--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <ffl...@...> wrote: > > I think that is the only way Ted Kennedy wanted it to be done. It was > irritating to get voice mail messages from Bill Clinton and Obama asking me > to vote for Coakley, with the idea I would be supporting Ted Kennedy's dream, > when it's the insurance companies that are controlling most of the cash > flow. The insurance companies gave lots of money to the Coakley > campaign. Medicare down to age 55 would have at least been a start towards > what Ted Kennedy wanted, but it was considered to be too expensive. >
Correction: Medicare down to age 50 is less expensive, not more expensive: "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
