Public Option Opponent Mike Ross Proposes Opening Medicare To More Americans
Public Option Opponent Mike Ross Proposes Opening Medicare To More Americans
The Hill is reporting that Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — is floating a proposal to open-up Medicare to Americans under 65, “but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates“:
I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.
The last sentence is key: reimbursing providers who treat the new enrollees at market rates satisfies the provider community and conservative politicians from rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates. This scheme preserves the integrity of a single national program and takes advantage of Medicare’s administrative efficiencies to lower costs and spearhead delivery reforms. Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.
After cutting a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to increase the public option’s reimbursement rates in August, Ross announced last month that “he will vote against health care legislation if it includes a public option.” “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” Ross wrote in a newsletter to constituents. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
For the sake of those who are you constituents , Ross , here’s hoping they get a progressive alternative to your Reagan-bound stupid ass , and you are “voted against” and outed from office…………..
October 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pmHow about opening Medicare to ALL Americans thus beggining the single payer option that is the best answer to this entire problem?
October 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pmThe Ross plan is doable. The specifics need to be worked out as to eligibility and reimbursement rates. I would think that a public option would be paying more than the Medicare rates so this plan may have some merit. It would simplify health care reform while still providing competition. Opening Medicare would also lessen a lot of the opposition to health care reform. The reimbursement rates are a big concern for the less populated states which could see hospitals and medical providers close because of the lower Medicare rates. This concern is very legitimate. We cannot afford to have people with a government option but nowhere to go for treatment or long rides to receive treatment.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pmDon’t sweat it Mike Ross… we’ll get this done without you Blue Dogs and you can tell the people back home how hard you fought against it… until it succeeds, at which point you’ll be claiming credit like a Producer’s boyfriend on Oscar night…
October 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm“Public Option Opponent Mike Ross Proposes Opening Medicare To More Americans”
Ah, what? Under the age of 65? Good grief. Who is this guy? He is re-writing what Medicare is used for. I am for public option but I certainly not for the American public to be enslaved to a government-run program. We need choices here. This is the whole point of the healthcare reform debate. Many of the lawmakers are against a “government-run program” and now Rep. Ross now want Medicare, government-run program, to be extended to people under 65? Does this include newborns? Rep. Ross just doesn’t want to admit that he is not for public option and he is trying to come up with another idea to justify why public option shouldn’t be added in the healthcare reform bill. Geez, another DINO. I hope the constituents are paying attention to this lawmaker.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pmThe public option can be an adjunct to Medicare which would mean two different tiers in the program. The regular program for the elderly would be untouched. The 2nd tier would have different elibility rules and rates. It would all be administered by the same government agency instead having two. The plan makes sense.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:03 pmWe’re getting closer to single payer even if they’re not calling it that! Woohoo!
October 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pmCurrent Medicare rates:
http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100
October 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pmI thought Medicare was socialist, single-payer health care.
My bad.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pmMedicare reimbursement rates need re-working. Rates for basic care are way too low. Rates for some advance treatment and diagnostics are way too high. In my region no health provider could pay their bills with just medicare patients. They’re getting by with transferring the remaining costs to paying patients, and the public hospital districts use local tax money.
MEDICARE-DONE RIGHT-FOR ALL!
October 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pmpags2, while I understand your liking for the idea, why does it make sense to establish one set of rules for one group of Americans and another set for another?
One set of rules, already established. One system, already established. One group of people, Americans.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pmYes…Yes…Yes.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pmOne question should be to Rep. Ross: How exactly is a public option different from allowing people to buy into Medicare?
And why can’t the American people have the same healthcare plan that Congress as well as the Senate have?
But, it is a safe bet that Rep. Ross will not vote for public option if that gets in the bill.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pmHow much money has he taken from the health insurance industry?
October 15th, 2009 at 8:16 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I think the best way to do the Public Insurance Option would be to charge what an employer charges the employee ($5/week, $10/week whatever it is). This amount would come right out of our checking/savings accounts and this Medicare-For-All insurance would stay with us for the rest of our lives. Small businesses wouldn’t have to worry about choosing an insurance provider because their employees would already be covered very cheaply.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pmIs Ross pushing this because he knows it won’t pass, hoping nothing will be done or does he have some other scheme going? It’s too big of a turn around from opposing the public option. Whatever plan they pass, congress should have to accept the same deal.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pm“An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option…”
BECAUSE THEY WERE LIED TO AND FED BULLSHIT.
