“stuck in bureaucratic gridlock”

Gee, I can’t wait for government to take over my health care.

Ives is one of about 138,000 seniors nationwide who are stuck in bureaucratic gridlock as Medicare Part D premiums are erroneously deducted from their Social Security checks. An additional 141,000 owe money, and can’t get the money to be deducted from their checks.

The problem stems from a longstanding computer glitch between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration. A majority of Wisconsin members of Congress said they have received complaints from constituents trapped in similar situations - where Medicare Part D premiums are incorrectly deducted from Social Security checks. Some offices have fielded more than 100 calls.

1. But guys like Michael Moore say it’s never gonna go down like that Owen.  And really smart people like Kathleen Vinehout and Steve Kagen think he’s smarter than them.

   You lying!  Take it back!

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 0629 hrs




2. Medicare Part D teaches us not to let Republicans try to “fix” health care.

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 0833 hrs




3. Just because this administration is criminally inept doesn’t mean that government is bad.  That’s like pointing to Paddy Mac and saying that all journalists are bad.

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 0855 hrs




4. Yes, because the foibles of government bureaucracy didn’t exist before the Bush Administration.

   Posted by Owen on July 19, 2007 at 0902 hrs




5. Every time I hear these horror stories of government-issued insurance (both foreign and domestic) I always stop and ask myself: even if this is a completely accurate picture (not likely), how does it compare to the problems we have now?  I have yet to come up with an answer other than: sounds better than our system.

   Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 1113 hrs




6. Owen- Every other “government bureaucracy” that deals with health care is working well.  Military, which I have experienced, and Medicare/Medicaid, which I have not but is working fine.

   Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 1149 hrs




7. One recent chuckle: those horror stories about Canadian grannies waiting too long for hip replacements while Americans get them so rapidly?  Turns out our hip replacements are pretty much all done by Medicare.  So it’s comparing one government insurance plan against another.  Heh.

   Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 1200 hrs




8. Scott,

   You’re asking the wrong question.  The question is not whether or not government health care is better than what we have now.  The question is what would be the best system?  It is not an “either, or” debate.

   Posted by Owen on July 19, 2007 at 1211 hrs




9. Seems to me the choices do come down to trying to fix health care delivery with a) market forces or b) government-funded insurance.  I believe option a is fundamentally misguided on a number of levels:

   1.  Health care is not like a flat-screen TV.  You don’t shop around when you have a heart attack.  In fact, most care is not “elective”; you need it.  Seeking out the lowest bidder isn’t on any reasonable person’s mind when their health is at stake.

   2.  People are not doctors and they aren’t going to become them in order to seriously evaluate medical services.

   3.  When people have to pay out-of-pocket for medical care they don’t- as the free marketers contend - shop more wisely; what they do is avoid care until they are sicker.  This saves no dollars and actually decreases people’s health outcomes.

   Meanwhile, we have literally dozens of examples of government-funded health insurance which work more efficiently than private insurance.  Even our own Medicare system does.  After all, why did we create medicare in the first place?  Isn’t it because the private sector was totally unable to provide insurance to the (by definition) high risk elderly at prices they could afford?

   Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 1339 hrs




10. We’re talking about letting people shop around for INSURANCE POLICIES, not emergency rooms when they have a heart attack.  Puhlease Scott, don’t confuse the debate.

    Right now, very few people can actually shop for insurance.  Their choices are a) what my company tells me I can have, b) what my spouses company tells me I can have (if you’re married) or c) nothing.

    Those who don’t have company sponsored insurance can shop, but they have to pay with after tax dollars.

    I want the system completely opened up, so that I can pay for any insurance plan I choose with Pre-Tax dollars and get my company out of the business of sponsoring health insurance.

    Posted by Nick on July 19, 2007 at 1544 hrs




11. As long as the cheapest insurance out there continues to go for several hundred dollars a month for bare bones coverage, all the shopping around in the world isn’t going to make any difference; anyone who makes less than a comfortably middle class salary is going to go without insurance and we’ll continue to have at least 45 million people without coverage.

    Someone needs to tell the well-off in this country that the War on Poverty doesn’t mean killing off the poor people faster and faster.

    Posted by on July 19, 2007 at 1645 hrs