Saturday, October 10, 2009

Health Care Reform In the Meantime: Medicare for Those 50 to 64

While the blogosphere is busy covering the full spectrum of opinion on the "opt-out" public option trial balloon, from DINO apologists insisting it's the only way to get to 60 in the Senate to Firedoglake going on the warpath against it, Digby reminds us of a more pressing issue: What happens to people who need health insurance coverage now, when any reform won't kick in until 2013?

After Obama's HC speech last month, I noted this:

SNIP

A promise to provide low-cost, bare-bones policies right away--merely as a stopgap, until full reforms kick in.

This could be huge because it will get a lot of people under some kind of coverage immediately and, combined with the insurance reforms, may show enough people some benefits right away so the rest of the plan can kick in before the Republicans can demagogue their way back into office.

(Howard) Dean has been talking about this problem too, and his solution is even better:

To address that problem, Dean said Democrats need to do something that will have tangible results by next summer. His proposal: opening up Medicare to people over the age of 50 so that a "certain mass" of people will already have benefited from health reform by the elections. "You need to have people sign up for this program by July 2010," Dean said.

I've heard this before but it never seems to go anywhere. I'd be first in line to sign up for that plan. Even if it is eventually phased out it would be worth doing right now. The people my age --- and they are a huge group --- are in real trouble with the current economic mess --- lost their retirement nest eggs, their property values are in the dirt and their health care costs are insane. This would be very, very helpful.

Read the whole thing.

2 comments:

Jack Jodell said...

This proposal would seem to be a step in the right direction, but I also believe equal access to good quality health care should be a birthright in this country for all citizens!

Old Scout said...

The problem with defining access as a birthright is paying for the right.

Occaisionally the existance of rights is absolute and their delivery is ameliorated.

Certainly not the best situation, but better than the Republican'ts' alternative.
.