BECAUSE YOU DID NOT DO YOUR JOB OF INFORMING YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
BECAUSE YOU’RE TOO LAZY AND SATISFIED WITH YOUR OWN BENEFITS.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:23 pmMr. Duke: “The government save money? When has that ever happened in a government program. LMAO.”
In 1993, Clinton gave the job of streamlining and making more efficient government with the intention of lowering it’s size to VP Al Gore. Under Clinton, with Gore’s help, the size of the federal government and the cost of maintaining a number of agencies actually fell.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pmMr.Duke says:
——————————————————————————–
Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.
The government save money? When has that ever happened in a government program. LMAO.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The Bush tax cuts saved money …………Albeit , for all the wrong reasons and definitely for all the wrong people …………..But , then again , that’s typical for a Republican president.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:27 pm… rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates.
correct me if i’m wrong…
aren’t those rates set by the states themselves?
October 15th, 2009 at 8:27 pmHoodathunk says:
pags2, while I understand your liking for the idea, why does it make sense to establish one set of rules for one group of Americans and another set for another?
Medicare is only a partial program for the elderly. Many people have to maintain a supplemental policy for those costs not covered by Medicare. This allows insurance companies to sell policies to the elderly. A public option as a separate program would end up with another government agency and different reimbursement rates anyway. If we can extend basic coverage to people under 65 there would be only one government agency. The rules for under 65 would be based on different actuarial tables so rates would be significantly less than private companies even if the reimbursement is higher than Medicare. It is another step toward single payer and easier to administer. The difference in the way groups are going to be treated is no different than what we have today and the proposed health care. The plan would attract a significant number of younger people especially with families.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:29 pmRambling thoughts…
If the public option is ‘government run’ then private insurance companies are doing the same thing (running health care in America). The government along with private insurance companies would be both doing the same thing: PAYING CLAIMS & DOING THE INTAKE ON NEW INSURANCE HOLDERS.
Health care would still be provided by doctors, nurses, specialists, hospitals etc., but the difference between a public insurance option and a private insurance policy would be THE PRICE OF IT.
Under the Public Option, everyone is qualified whether they have a preexisting condition or not, everyone will pay way less than what they were paying for private insurance, the public option can be used all over the country and from employer to employer without interruption, and there are no CEO’s or Wall Street investors to have to pay or deal with!
October 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pmMr Duke
When have YOU ever done anything except spew the ignorant programming that Rush TOLD you to think? You are nothing more than a stupid punkass troll so why dont you just STFU and let the adults talk. You obviously know you add NOTHING to an adult conversation
October 15th, 2009 at 8:36 pmThis may not be a bad step. It can be accomplished almost immediately and the result would be more people would want it leading to universal single payer.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pmKayInMaine says:
Your thoughts are correct. There will still be significant savings that can be passed along through efficiencies. The under 65 option will have actuarial rates better than over 65 because that is where a lot of medical costs are incurred. People under 65 can then purchase coverage for other things that Medicare does not pay for. This plan would take a big chunk of good business from private companies and really hit them in the pocketbook if they don’t compete.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pmThe propose current public options are still tied to the same factors that the new plan uses. The big issue is reimbursement for medical care providers. If the the reimbursement rate are higher than Medicare then it solves the rural medical care problem. All people under 65 in the Medicare program are used to set rates so that the government does not have to pay anything toward the program. Spreading the risk among a lot of healthy people would still result in lower premiums than a private plan. Currently, insurance companies set rates specific to the group that your employer purchases insurance so a medium size company gets rates higher than large companies with a lot of employees.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pmThe public option would create more balloon boy incidents.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pmFuxNews
Moron, pile of dogshit, stupid punkass troll. Case closed. DISMISSED
October 15th, 2009 at 11:40 pmNews Fox says:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Please expand on your comments, so we may more fully understand your thoughts.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pmInstead of voting everyone down, NSF, just answer the question.
Thnx.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pmA racist AND a coward.
:-D
October 15th, 2009 at 11:57 pmI’m surprised people are panning this. Starting with the public option was selling out single payer, but now proposing single payer is selling out the public option? A blue dog voices support for Medicare for all, it’s undoubtedly a positive development. Reimbursement rates can always be adjusted, the most important step is creating the eligibility.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am.
