Surely if it were extended as Woolhandler says it would just foist the most costly patients onto Medicare increase the deficit bring in a storm of criticism about the cost of govt. involvement in health care and lead to cuts in medicare. There would be no motivation to extend medicare except to unload even more costly patients onto the public purse since they are not profitable to the insurance companies. I suppose the reason that many are against the provision is that they would rather that the govt. directly subsidise private insurance by subsidising payment of premiums. This way those that cannot profitably be insured can be insured at a profit.
Cheers, ken hanly
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
--- On Mon, 12/14/09, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
> From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Woolhandler analysis of Medicare buy-in
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 8:13 PM
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Well, Joe Lieberman killed that one!
> >
> > Funny. I understand the economics of Woolhandler's
> analysis, but I'm not so sure about the politics. Opponent
> Ben Nelson said the buy-in was a furtive way of getting to
> single-payer - more than the public option. Anthony Weiner,
> the New York Congressman who supports single-payer, says
> pretty much the same thing. That's why it's gotta go!
>
> Jordan was arguing the same thing with me over the weekend,
> and after arguing her corner for a while, I'm beginning to
> think you're both right. Whatever the devilish details, the
> very idea that medicare can be "extended" to cover more of
> the population seems to outweigh everything else in long
> term political terms. In one swoop, it makes "medicare
> for all" seem not utopian.
>
> Too bad it just died.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>