Lets review the conversation

My statement was: "Any retiree can purchase private insurance". (#84)

To which you responded: "Can you name one? (#88)

To which I responded: "Yes ..." (#94)

Then you accused me of skirting the question (#110)

In #123, you accused me of lying i.e.: You said you could name someone who didn't take medicare that was eligible. You were lying obviously. what else did you lie about?

That is not what I said yes to. Review the record. I said yes to knowing someone that could purchase private insurance.

That's interesting but my Medicare cost is already higher that what I pay for very good health insurance. And I'm only paying for the elderly right now. How much more will it cost when I have to pay for myself as well?

It's not very expensive. My retired mother pays about $110/mo out of her SS for Medicare. Her medi-gap insurance is more and they only pay for what Medicare doesn't pay for on Medicare covered charges only. Medicare pays for 80% of the charges and medi-gap pays for 20%. In other words, Medicare charges less and pays for more. Not quite a fair statement when you consider that she paid into Medicare her entire working life.

How much less?
what services won't it pay for?

There is a schedule of covered procedures; probably on their site if you're interested enough to look. One of the things I have first hand experience with has to do with coverage of a wheel chair and a lift chair. Medicare would pay for the rental of a wheel chair but not if it paid for a lift chair. Apparently the reasoning was that if you had a lift chair, you could stand and if you could stand, you didn't need a wheel chair. Similarly, if you needed a wheel chair, then a lift chair was un-necessary.

There are people that can stand and move for short distances (i.e. inside their home) but can't expend the effort for trips to the food store or shopping mall with family, friends, care givers, etc. where a wheel chair would be useful. I imagine that some people, especially those with the means, would not want to be bothered with such things.

If you can answer "how much less" then perhaps you can assert that. If you can't then you have no basis.

To be more precise, I should have said
For many people, that may be enough to make health care premiums affordable.

I asked who doesn't take medicare that is eligible?

I don't know everyone that is eligible for Medicare. Everyone I know is of very modest means. However, given the millions of people that are on Medicare, I suspect that there are some that do not take Medicare.

How do you figure it will stay afloat when it has to provide for everyone?

By allowing people to buy into Medicare (thru payroll deductions) at a rate that matches their health risk i.e. premiums for a 20 yr old would be less that the premiums for a 50 yr old. For people that buy into Medicare, the cost of the premium would approximate that of private insurance but would be less because of the lower Medicare administrative costs and for the products/services that Medicare doesn't pay for.

For many people, that would be enough to make health care premiums affordable. Also, it would allow employers to get out of the health insurance business.

why not? Under what circumstances would someone who is eligible for medicare NOT take it?

It is hard to imagine anyone other than the wealthy not taking Medicare.

Also, Medicare doesn't pay for everything and, for what it pays, it will only be for a specific amount; irrespective of what the service provider charges. Additional insurance is required to cover the difference.

And pretending the Medicare model will work for nation wide healthcare is equally naive.

Why wouldn't Medicare be a good model for nation wide healthcare? It has very low administrative costs. There is medi-gap insurance to cover the balance of costs on a Medicare covered charge that Medicare doesn't cover. In fact, there could be an additional level of medi-gap insurance to cover the procedures that Medicare will not cover. This could be a good model for public/private participation in the medical insurance industry.

can you name one?

Yes, but why would they? What many do, is purchase Medicare as well as medi-gap insurance to pay for what Medicare doesn't pay. Those that don't have the means rely only on Medicare.

I suspect the wealthy retired don't pay for Medicare.

Medicare collects from everyone and pays for a few.

Private insurers collect from many and pay for just a few. People pay for Medicare throughout their working lives. They continue to pay (thru direct deductions from SS payments) in retirement. However, it is just in retirement that they can start receiving the benefit.

Medicare has no competitor.

Yes they do. You aren't required to accept Medicare once you retire. If you don't, Medicare payments will not be deducted from you SS payments. Any retiree can purchase private insurance.

but I AM a commodity...like you.

What is happening right now is just a nasty realization of this fact.

The point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Equalize the playing field and let the best management/labor team win. We don't have an equal playing field.

apples and oranges.

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2008-11-19 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Pls explain.

In the same manner pharmas dump prescription drugs on foreign markets to gain share and stiff us over here to do so.

It is not quite the same because for many of these drugs, there is no competition. I remember reading somewhere that foreign gov'ts restricts what the pharma industry can charge for their meds because they have nationalized health care. The bargaining for the price of meds is done at the national level. I am also under the understanding that their is no advertising for meds in foreign countries.

Labor is a commodity

Unfortunately that is true but only because we have allowed our businesses to treat it as such.

