Reagan Signed into Law 1986 PROGRAM that MAKES HEALTH CARE A “RIGHT” FOR EVERYONE that says, “Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for ALL patients, Regardless of Ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge patients prior to stabilization if patient’s insurance is canceled or discontinues payment during course of stay.”

Obligations of Health Care Providers under EMTALA.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
0BAMA must Beat that with the STRONGEST PUBLIC OPTION:

Simply modify the Medicare Bill using Reconciliation and add the following clauses:
[Note: An existing Bill like Medicare can be modified by simple majority in Senate]

i. Automatic Coverage for all persons 0-25 and 65 Years and older.
ii. Automatic Optional Coverage for 25 to 64 group unless they OPT OUT and Buy from a Commercial Insurance Company!
iii. Consolidate into Medicare other current programs: Medicaid, Children, FED Gov.

That SIMPLE: THE END!
__________ __________ _

Benefits:

1. Savings of $1.3 Trillion/10 years from uninsured NOT using Emergency Rooms!
2. No NEW BUREAUCRACY LIKE the other BILLS! In fact removes several of them!
3. Can Be Done by 2010!
4. 3-4% Admin Fees vs 30% Admin Fees by Insurance Cos (600%-1,000% Higher)
5. No NEW L00PHOLES for Corporations to EXPLOIT!
6. Amend current law so done with Reconciliation!
7. 100,000,000+ people in Medicare=negotiate “FAIR Health Care Pricing” Services!

here’s steffie woolhandler’s testimony (my bold):

Adding a public insurance plan option can’t fix the flaws in Massachusetts-style reform. A public plan might cut private insurers’ profits, which is why they hate it. But their profits account for only about 3 percent of the money squandered on bureaucracy. Far more goes for marketing (to attract healthy, profitable members) and demarketing (to avoid the sick). And tens of billions are spent on the armies of insurance administrators who fight over payment and their counterparts at hospitals and doctors offices. All of these would be retained with a public plan option

“Option” advocates are constantly comparing the “option” to Medicare. They should stop doing that. The “option” isn’t going to be part of Medicare, and it isn’t going to look like Medicare.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of Kip Sullivan’s position. He is very much not for keeping things the same. He is critiquing Obamacare and the PO from a more single payer perspective.

In regard to the quote above, I should note that Howard Dean does this a lot too where he equates the PO to single payer which it emphatically isn’t.

The whole idea is that if the PO was kind of or sort of like Medicare then why not combine the two? And if you were going to combine the two, then why not just extend this across the board into something like Medicare for All where you would get simplification and cost savings that an orphan PO is never going to deliver?

I was an internal auditor for a major corporation for a time, and they have more ways to talk poor than you can believe. They have so many ways to benefit themselves and hide/squirrel away money for themselves for later. That 2-5% is just for the suckers who think they own the business because they have a few hundred shares of common stock.

I just can’t stand what we’re having to do to provide care for me and my husbands parents to get them into assisted living. We don’t have enough money, and somehow, we have too much

this is a personal issue for many of us so passion runs high.

learning more is all good though and i’ll try to track down more info re profit margins. thanks for the conversation!