What's your point...that expanding medicare to middle-aged citizens is not a high expense for the federal government simply because, in the words of the article, "Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy"? Simply raise taxes?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <fflmod@> 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 >