Labor rates are directly proportional to one's standard of living and, by treating labor as a commodity, we seek to drive down its value or eliminate it all together. And, by doing so, we are driving down people's standard of living.

In the long run, we all suffer if the standard of living of increasingly large portions of Americans is driven down to near subsistence levels. Who's going to fund the schools, roads, bridges, etc.? The wealthy? Of course not! They will hire their private tutors, hire private doctors, etc.

I don't really, especially when it is only the blue collar jobs which are effected while the white collar folks seem to not really be bothered. Let them compete with folks willing to work for half the money and see how they like it.

My industry (software consulting) is overrun with immigrants which have seriously driven the pay down.

How much should a worker with 20 years experience on an auto assembly line earn???

As we have learned by this last election, experience isn't the issue.

Although it is the UAW contracts that many are complaining about, the UAW is not the villan. It is politicians that have allowed an uneven economic playing field to exist.

That uneven playing field is all around us and was brought on by globalization and free trade. Force all players to play by the same rules and lets see who emerges victorious. Currently, everyone wants the UAW to be busted. Why not force the other manufacturer's that produce cars in the US to unionize? Why not place a tariff on cars being imported into the US which would remove their competitive advantage because of low labor costs? Why is it that the only solution that is being considered is one that will drive down labor rates and the standard of living of the workers?

That said, there are other issues that the American automobile companies probably have to come to terms with that only a government facilitated bankruptcy would address i.e. poor management, business processes, dealer support, product quality, etc.

I can't imagine these appointees hanging on to those jobs for to long. Many of them were incompetent, political hacks that pissed off the career employees and you know damn well that, with a new sheriff in town, retribution will be swift.

This is just a move to tide them over until they can find employment elsewhere.

Second, we (the gov) could fund the retirement funds.

If they are not able to successfully emerge from bankruptcy, we (the gov) will automatically be taking over their pension liability via the Pension Benefit Guarantee Trust.

Our auto industry is another example of how our trade policies have hurt our companies. We are importing cars from countries that have been successful in limiting the import of American cars i.e. South Korea, Japan to name a few. It is time to level the playing field for ALL products. We should put up the same trade restrictions that our partners do. It absolutely astounds me that we don't!

Also, if the car companies are making so much money overseas, are they pumping it back into their operations here in the US? If not, why not?

It is a shame that the kids are in the middle but the Cuban government didn't place them there; their parents did. The parents did a very selfish thing by looking out for their own asses and not planning for their kids escape.

Initially a supporter of the bail out of the auto industry, I now think that bankruptcy wouldn't be so bad. It would FORCE American auto makers (management and labor) to make the kind of decisions that are necessary for them to survive. Once a reorganization plan was put in place, finding the proper financing to continue operations would be a lot easier; even if it means getting financing from tax payers.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that the only time the American tax payer should consider providing a bail out is AFTER a company has entered bankruptcy and has filed a realistic plan for emergence. If the reorganization plan is good enough, private money may be attracted as well.

Looks as though no monkey business took place with any paperless trail, e-voting machines and all the voting was above-board and honest.

I would still like to see some "Best Practices" published and enforced in time for the 2010 elections. One of those best practices should seek to expand early voting into more states and to more sites within those states. They should also seek to ensure that there are enough polling places and machines to ensure that voters don't experience extra long wait times. Also, let's not forget Paperless Trail.

Liberman should have had to "earn back" the right to be a committee chairman. If he caucused with the Republicans, he would forfeit his right to regain this chairmanship.

Given how blue the northeast has become, it is unlikely that Lieberman would have caucused with the Republicans. The voters of CT would turn on him for sure.

The first 10 amendments, which includes #5, are referred to as the Bill of Rights.

It only means the Government needs to come up with a bullshit excuse to deprive you of any of those things.

That statement can apply to most of the "rights". It isn't exclusive to life, liberty or property.

"Bullshit" is such a relative term. That is one of the reasons that he SCOTUS exists i.e. to determine what is/is not "Bullshit".

This actually gives me some hope that the President elect will be true to his word with respect to trying to move away from partisan politics

How is it partisan politicans when you are disciplining one of your own?

DC is the way it is for a reason. Every politician there is looking to score points against their rival (real and imagined); to distinguish themselves from the pretenders. Republicans are not going to regain power by being like Democrats. They must be different and being different in a political context means being in "opposition to".

The only reason people were tired of partisan politics was because nothing of any consequence was getting done. With the kind of numerical advantage that the Dems now have, grid lock is much less likely and the public's concern about partisan politics will vaporize.

I see no where in the original document does it mention a right to life or property

From the link of my previous post:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.