"Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.
And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html This is exactly what I said Message #226947 "I posted an article from Black Agenda Report the other day that pretty much supports what I'm saying. In case you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/kj4xhh http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/battle-health-care%C2%A0-between-now\-and-labor-day-its-still The best idea to come out of the article lowered the age for Medicare eligibility every year until it covered everyone. It isn't a dramatic change, it's easy to do, it side-steps the need for "insurance reform" and forces insurance companies to be competitive. It's a no brainer but Congress has a thousand page bill that no one reads when they could have written this idea on the back of a napkin." --raunchydog
