The trouble with Medicare for all. is that it’s not good enough for many. Especialy those who can afford better. So they won’t have less care they are willing to keep others from having care.

You want Medicare for all, find a way to let the well off, keep what they have and still pay for Medicare for all.

Also Medicare is covered by the Hyde Amendment.

You are being silly aren’t you? Medicare is funded by payroll taxes and even though deductions might go up (and should,ESPECIALLY for the ‘well off’) the increase would be less than what people now pay for ‘health insurance’.

I think you are confusing Medicaid with Medicare (how many 65 or older women would need an abortion?)
In any event, “How does the Hyde Amendment apply to
managed care plans?
Medicaid is a federal-state matching health care
program for the poor. Traditionally, the Medicaid
program is funded on a fee-for-service basis. Under
this framework, the Hyde Amendment prohibits
payment for abortion, except to save the life of the
mother or in cases of rape or incest.
Many states secured waivers from the federal
government so they can also provide medical care to
Medicaid recipients through managed care plans.
Federal funds are used to help pay for complete
benefits packages instead of reimbursing specific
procedures after the fact. In 1996, 40% of all Medicaid
patients were served by managed care plans
nationwide. This percentage is expected to increase in
the future.”
From here(pdf file)

And for those interested in women’s role is congressional amendments:
This should also be of interest as it analyzes congresswomen’s efforts at reproductive rights in terms of amendments to legislation.

Just sent my letter using your link.

I’m never funny on so important a thing.

Medicare isn’t fully funded or it wouldn’t be facing a 38 trillion dollar deficit, you seem to have not quite comprehended.

It It’s not paid for now. Is a fairy going to come down and fill in the mising money.

The joke is on any of us that think Medicare for all is affordable, without major changes in the way it’s supposedly paid for.

For others clarification: “As was true in 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. ”
From here which also points out: “Part B of the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet next year’s expected costs.”

It’s only the HI funding that is an issue and, therefore, a large part of the ‘healthcare reform’ push that is going on(from a governmental pov). Can you say move some of the Medicare folks into the public option program (means test?) while raising payroll taxes?

Or ,like I suggested, simply raise payroll taxes ; the monies saved by employees by not having to purchase private health insurance would more than makeup for the higher taxes. (well, those who make a lot of money might end up paying more in taxes than they would buying private insurance but I don’t mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadents).

As this article states “If Medicare was paid for out of general budget expenses, rather than a dedicated funding stream few people would be concerned about the specific future of that program, but would instead focus more on the budget as a whole. The same applies to Social Security. The fiscal future of those programs would be tied to the overall federal budget. This would lead to a different conversation, one where instead of worrying about the specific funding sources for these and other important programs, more people would understand directly the impact of, for example, the extremely costly war in Iraq, as well as widespread tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, have had on the futures of programs they value and upon which they depend.”

I think You been drinking to much of the cool aid. Guaranteed funding streams in 2008 had many people still working, and a Government that was still taking in money.

Unless You missed it the Government is broke, it is borrowing money to fund everything.

Yes they can raise payroll taxes, and are assured to do that even if no healthcare is passed.

Everything is tied to the Federal budget, which is in arears, and no hope of correcting that problem because of the unwillingness to raise taxes.

Completely off topic, but as an alternative to single payer, Uwe Reinhardt makes a case for the private but highly regulated German insurance market, in which private, competing non-profit insurers do only one thing: purchase health care from its providers. But there are dozens of plans for the public to choose from; risks are pooled and funds collected and distributed by the government. It’s described by him (in brief) in an April 17th 2009 Economix Blog in the NYTimes. Don’t know if that would work here. I really think passing a bill just to score a ‘w’ on a corporatist Administration’s menu is a mistake: bad policy = bad politics.

Interested in what you have to say, but there must be other roads to single payer, e.g. the Canadian model. Have you had a look at S 703, Bernie Sanders’ bill, and what do you think of it?

A value added tax, such as that imposed on most European countries, might help to finance health care. Or a payroll tax, based on earnings. Dunno…