I [heart] Don McCanne

All we really need to do is fix Medicare, and then make enrollment automatic for everyone. But then that would break the bond of trust that President Obama and the members of Congress have established with Karen Ignagni. That seems to be a much stronger bond than they have with the other 306 million of us.

Normally Dr McCanne is a sober and sensible blogger and policy analyst for PNHP, but sometimes he unleashes a real zinger, like this one in a discussion on what happens to the younger spouse when an older spouse becomes eligible for Medicare.

If you get your insurance through your spouse's employer, what happens to you when s/he retires? If both of you are 65, no problem. If you're close in age, and the older spouse is active, healthy, and enjoying working, s/he can put off retiring until both of you are 65 and eligible for Medicare.

But real life is full of messy little details like May-December relationships, or older, more expensive workers being forced out by their Ebenezer Scrooge bosses whether they want to retire or not. What then?

The sensible solution, of course, is to make everyone eligible for Medicare from age 0, but noooooooo, we can't have that. What would we do with all our unemployed health policy wonks if things were simple?

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here in this state,

Ted Kennedy had a saying which he used quite often: Medicare for all, cradle to grave. He's been asked recently what happened with that famous line, without much response from his people.

Andre, have any links for Ted Kennedy on Medicare for All?

Thnx. It's been a long time since he's said that or my search term wasn't very good.

No I don't

but that was a line he used on many of his campaign speeches, and having gone thru all of them with him (I voted in all but one of them), I've heard it on many occasions.

Ted Kennedy on Medicare for all (2005)

A Democratic Blueprint for America's Future: [edited to get the whole Medicare quote in]

To revitalize the American dream, we also need to renew the battle to make health care affordable and available to all our people. In this new century of the life sciences, breakthrough treatments and miracle cures are steadily revolutionizing the practice of medicine and the quality of life. The mapping of the human genome enables us to understand far more about the molecular basis of disease, and to plan far-reaching cures that were inconceivable only a few years ago.

Sadly, in America today, the miracles of modern medicine are too often the province only of the wealthy. We need a new guarantee for the years ahead that the cost of these life-saving treatments and cures will not be beyond the reach of the vast majority of the American people.

An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care, and no employer refuses to create new jobs or cuts back on current jobs because of the high cost of providing health insurance.

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July. I propose that as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life.

It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.

For those who prefer private insurance, we will offer comparable coverage under the same range of private insurance plans already available to Congress. I can think of nothing more cynical or hypocritical than a Member of Congress who gives a speech denouncing health care for all, then goes to his doctor for a visit paid for by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

I call this approach Medicare for All, because it will free all Americans from the fear of crippling medical expenses and enable them to seek the best possible care when illness strikes.

The battle to achieve Medicare for All will not be easy. Powerful interests will strongly oppose it, because they profit immensely from the status quo. Right wing forces will unleash false attack ads ranting against socialized medicine and government-run health care.

But those attacks are a generation out of date - retreads of the failed campaign that delayed Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, we are immunized against such attacks by the obvious success of Medicare. It is long past time to extend that success to all.

The Democratic Party's proudest moments and greatest victories have always come when we stand up against powerful interests and fight for the common good - and this coming battle can be another of our finest achievements.

To make the transition from the current splintered system, I propose to phase in Medicare for All, age group by age group, starting with those closest to retirement, between 55 and 65. Aside from senior citizens themselves, they have the greatest health needs and the highest health costs, and need our help the most.

The first stage of the phase-in should also guarantee good health care to every young child. We made a start with the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. It does a major part of the job, and it's time to complete the job now.

As we implement this reform, financing must be a shared responsibility. All will benefit, and all should contribute. Payroll taxes should be part of the financing, but so should general revenues, to make the financing as progressive as possible.

We can offset a large part of the expense by a single giant step - bringing health care into the modern age of information technology.

By moving to electronic medical records for all Americans when they go to the hospital or their doctor, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in administrative costs while improving the quality of care.

Equally important, we should pay for health care based on value and results, not just the number of procedures performed or days in a hospital bed. We must also expand our investments in medical research, so that we can realize even more of its extraordinary promise. We must confront and defeat the misguided ideology that - in the name of life - denies life-saving cures by blocking stem cell research.

It's not single-payer, but it seems clear that he meant that Medicare should be available to every person in the US.

There's also this:

A progressive economy also recognizes that Americans don't just want more. They want more of what matters in life, which is the true American dream.

They want greater flexibility on the job, with more time for their families, more time for their children's schools, more time to volunteer in their communities and churches and synagogues and mosques. They want jobs that pay fairly and don't force them to work excessive hours without extra pay. They want safe workplaces and the right to join with fellow employees to bargain for a fair workplace. They want companies to stop marketing cigarettes and unhealthy foods to young Americans. They want workplaces free from all forms of bigotry and discrimination, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.

One step we can and should take immediately to help families cope with the relentless and growing pressures of everyday life is to require all employers to give employees at least seven days of paid sick leave a year.

That's not asking too much of corporations. For too many Americans, an illness means a cruel choice between losing their job, or neglecting their sick child or sick spouse at home. I intend to introduce legislation early in the new Congress to end that cruelty, and I urge the Republican leadership to bring it to a vote.

