ext_106355 ([identity profile] lemmozine.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] howeird 2012-04-02 03:08 am (UTC)

As I recall the situation back then, the problem was with the blue dog democrats.

The HUGE problem with Medicare is the bill, as proposed by LBJ back in - was it '65, was pretty much universal single payer coverage, and the "compromise" worked out with the opposition was to only give partial coverage, requiring a complicated and expensive multiple-billing system, with no coverage for dental or pharmacy. Medicare only covers 80%, and most people have to buy private health insurance to cover the other 20%. W's much-touted prescription drug plan is like something Chico Marx was selling with his tutsi-frutsi ice cream in A Day at the Races. You're covered, for a while. Then there's a doughnut hole, where you get to choose between death from no medications or death from starvation, unless you have money for insurance to cover the doughnut hole. If the act is repealed, this is what a lot of folks will go back to. Then, after you're dead, you're covered again. Brilliant! I wonder if they ever counted the bodies.

Medicare is actually a combo of about 5 or 6 insurance plans, some private and some not. A and B are inpatient and outpatient, 80% covered. C is of little importance except to 75 year old workaholics. D is usually private insurance, and often part of an Advantage plan. Medigap is normally private health insurance that covers the 20% not covered by Medicare. Medicare includes no dental coverage, but some Advantage plans include dental. Some low-income Medicare people get Medicaid or other state programs that pay for the part B premium, copays, and the gap. Advantage plans, usually private, combine part D, medigap and sometimes dental. Some also offer other benefits. Trying to shop for a part D plan is a common cause of mental deterioration - it's a very confusing and frustrating experience, and one's chances of getting the best plan for them are about 1 in 19. I don't think inflicting Medicare on the entire population is a wise or well thought out scheme. Which is why I favor combining all the various public and private health insurances, benefits, health plans and whatevers into one - the same policies would apply to all states, the overhead and administrative costs would shrink considerably, a lot of insurance company employees would be looking for more useful occupations (but at least they'd have health care while out of work), and the health care money would actually be going for health care and not lining the pockets of rich creeps.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting