--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "fflmod" <ffl...@...> wrote: > > > 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? >
Medicare overhead is approx 3%. Private Health Care overhead is approx 30%. Cost in payroll tax is dramatically LESS than insurance premiums paid to "for profit" Big Insurance. It's a no brainer. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> 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 > > >