I really wonder what's going to happen in the fall-winter semester if (as seems likely) we have epidemic flu. I have no idea if my college is making any plans other than making flu shots available.

---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!

Thanks, LN,

hearing those words gave us some hope that everybody would be covered, many words that have given us hope since Bobby. If I were a cynic, I would say that they were only operable until we controlled all three branches. I do remember having a bit of a discussion with the editor of the Boston Globe because of the coverage they did not give his proposed bill, and their response was that the Senator was satisfied with their coverage. Hmmm. I don't belittle what Ted is going thru right now, my brother died of the same thing, but if those who are striving to protect his legacy don't understand that this hope best be fulfilled, there will be many of us in his home state who will have footnotes to his legacy.

Thnx, to ALNM and Andre -- for the speech and the reminder that

Ted Kennedy once upon a time wanted essentially single payer.

I conjecture that since he was such a strong and early supporter of Obama he's not going to go against Obama on what BO thinks the health insurance reform should be.

Since, if he wanted real health CARE reform, he simply could not go along with BO.

Sad. Very, very sad. Sen. Kennedy could have had a legacy of real health CARE for everyone, and his name would have gone down in history as the author of that plan. Alas.

Simple. He got sick with a catastrophic illness,

which means his doctors and nurses and technicians, all of whom he can respect and like, are sharing what pressure *they're* getting to kill single payer.

They can use any untrue and meretricious argument they can come up with, to say that single payer will kill patients -- and since they have his life in his hands, who is he to argue?

Except...

... we also know that there are many, many doctors and nurses who support single payer, some of whom have live-blogged here. And I think there are many, many more who wouldn't use a patient's illness to browbeat them politically. Sheesh.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Except once he got sick, he shut up.

at precisely the time you'd expect for him to cement his legacy.

No links -- but it's my hunch that he wouldn't stop fighting on the issue he said he wanted as his defining contribution unless someone told him to stop, and in that I'm being charitable. I don't want to think that he said, "healthcare for me, and none for thee", when push comes to shove, and he faced an illness requiring all the healthcare he could buy.

If he's fighting to live, then he's in the perfect place to say, "I've got access to some of the best healthcare in the world, as a Senator. Why don't the American people deserve the same?" If he's accepted death as coming soon, why not fight for universal healthcare as his dying declaration? And, if he's in between, as most cancer fighters are, why not use the pulpit he's carved out over at least 30 years to be a model for the system at its best? Yes, that's asking a Kennedy to use his private pain, one more time, for the public good, but he hasn't shirked that special duty before, and I'd doubt he'd shirk it now except under duress.

cg eye, you need to furnish links with that

just to keep me from believing it's BS on its face. mmkay?

They can use any untrue and meretricious argument they can come up with, to say that single payer will kill patients

That's sheer unsupported speculation on your part, right there.
We have no way of knowing what the docs, nurses, or techs are saying to Senator Kennedy.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

No, it's my opinion.

My opinion about Kennedy won't be the opinion of the majority of the American population, but I can live with that.

ted kennedy, on national health insurance, 1974

here.

i haven't had the chance to listen to all of it yet.

Oh, as for the 'killing patients' meme

that's already spread on Firedoglake:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/6145

Without Health Care, My Patients Will Die: Please Don’t Sacrifice Them For Single Payer

...Here's the dirty fact: we have a corporatist servant as Prez. His de facto health care czar is a corporatist servant. Dozens of our corrupt House of Lords Senators are paid corporatist servants, as are hundreds of our corrupt "Represenatives". And single payer - a frontal assault on the insurance megacorps - directly attacks the corporatists' paymasters. The "I" part of the FIRE sector - insurance - is one of the biggest paymasters. Sadly, we just don't have the strength to directly destroy the health "insurance" megacorps.

And that's why I'm so worried about how the quest for single payer will kill my patients. The single payer goal is worthy, but to the extent single payer advocates refuse to support other routes to universal coverage - like the robust public option - they are using their proxy vote to kill off the very indigent patients they desire to help.

For employees of Beltway think tanks who already have insurance, I believe this is immoral. For all the rest of us - especially the many folks in the FDL community who lack insurance and tirelessly advocate for single payer, my only criticism is that my indigent patients don't have the luxury of sacrificing coverage in quest of an ideal solution. For many of them, that abstract poltical quest will bring nothing but disease, blindness, amputation, organ failure, and death.

Though I completely support single payer, I don't support jettisoning other mechanisms that bring univeral coverage, provide equal access, and starve the megacorps. The most robust public option plans I've seen do exactly that, and I'll be grateful to see any of them succeed. So will my increasingly ailing patients. We activists have years to defeat corporatism: single payer is one front in that very long war. Many of the indigent patients I've seen these last years - like many of the other 40 million uninsured Americans - will perish during that long war. With a robust public option this year, most of these patients will survive. Hell, some of them will find the health and energy to help us defeat the megacorps.

Is this is what Congress is getting from the 'left', what are they getting from the pundits they respect? And if you don't think Kennedy isn't getting this opinion by the bushel, then he must be trying to heal in splendid isolation.