Apparently, the closer you come to being Republicun, the stupider you get.

You're assuming he has a well-thought out plan beyond just getting attention. That's why you're confused.

Words mean what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less. In this instance "Public Option" means a government run health program that everyone hates and 'Medicare" means a government run health program that everyone loves. Other than that these words have no additional meaning.

"The only thing I can think of is this is Ross' way of killing health care reform..."

I think you hit that hammer right on the head. Bullseye.

It's a simple answer. Let those who qualify BUY into Medicare. Like unemployed or underemployed people.

One thing you should know about Mike Ross - he's not considered by anyone here to be a smart man.

That having been said, his district includes Hot Springs and Hot Springs Village, both retirement meccas and both pretty much the area where most of the individual wealth in the district is concentrated. And those seniors like their Medicare. It's possible that Ross is putting this forward because 1) he's taken some flack from constituents over his pledge to vote against public option and 2) he figures his oldster money-base is less frightened by "Medicare for more" than by that scary "public option" with the death panels and all.

Seriously, I don't believe the guy is smart enough to conceive of some grand legislative gambit to derail health reform. So what he's doing is anyone's guess.

I think Paul Dirks hits the nail on the head - the GOP has attempted to boxed the Dem's in with this Medicare defense strategy, so the trick is flip it around and bolster Medicare and expand it.

He's not that smart. He's just been burned by opposing the public option and this is his way of climbing down IMO. It's like Conrad, his co-op plan has been shot down and he's using the Medicare rates thing to climb down to the Schumer position IMO.

Why not Medicare for all? At least it keeps government out of the health care business. I heard so from some Tea Bagger on my TeeVee. She seemed like a very bright lady.

...but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates...

A true Blue Dog would never say this because it flies in the face of fiscal conservatism.

It makes perfect sense to me. See, you expand competition by opening Medicare to everyone, and you keep the government out of Medicare.

ross is first and foremost a thug for corporate medical services. he also knows he can say any old bright and shiny thing he wants all day long and then deny it ten minutes later... 'cause there's no god damn accountability for congresscritters.

ross will inevitably line up with the corporate powers every single time. he is bought, paid for, and it's practically on the public record -- along with every bought and paid for thing he has ever said about hcr.

oh, and may he rot in hell...

Haven't you seen those "keep the government out of my medicare!"-type conservatives out there? I'd bet Mike Ross is just another one of those types.

Has he been to Arkansas recently? If so he might have gotten an earful from his constituents. I would imagine the big employers in Arkansas, like Walmart, would like the idea.

By the way he couches the case for a medicare option as being fiscally conservative and it is. No need to create a new bureaucracy since the Medicare bureaucracy is in place. Of course, we would expect medicare taxes to go up to cover participation by working folks. Plenty of room for private insurance because Medicare is really a modified catestrophic plan that leaves a lot of room for "pick up" insurance.

I agree with Paul Dirks. I think it's because a lot of people don't understand the "Public Option" but love Medicare. Dems should have taken this approach in the first place.

Keep your eye on PollingReport.com or FiveThirtyEeight - sometimes even politicians have to respond to the actual wishes of their actual constituents - not just do the bidding of their industry cronies.

Another great thinker elected to Congress.

Amen, bcinaz -- and about time this jerk finally noticed his people didn't think much of him.....

My theory is that he is just an idiot who just follows whatever rhetorical winds are blowing to position himself on the Right end of the current political spectrum. His statement follows directly from the clueless assertions of the Teabagger crowd, who rail against socialized medicine while fiercely defending socialized medicine (Medicare). So Ross' reptilian brain came up with "Medicare good" and the words came out of his mouth. Never underestimate the intellectual bankruptcy of politicians. Maybe we can capitalize on this?

"Why not Medicare for all? At least it keeps government out of the health care business. I heard so from some Tea Bagger on my TeeVee. She seemed like a very bright lady."

Chopin, you crack me up!

I am not a expert on any of this, but I always thought the most direct path to universal coverage would be to tweak medicaid eligibility and charge premiums that are indexed based on income. It seems like a pretty sensible way to sidestep all the nastiness of the last several months. It would require an expansion of an existing program, but not the creation of a new one.

I'm with Alex Kirby - someone suggested this a year ago, and it struck me as a nice simple way to cut through to the desirable solution of health care for everyone. It works pretty well, people are familiar with it and like it, and the bureaucracy and its processes are in place. It seems to me we could just gather around Ross' idea, say enough good things about the blue dogs to make them feel that they couldn't possibly vote against their own idea, and cheer it on through. What's wrong with it?

This makes perfect sense to me. You see the public option would be run by the government where Medicare is not. It is quite possible that Ross believes this. It is clear that many who oppose reform do not know what they are talking about. And may really believe Medicare is a private company.

Being able to buy into Medicare for people aged 50 or 55 is also a Howard Dean suggestion, so maybe Dean has found one convert...maybe.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/15/793281/-Liveblogging-with-Gov.-Howard-Dean

Does anyone know what happened to the CBO's scoring of HR 676, for single-payer?

Well $*%&ing DUH!!!!! This is the "Public Option" that should have been on the table in the first place. and it should be an OPTION!!!!

Not a mandate.

There's plenty of private insurance companies profitably writing Medicare Supplement plans. Those plans have been standardized for easy consumer reading and comparison. The Average Jill doesn't know how to read a regular insurance policy.

No - In the Republican world every government program is 'Socialist' except Medicare - because everyone loves Medicare.
The one thing that would PASS is allowing anyone to buy into Medicare, because no one is against Medicare today.
Medicare Buy-In for Everyone - may be the MOST viable public option, because it is easy to understand and no one oppposes Medicare.

I think this is the key part of Ross's statement:

instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy

That's how he'd be able to justify voting for a public option: by thinking about it as the extension of an existing policy administered by an existing agency. That way he can tell himself that he held back the growth of Big Gummint, because he's principled like that. It's like he wants to keep down the number of _people_ employed by Big Gummint. Because, you know, people who work for the government have an unfortunate tendency to phone it in after a while, right, Congressman Mike Ross?

I still say that the reason why cranky old people like Medicare better than other "government-run" things is that they believe they paid for it out of their lifetime of paychecks -- and they think that some new program will start cutting checks to people who haven't paid their dues. That's why they're so possessive of Medicare, because they see themselves as having _earned_ it.

You've got it wrong. There's another explanation besides an attempt to kill reform.

Mike Ross is dumb. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I live in DC, and people who know him well have expressed shock privately to me that he could be a key to health care because he's not a smart man.

This is completely wrong: "...but Ross is publicly suggesting letting everyone have access to a national socialized medicine program?"

In your own quote of Ross, he said that "Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange" (my emphasis). That's not "everyone". That's a big difference and an egregious error on your part.

I agree with FlipYrWhig that a good explanation for why older conservatives support Medicare but oppose "government-run health insurance" is that they believe they paid for it out of their withheld payroll taxes and premiums. Of course, that accounts for only a portion of Medicare's funding.

What's amazing about Ross's statement is that the actual public options against which he's opposed, as proposed have been revenue-netral and would not add to the deficit...whereas expanding Medicare and especially by having it have reimbursement rates higher than regular Medicare would greatly add to the deficit. It's entirely inconsistent with regard to the fiscal conservatism that Ross and others have used as a rationale to oppose reform.

The only explanation for this is a combination of three things: 1) what's he proposing isn't actually on the table and has no chance of being implemented; 2) Medicare is popular with conservative voters; and 3) Ross isn't very informed and/or intelligent.