Shorter Mike Ross (D-AR):
.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:02 amShorter Mike Ross (R-AR):
“Let ‘em die quickly”
(R), Because it’s my way of shoving a blue dog DINO under the bus.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:14 am.
This should be old news by now…
Special Health Care for Congress: Lawmakers’ Health Care Perks
Little Known Office on Capitol Hill Provides Quality Medical Care for Low Price
By JAY SHAYLOR and MARK ABDELMALEK
Sept. 30, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/Story?id=8706655&page=1
EGREGIOUS!!!
GOLD PLATED CARE FOR $503/year!!!
… from the article:
WE, THE PEOPLE PAY their co-pay!
WE, THE PEOPLE PAY their specialitst!
… All the while, WE, THE PEOPLE get SH!T upon BY them!
Q U E S T I O N:
Whithout THE PEOPLE, where would your House Rep even have a job?
THEY WORK FOR US!
THEY SHIT ON US IN RETURN!!!
W H Y
D O N’T
A M E R I C A N S
D E S E R V E
A F F O R D A B L E
H E A L T H
C A R E ?
But somehow, Americans DO NOT deserve to be treated well…
… WHY IS THIS?
.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:21 amAs a constituent of Rep. Ross’, I have now heard the whole spectrum from refusal to even consider a public option to embracing single payer health care plans.
What happened? Did he change his mind (and, perhaps, vote) because he was caught taking a nice, fat bribe from the health care industry when selling his small-town drug store to a regional chain? Did all the current industry “political contributions” catch up with him? Is he finally taking the threats of a lot of his constituents to vote for anyone but Mike next year seriously?
Whatever it may be, let’s hope for him and all of us that he’ll stick with the Medicare single payer option. Over half his constituents want a public option, over seventy percent of Democrats in his district demand it.
Mike, finally listening?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am.
p.s.
Those that choose to NOT join the “pennies on the dollar” “GOLD PLATED HEALTH CARE SERVICES” can opt in from across State lines…
… All the while Congress set the rule to NOT let Americans do the same!
If history is correct, one Marie Antoinette said I have cake, let them eat cake too…
… But back then, “CAKE” was a luxury. But poor Marie was too young, too naive, to sheltered from the peasants to know this fact. She lost her head for being too ignorant, too naive to even care to look AT the people and listen to their cares and concerns.
Marie Antoinette lives again in America and can be found telling Americans. “Go eat cake” from the floor of Congress!
.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:27 amThe problem here is that Public Option opponents like Ross believe that healthcare is SUPPOSED TO cost as much as it does.
They demand that any government program “pay higher rates than Medicare does”. Why? Because hospitals and doctors can’t afford to stay in business at current rates? That’s nonsense.
Amazingly, with its lower administrative costs, a Public Option would actually be CHEAPER for hospitals and doctors to work with, having to spend LESS money on paperwork and fighting Insurance companies for reimbursement.
Arguing in favor of insurance companies over a Public Option on the grounds that doctors won’t make enough is ridiculous, because if doctors were REALLY that concerned about being paid less, 72% of them wouldn’t be supporting a Public Option.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:52 amSorry Ross. Don’t claim to be looking out for the interests of doctors and hospitals when “72% of doctors support a public option”.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:00 amOpening medicare to more people, is not such a bad idea BUT medicare would need to upgrade and expand the services it provides before something like this could happen, because right now the services that are provides are borderline inadequate to say the least and the drug coverage would need to be vastly updated and ALL limits removed.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:48 amkaty says:@21
… rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates.
correct me if i’m wrong…
aren’t those rates set by the states themselves?
Hi, Mrs. Bobwurst here:
katy, good question. However, the states do not set Medicare rates. Medicare is completely a federal program (barring some waivers given to states for certain things). Medicare sets rates geographically according to a formula. THe rural states have long argued, and probably rightly so, that health care costs for them are just as high and they should be reimbursed accordingly.
Medicaid, on the other hand, is a joint federal-state program, with the states having a lot of flexibility in how they run their program.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pmdcc
October 19th, 2009 at 10:35 amlll
October 19th, 2009 at 10:48 ambbbb
October 19th, 2009 at 10:54 amMike Ross is back on board with a government-run healthcare plan. gögüs büyütme estetigi
October 21st, 2009 at 6:14 ambu sitede her zaman ö?renilmesi gereken bi?ey var. faydal? bir döküman.. te?ekkürler…
Estetik Doktoru
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 am