Insurer Explains Why You Don't Deserve A Public Option (AUDIO)

Ah!!! at last I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information.
Nice post. Thanks

I don't understand why this guy isn't talking about the private insurance company's limitations. I've been insured through either a union or work all of my life and have always found that private insurers do not pay full amounts to doctors, labs or hospitals either. They almost always have a rate and only pay that, very rarely the billed amount from the doctor or lab. They also seem to have people employed to reject claims. So, I really don't see much difference between the Medicare doesn't cover everything issue with private insurers. Private insurers are just as likely to decide on life and death procedures as Medicare, I see no real difference ergo no real argument.

thanks,
j

Politicians and Profit Machines, where Profit care comes ahead of Patient care in America.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62

Disgusting.

Ron,

I have heard you mentioned the prospect of "Medicare E" on your program. As one now on Medicare, I totally support this idea an excellent start to major reform.

However, perhaps many of your listeners are not aware of the fact that Medicare does not pay anywhere near 100% for what it covers. Both Parts A and B have significant deductibles, and there is still a significant portion (20% in the case of Part B) that is left to the patient.

And this is where the insurance companies do land office business at a good profit; otherwise they would not bombard those turning 65 with their unrequested literature. (The traditional supplements and Medicare Advantage - Part C - each handle this in a different way.)

Would "Medicare E" also supply incomplete coverage?

AND WHAT ABOUT THE "PUBLIC OPTION"? As envisioned would it also be incomplete coverage? If so, the insurance companies will still have a great opportunity to fill the "gap."

Mac Langford
Lopez Island, WA