Wait For Benefits Is 3 Years If Health Care Passes

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(10-10) 08:01 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Sixty years is how long Democrats say they've been pushing for legislation that provides health care access for all Americans. They'll have to wait another three if President Barack Obama gets a bill to sign this year.

Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.

The eat-your-vegetables-first approach is causing heartburn for some Democrats. Three years is a long time to wait for dessert, and opponents could capitalize on misgivings about the complex legislation to undo what would be a signature achievement for Obama.

"The real danger is that health reform could be vulnerable to what we see with the stimulus package," said Democratic health policy consultant Peter Harbage, referring to criticism that Obama's $787 billion economic plan hasn't stemmed rising unemployment. "There needs to be more focus on what can you do quickly so that real people will start seeing change sooner, rather than later."

Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton's administration: "Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/10/national/w065100D87.DTL

[joeycola]

1. Judy, you are wrong-there is nothing ideological about people NOT

having access to health care for 3years plus. IT IS contrete.


....Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton's administration: "Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law."

[Oldtimeralso]

21. This is like the 1983 Social Security Reform

Ronald Raygun's reforms (raising the age) started to take effect in 2000 and was phased in by age.
17 years later so no one could blame the people that did it.

[Jeep789]

2. People can't wait 3 years for health care or jobs

Why doesn't Congress understand that?

[krkaufman]

17. They especially can't wait 3 years for health care reform ...

... and access to a lower cost, public insurance option *because of* the loss of jobs. This economic crisis should have underscored the flaw in our employer-based system.

[drm604]

3. Open up Medicare.

The program is in place, the rules are written. Open it up for anyone under 65 to buy into. How long could that take?

[harmonicon]

10. exactly what I was thinking

Have a buy-in now, and sort out subsidies and taxes for it later. That wouldn't even take so long, I don't think. Even easier and less bureaucratic would be to have medicare eventually be a "free" single-payer system. Cut a small portion of military spending to cover it. Done. Next problem.

[Knight Hawk]

12. Will not happen

First Medicare is going broke.In fact the proposed new bill cuts 500 billion out of Medicare by cutting the Medicare Advantage program.The medicare advantage program gives real benefits to real people.We would have to drastically change many things about our country to give Medicare to all.Some of these things would be good such as stop spending trillions on our military adventures .

[drm604]

13. All of those premiums from people under 65 may stop it from going broke.

And Medicare Advantage is a costly program that puts people under private insurers, so it's not something the we should necessarily want to protect. Regular Medicare costs less. Strangely enough, conservatives, who are supposed to be all about saving money, support Medicare Advantage. Could that be because the money goes to private insurance companies?

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009093923/who-s-getting-advantage-medicare-advantage
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/medicare/index.html

What's wrong with "drastic change" if it's for the better?

Think about what you're saying. It sounds like maybe you've been taken in by right wing talking points.

[jwirr]

14. I got the same advantages from Medicare before I was suckered

into going on Medicare Advantage insurance. Now that I understand what it was all about I resent the fact that I was talked into it.

[krkaufman]

19. Exactly right... with a few compromises tossed-in.

Using Medicare would maximize efficiencies, allowing the subsidized insured to be covered at the lowest cost possible; and if some say Medicare would be at too great a competitive advantage to the private plans, toss in a competitive advantage surcharge for those wanting to buy into Medicare but not wanting to give their money to private insurers. The surcharge could then be used to help pay for the subsidized individuals and to pay Medicare for the use of their systems. Further, this would avoid medical professions having to integrate with yet another insurer.

[clear eye]

4. Could you please specify what "Medicare cuts" are in the "Democratic bills"? n/t

[Roland99]

20. I believe it focuses on Medicare Advantage, not Medicare itself.

[defendandprotect]

5. MEDICARE is up and running, ready to go -- we could do it over an 18 month period . . .

oldest and youngest first --

Let's give up fear -- and rightly understand that if Obama does this, he will be
the new FDR and Democrats will be set for next 40 years --

If Obama doesn't do this both he and the party will be vulnerable to being voted out
of office.

[global1]

11. And Quite Possibly Voted Out Of Office Before This So-Called Reform Even Kicks In.....

only to be undone by the next administration before it starts. That is a big risk President Obama and the Dems are taking. And in those years before it kicks in the Insurance Companies will have a field day raising premiums and denying claims.

Look what happen to us after they gave the Credit Card (CC) companies some time before the CC reform kicks in.

[defendandprotect]

25. Right . . . the beauty of MEDICARE FOR ALL is that it's ready to go NOW . . . !!!

[PSPS]

6. This hands republicans everything they've wanted for sixty years

The "wait three years" is beltwayspeak for "it will never happen." Especially with presidential elections in the way, this insures it will never be implemented -- it's the "trigger" charade with a different name.

The medicare cuts + tax increases will hasten the demise of one of the most loathed programs of republicans -- medicare. People will object to the tax increase, of course. So this plus cutting benefits will turn people against the whole idea of medicare. Next stop -- elimination of social security. I guess rush was right when he said "Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live on, but we're in the process of doing something about that as well."

"eat-your-vegetables-first" my ass. This is just the inevitable outcome when you have a president milquetoast who is clearly not up to the job.

[lovuian]

7. Democrats who are you? your excuses are getting old and weak

we know you are lying

enact or fall to the anger of the masses

time is running out
three years is 2012

people are not interested in waiting

[Thickasabrick]

8. What happens if Republicans take over in 2012? Has anybody

thought about that?

[Fearless]

9. And NEVER if you don't!

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Well, there go the 2010 elections.

[tomm2thumbs]

16. the insurance industry will likely do what the credit card industry did - take advantage for 3 years

raise rates
drop folks
pull in profits
pillage & loot
ignore laws

you know. the usual but on steroids

[undeterred]

18. Its not a political problem, its primarily a life and death problem.

[tabasco]

22. Wait would be forever with republicans in charge.

Let's keep things in perspective.

[shadowknows69]

23. Does it really matter to the dead which party's rule they died under?

[change_notfinetuning]

24. And the Nobel-like Cigna Prize for Health Care Reform goes to . . .

Barack Obama, for the hope that it will happen, as well as the greatest speeches in support of health care for all (if we were starting from scratch (and there were no lobbyists (and there was no Rahm "hold-my-seat" Emanuel))).

Bring it on, Tutu boy!

[Cass]

26. A lot of people will die in those 3 years because they still won't have access to

healthcare. I really hope they can do something about this long lag time. 3 years is a long time when you are sick and can't afford medical care.

[Yo_Mama]

27. Ideological?

Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton's administration: "Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law

People with no access to health insurance being called ideological is surely a cruel joke. And no, health insurance is not "dessert". What idiot wrote this article?

[Ms. Toad]

28. And this is LBN why? It's beein in the bills for months. n/t