchases—if you eliminate food and some other items that—poor people disproportionately buy. And, again—it—you're going to have to pay for this somehow. It is going to be a tax...


...Right now in America there are about 1,300 health insurance companies. Many of them very small niche players. They cater to very small companies, but they add a lot of administrative costs —in the sense of they've got a different billing system. And so people have to keep up with that. In our plan, we would estimate that we would cut that down to about 50 or 60 plans throughout the country..."

[alfredo]

80. I have been part of the FEHB for a long time. I pay $250 a month for

my wife and I. I am also going to VA for care. If Obama's plan goes through I can drop my coverage and just cover my wife. The plan we have depends on my coverage because I was the employee, not my wife. If it would have been the other way around, I'd be off the plan.

FEHB = Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. That's what Obama's plan looks like. One benefit is the size of the pool and the clout brought about because of our numbers.

[madfloridian]

82. Option of all private companies might be okay under Obama, but not under GOP

president and/or congress who won't oversee the plans.

Think about it.

[madfloridian]

86. How odd it would be to finally privatize SS and Medicare while Dems are in power.

How effing funny would that be?

After all the years of fighting the Republicans to save these two programs, how very poignant that under Democrats they could be phased out.

We beat Bush back on this, only to concede to our own party? Wouldn't that be a heck of a thing?

[FrenchieCat]

89. It won't happen, which is what is so weird about this entire op of yours,

and most of your posts throughout it....it is as though you are hoping folks believe that it could.

You will be proven wrong, and in that, I will get some satisfaction.

He will not propose privatizing social security.
He will not propose cutting Medicare or Social Security benefits.
He will not divert Social Security to Tax Free Savings Accounts.

President Obama has been very clear throughout his candidacy and before then as to what he believes needs to be done in reference to saving our entitlement programs and ensuring their viability.

People who believe that President Obama doesn't have the best in mind for us have not been paying attention to all that he has said on the subject, and haven't really read about Barack Obama's Politics.

So here are your answers:

President Obama will propose raising the cap on the wages taxed by FICA, aka, Social Security.
Currently, only the first $103,000 of your annual income is taxed at a rate of 7.25%. He will revisit Bush's folly aka, Medicare Part D, and encourage savings by offering an opportunity for working families to save, in particular those who are not offered 401Ks by their jobs.

Here's more information on Medicare Part D and the multi trillion dollar deficit problem it poses in our immediate future: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8206100

Below is what he has said in the past about all of this. Once you have thoroughly read what I am providing, I will be happy to answer any questions.

Raise the cap on the payroll tax on wealthy individuals
What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system, if we are going to deal with this problem specifically. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500
Q: We all know that Social Security is running out of money, but people who earn over $97,500 stop paying into Social Security. The Congressional Research Service says that if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, the Social Security trust fund would remain solvent for the next 75 years.
A: I think that it is an important option on the table, but the key, in addition to making sure that we don’t privatize, because Social Security is that floor beneath none of us can sink. And we’ve got to make sure that we preserve Social Security is to do the same thing that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill were able to do back in 1983, which is come up with a bipartisan solution that puts Social Security on a firm footing for a long time.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market
Q: Would you raise the cap for Social Security tax above the current level of the first $97,500 worth of income?
A: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. Now we’ve got to have a process back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I’ve said before everything should be on the table. My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem: young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future. And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security
Obama believes we need to preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it and will work across party lines to maintain Social Security’s solvency for generations. Obama wants to make private saving easier, cheaper, & more automatic for middle-class workers. He supported the Save More for Retirement Act, which encourages automatic 401K enrollment. Obama also voted for new rules to force companies to properly fund their pension plans so taxpayers don’t foot the bill.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, “Resource Flyers” Aug 26, 2007

Raise cap on payroll tax for 3% of earners over $102,000
Q: The Republicans are keeping a running total of all your plans. They say it’s $662 billion over four years.
A: Right.

