Seniors know Medicare is to be stripped of even more benefits. There is no way anyone could say that Medicare by itself is adequate coverage for all. It is not even adequate for the seniors who rely on it. I would like to see the Obamas and members of Congress try to cover their medical expenses with this so-called "single-payer" program. They would never trade the comprehensive coverage they have for Medicare. Medicare needs to be expanded to cover all basic medical needs. However, that is not in the President's plan for health care reform.

Listen to what politicians, medical experts and the President say about "cutting waste." Where do they plan to cut it? From those very supplemental program payments to subsidized private insurance plans that make Medicare workable and affordable for low-income seniors. ABC News reported that there is bipartisan support to "squeeze an additional $35 billion out of Medicare over the next decade and larger sums in the years beyond...a step toward fulfilling President Barack Obama's goal of curbing the growth of healthcare spending." (7/28/09 "AP Source: Bipartisan Group Eyes Medicare Savings")

Obama says single-payer is the best way to cover the most people, but it's not American enough, and it needs to be the "traditional" employer-based model, but there are lots of people without jobs, but he wants to require everyone to be covered, so there are all these formulas for subsidies to help people who don't currently have insurance and who don't have much income, but if it's too expensive, or someone is too poor, those people can get waivers, so once again, the poorest - and those most in need of care - will not be covered.  As I understand it, the "cost-sharing" - the amount people will have to pay out-of-pocket on top of premiums before the insurance company picks up the cost of anything - is something like $5,000 per individual and $10,000 per family.  Does he not hear the people shouting the obvious, that if they had $5K of $10K they could just go to the doctor or the pharmacy and PAY FOR what they need?  Hello?

I, on the other hand, have.  and I would say that I am probably "satisfied" with my particular insurance coverage.  its the heath care system that is unsatisfactory.

They should have entrenched that public plan first which would have cost very little and then addressed the uninsured.

Everyone is selfish. EVERYONE.

You are. I am.

FDR--even with huge congressional majorities and a solid electoral coalition--knew he needed outside help to shift the electorate. But he knew how to do his part as well. His early fireside chats weren't just national pick-me-ups; they were designed from the first word of the first sentence to build public support for liberal ideas. Likewise, years later, when he was trying to persuade an isolationist American public to actively oppose the Nazi occupation of Europe, he gave a folksy speech comparing Lend-Lease with the loan of a garden hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. It worked: With the public on board, Congress passed the enabling legislation and Britain survived long enough for America to join the war. Majorities may come and go, but FDR built a liberal legacy that outlasted him because, by the time he left office, the public believed in the New Deal and everything that went with it.

Kevin Drum

or more directly:

The right way to address this won't be found in any of Obama's white papers. There's a story there, if you dig deep enough, but it's long and complicated and relies on things like increased efficiency, consumer rebates, and R&D funding that pays off in another decade or so. In the short term someone is going to have to tell the public that, yes, there's some sacrifice required here, but it's worth it. Someone needs to come up with a garden-hose analogy to convince a financially stressed public that doing something for the common good is worth a small price.

Just my two cents.  Not saying I agree with the above statement, but it is hardly the worst thing I've ever read.