bbauska

I never brought up the fact that everyone should be on Medicare. I said if they need it. Please stop putting words in my keyboard.

I didn't put words in your keyboard. I asked the question...
Why is it okay for people who have achieved some arbitrary age to be eligible for single payer or sociailized insurance... but someone a year or two younger its suddenly not an appropriate solution?

If health care is a legal right, and in the US it has been since the emergent care law was enacted, then the only question is whats the most efficient way to ensure universality is achieved.
Neal\s making the point that the ACA is a half measure (or less) that doesn't qualify as an efficient solution in the way that medicare provided an efficient solution for seniors in the US for the last 40 some years. And that's fair.
But it is't fair to compare the ACA to what works best (single payer) if the political situation made the sane rationale choice impossible.
In the same vein opponents to the ACA complain that it isn't achieiving a perfect solution. And because perfection isn't achieved they beleive the pursuit of an improvement, an enhancement to the current failed system is not worth pursuing.

Seems a bit strange to can someone who headed up a big project after it met its goals.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I never brought up the fact that everyone should be on Medicare. I said if they need it. Please stop putting words in my keyboard.

I didn't put words in your keyboard. I asked the question...
Why is it okay for people who have achieved some arbitrary age to be eligible for single payer or sociailized insurance... but someone a year or two younger its suddenly not an appropriate solution?

If you want to see rioting in the streets, let's see Democrats propose this. As I posted, they can't even keep up with the new people added to Medicaid, so why you suppose the government is capable of handling even more is a bit baffling. Beyond that, the American people don't want it. I don't know many people who are excited to be on Medicare. I know people, in fact, who don't want to be on it but have no choice.

You might think the American people are willing to accept the Canadian-like concept of Medicare for all. Let Democrats propose it and let's see the political results.

Doctor Fate wrote:You might think the American people are willing to accept the Canadian-like concept of Medicare for all. Let Democrats propose it and let's see the political results.

Because those Canadians are commie-pinko socialists?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You might think the American people are willing to accept the Canadian-like concept of Medicare for all. Let Democrats propose it and let's see the political results.

Because those Canadians are commie-pinko socialists?

No, because that idea appeals to about 30% of Americans, tops.

Seniors typically vote Republican and yet they approve of Medicare at a rate of about 80%. http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-clear- ... tion-cuts/
Based on the figure for medicare, you probably only have about a 30% (maybe less) of the country that has strong opposition to medicare for all. And the polls on single-payer indicate a higher level of support than 30%. Rasmussen: 38% support, 46% oppose (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_system). By the way, Rasmussen had a poll in 2009 on this where there was 57% opposition to single-payer--the tide is turning I think. This CNN poll indicates that 44% support for ACA plus 16% oppose ACA because they think it does not go far enough--that's about 60% of the country that would probably not have a problem with medicare for all. So, 30% is about right--but it's on the oppose medicare side of the ledger, not the support side. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... re-battle/

By the way, I did not realize they snuck in a single-payer option for states to try after 2017. https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/22-7

fate

If you want to see rioting in the streets, let's see Democrats propose this.

The most severe reaction occurs if someone suggests that Medicare should be altered in some way. Then all the seniors get all up in arms and something akin to slow motion rioting foments.
It seems that once Americans get used to socialized health insurance they really like it.

fate

so why you suppose the government is capable of handling even more is a bit baffling

.

why you think all problems of organizational process are intractable is baffling.

Surely if the french can organize a socialized health system the incredibly competent US can eventually solve the problem too. And the french deliver their universal health care system for almost half per capita what the US currently spends for its current mess.

rickyp wrote:fate

If you want to see rioting in the streets, let's see Democrats propose this.

The most severe reaction occurs if someone suggests that Medicare should be altered in some way. Then all the seniors get all up in arms and something akin to slow motion rioting foments.
It seems that once Americans get used to socialized health insurance they really like it.

No. They're upset when you try to change it--that doesn't equate to "they really like it."

When you have to navigate through it, it's not simple, it's not fast, and you rarely get what you want.

fate

so why you suppose the government is capable of handling even more is a bit baffling

.

why you think all problems of organizational process are intractable is baffling.

That is probably the weakest edit I've ever seen. What I said, with the part you cut out bolded:

As I posted, they can't even keep up with the new people added to Medicaid, so why you suppose the government is capable of handling even more is a bit baffling.

Why is that significant? Because the Feds had 4 years to get ready for the new adds to Medicaid. Yet, as I pointed out, in Illinois, CA, and NJ, they are months behind in processing, leaving many Americans with no insurance--through no fault of their own, only the fault of the incompetence of government.

So, let's go back to your response to my comment that you edited so as to remove the purpose of my comment:

why you think all problems of organizational process are intractable is baffling.

Review the problems in CA, IL, and NJ. Oh, while you're at it, how about the botched Federal website, the botched website in MD, and the Oregon site as well.

Surely if the french can organize a socialized health system the incredibly competent US can eventually solve the problem too. And the french deliver their universal health care system for almost half per capita what the US currently spends for its current mess.

We could, but we don't.

As for the glories of socialized medicine, again, Democrats (aka socialists-light) are welcome to propose it.

fate

No. They're upset when you try to change it--that doesn't equate to "they really like it."

Amusing.

So they're comparing Medicare as it is, to what they had before, and they prefer Medicare with all its flaws.
Overwhelmingly..
And line up at political rallies to chant "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

rickyp wrote:fate

No. They're upset when you try to change it--that doesn't equate to "they really like it."

Amusing.

So they're comparing Medicare as it is, to what they had before, and they prefer Medicare with all its flaws.
Overwhelmingly..
And line up at political rallies to chant "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

Yup. And, they're mostly activists and/or know-nothings. If most people knew the kind of fiscal problems Social Security and Medicare are going to cause (i.e. the unfunded future liabilities) they: 1) would never suggest "Medicare for all" because they would know that would mean national bankruptcy; 2) would understand that some means testing and other tweaks are mandatory in order to keep said programs going.

I note that AGAIN you say nothing about the catastrophic failure of Medicaid in those blue States. Why is that?

You mean this BBauska?

If health care is a legal right, and in the US it has been since the emergent care law was enacted, then the only question is whats the most efficient way to ensure universality is achieved

.



Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_ ... _Labor_Act

fate

And, they're mostly activists and/or know-nothings

You're quire an elitist.
Ryan and the Republicans already tried to educate Americans on "necessary changes to Medcare and Social Security". Lead balloon.
Apparently there are different priorities for them.

http://ourfuture.org/report/american-ma ... ct-polling

Medicare
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. February 2012.

70 percent of Americans say “Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government guaranteeing seniors health insurance and making sure that everyone gets the same defined set of benefits.”
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Health Care. Sept 8-11, 2011.

When asked about raising the eligibility age for Medicare, 57% opposed and 39% were in favor.
The Washington Post/Bloomberg News Poll, October 6-9, 2011

82% oppose reducing Medicate benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
Bloomberg Poll, June 17-20, 2011

57% believe they would be worse off if they were to buy their own private insurance with the help of government subsidies instead of having traditional Medicare.
Pew Research Center, June 15-19, 2011

61% say they already pay enough of the cost of their health care under Medicare.
Gallup Poll, January 14-16, 2011

64% oppose spending cuts to Medicare.