Q: They say for all your promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, that, in fact, you want to raise the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, and you also want to increase capital gains.

A: In terms of raising the cap on the payroll tax, right now everybody who’s making $102,000 or less pays 100% of payroll tax on 100% of their income. There are about 3% to 4% of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year. So if you want to talk about who’s middle class, me giving cuts to folks making $60,000 or $70,000, and potentially asking more from friends of mine like Warren Buffett. That’s a debate I’m happy to have with John McCain, because it’s the people making $75,000, $50,000, $60,000 who are hurting.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

Must capture new revenue; no new Social Security Comission
OBAMA: We’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.
CLINTON: With all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Raise the cap on the payroll tax on wealthy individuals
What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system, if we are going to deal with this problem specifically. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. “The best way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the future,” said Obama. “My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put money in a retirement plan, whether it’s an IRA or an employer based 401(k), and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions up to $2,000.“
Today, only about half of workers participate in an employer-based pension plan. Participation rates in other savings plans are substantially lower. Only about five percent of people contribute the maximum amount allowed each year to an IRA or 401(k).
Source: Press Release, “Increase Retirement Security” Jul 7, 2004

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_social_security.htm

[bottomtheweaver]

93. It's happening. That's what we're trying to tell you.

And if we don't fight it, we'll lose Social Security and Medicare to the insurance and finance companies dying to see them wrecked. Campaign promises are nice, but the reality is money talks, and we need to talk louder. A lot of people will suffer badly if we don't.

[madfloridian]

95. Single-Payer Advocates not included in Obama's Health Summit?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/1/10238/98623/503/703263

[dysfunctional press]

96. almost as odd as a "democratic" president ending welfare as we know it...?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

126. Almost as odd, or even more so.

Strange stuff.

[madfloridian]

88. Dean spoke today on this as he talked of his future plans to Sam Stein.

Note he still includes the public plan option of Medicare.

"And now the question is the substance of the bill... What the Obama campaign's proposal does is get rid of the Harry and Louise stuff and this is socialized medicine stuff. Because Harry and Louise relied on deceiving people about a new plan that they wouldn't be able to understand. President Obama is not proposing a new plan that the American people won't understand. What he is proposing is if you want what you have you can keep it. If you want to have private insurance you can. If you want to have Medicare you can have that too... there is no boogeyman in this plan."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/01/exclusive-dean-talks-abou_n_170874.html

Interesting article..he plans to renew his efforts with DFA especially in the health care field.

[mzmolly]

112. "there is no boogeyman in this plan..."

Thanks, I respect his opinion on this.

[madfloridian]

114. There will be if Zeke's plan is accepted.

That is what Dean is trying to make sure stays in the plan. Doesn't look like it will.

I think they will phase out Medicare and do the same for Social Security.

[mzmolly]

116. I highly doubt it will be.

If it is, I'll be among those who are concerned.

Peace MF

[madfloridian]

90. Was going to mention the summit....but slinkerwink's Kos diary is super.

So I will link to it instead. It says it so well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/1/10238/98623/503/703263

Single-Payer Advocates Ignored In Obama's Health Summit?

"Physicians For A National Health Program (PHNP), points out what many of us have been asking about the odd exclusion of single-payer advocates from any of the health reform discussions held by the White House in their press release:

The president wants this process to be open and transparent, with the goal of achieving universal coverage. However, groups representing physicians, nurses, and consumers who advocate for a single-payer system of national health insurance have thus far been excluded from the summit.

President Obama says that he wants to bring everyone to the health care summit, but then why is he excluding single-payer advocates? I myself support the public option in a private-public health care reform plan, and I support the right of single-payer advocates to be heard because they present a very compelling question that deserves an answer from those who are supposed to bring about health care reform. It is very odd that President Obama is specifically excluding one group from the health insurance summit to be held tomorrow on Monday.

Also, with having set aside over $600 billion for universal health insurance in his budget, and excluding the public option from his eight principles which he outlined for the need for health insurance reform, it is clear that President Obama is ready to compromise away the public option in exchange for an universal mandate and the pre-existing conditions ban in health insurance plans.

And Senator Kennedy, in working with his health care legislation, has held secret meetings with groups according to the New York Times such as:

AARP, Aetna, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, Easter Seals, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the United States Chamber of Commerce."

And then the Medicare option is mentioned.

"FOR private insurers, the more troubling specter in health care reform is an expansion of the Medicare program to those under 65. The program has lower expenses and generally pays much less for medical care than private insurers, so it would probably translate into a lower-cost plan for consumers. To help lead opposition to the idea, which they say puts them at an unfair disadvantage, insurers have joined with hospitals to argue that Medicare pays too little so that any expansion would significantly hurt providers.

[slinkerwink]

99. thanks for linking to my diary! I actually was encouraged by your post here in DU

:toast: thank you for the work you do, madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

100. You were reading my mind.

Just had to link.

:hi:

[caseymoz]

101. If one thing has been demostrated: public-private partnerships don't work.

And I mean, they don't work at all. It's a conflict of interest for the government to try to help both the public and the revenue of private companies. They will find ways to raise rates endlessly while cutting deals to chintz on quality, and instead of bankrupting patients, they'll be bankrupting the government, and finally the taxpayers.

One has to be brave and put these people out of business, and even be willing to put their employees into the unemployment lines for a while. The entire structure of out health care system is wrong.

[madfloridian]

103. And leaving those who advocate for public options out of the summit.?

Not encouraging.

[eridani]

119. Let's reframe it then

Single payer is a public-private partnership. Health care financing is public, but the delivery is private.

[caseymoz]

124. It's not going to help to reframe it that way.

Not when the dominant ideology is that every government act has to make the rich richer before it helps anyone lower. Call it "trickle down" assistance. It was Bush's (and Clinton's) government program for having every family own a house while making real estate and finance company executives much richer. You can see how well that ended...

[eridani]

125. Yes, I can see. And so, these days can a whole lot of other people

--many of whom couldn't see it at all before. That's why I think we now have a chance with reframing.

[BrklynLiberal]

104. Lots of important info here..

[madfloridian]

107. Stuff we need to be aware of and stay informed about.

:hi:

[Faryn Balyncd]

108. K&R! --- Such a "PRIVATIZATION of MEDICARE"is WORSE than anything the GOP has done!

[whokilledthem]

121. Just give everyone Medicaid already!

This whole thing stinks.

[ecstatic]

123. Hmm that would cost a lot of jobs.. I sincerely hope not

That would be dismantling a program that thousands of healthcare providers depend on, and of course, those providers employ hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of workers.

[madfloridian]

127. Conyers and other single payer advocates not invited to health care summit

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/3/111940/4558/728/704063

"This is from an email I received this morning:

On Thursday, March 5, 2009, the White House will host a summit on how to
reform the healthcare system.

The 120 invited guests include lobbyists for various interest groups
including the private-for-profit insurance industry (AHIP), some members
of Congress including Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus who has already
ruled single payer "off the table," and various others concerned with
healthcare.

No single payer advocates have been invited to attend.

Please urge President Obama to fulfill his promise for transparency and
openness in government

Call The White House [phone] or [phone].

Tell them to let single payer into the White House Summit on healthcare.'

AND Conyers not invited.

"UPDATE:

There were several comments asking whether John Conyers, the father of single payer and HR 676 would be at the White House Summit. I made some inquiries and have the following information.

I just received a phone call from a source who wishes not to be identified at this time. He advised that Chairman Conyers was not invited to the White House Healthcare Summit. I was also told that Dr. Quentin Young and Dr. Marcia Angell were proposed as participants, but are also not attending.

You are obviously free to draw your own conclusions."

[madfloridian]

128. Kick to remind us to trust but verify....to be on guard.

We can not get complacent.

[w4rma]

129. Huge pending disaster looming. This is extremely bad news. (nt)