Poll: Just 13 percent want 'Medicare for all' if it means end of private insurance

[George II]

A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans.

In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

[comradebillyboy]

1. The dirty little secret is that most Americans are happy with

their employer subsidized insurance. The ACA, for all the good it represented, impacted lots of folks private insurance and was the primary cause of the Democrats 2010 electoral disaster.

On the other hand an option to buy into medicare may be the easiest option to sell to voters right now.

[Voltaire2]

7. But that is not what that poll shows.

And everyone I know hates the meddling nitpicking hidden cost bullshit their employer for profit private insurance provides.

[edhopper]

9. I don't think that is true

they like their doctors and the care they get. They do NOT like the insurance plan.

[Caliman73]

64. Agreed.

I love my doctors, especially our pediatrician. She has been an absolute godsend. On the other hand, I hate having to change insurance companies almost every year because the rates are so high. I had good coverage last year, pretty excellent actually. Both my children have hearing loss and need hearing aids. The insurance we had last year was one of the pricier options, about 400 extra per month for dependents. That covered hearing aids fully every 3 years which is pretty amazing. Unfortunately that insurance went up to over 850 dollars extra per month which we cannot afford. So the insurance I have now for only 400 dollars extra per month, covers most services at a similar rate, but hearing aids are now only covered at 1000 per ear every 3 years. So my kids' hearing aids cost about $6000 a pair. Fortunately they just got new ones within the last year or two so we are okay, but I cannot afford $8000 out of pocket for hearing aids.

I hate insurance companies. Love my doctors Hate insurance.

[edhopper]

66. I feel for you.

I am having physical therapy for my shoulder. Last year my co-pay was $75, this year $145. Same PT.

[Caliman73]

67. Medical care should not be a for profit service.

I mean if you want to get a nose job, tummy tuck, etc... for strictly cosmetic purposes, then yes by all means pay for it.

Hearing aids, physical therapy for your shoulder, and other healthcare to allow for necessary functions should be funded as medically indicated.

I am not saying that doctors, nurses, etc... should not be able to make a good living. They spend years in school and training and their work is socially necessary. Profit however, should not be any kind of motive for the delivery of life saving and health promoting services.

Insurance companies just add that "gambling" aspect to it all and like a casino, they stack the odds in their favor to ensure profit.

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. Yes, the ACA forced employers to offer non-junk health insurance

That's why it "impacted" employer provided health insurance. Employers used to be able to provide junk health insurance. It was better than nothing, but was often lacking. I worked for Whole Foods for over 5 years. Their health insurance didn't cover mental illness. When I needed therapy for depression following my mother's death, I had to pay for it out of pocket, 100%.

I had a friend who had a job haggling with insurance companies for a medical practice. They had a patient who had to have bladder surgery. Her insurance did not cover pregnancy or anything to do with the female reproductive system. The insurance company refused to cover her bladder surgery even though everyone has a bladder. But what's ridiculous is that there could be a health insirance policy that could exclude pregnancy and anything having to do with the female reproductive system. But before the ACA, such junk health insurance was legal.

It may be a dirty little secret that most people are happy with their employer subsidized health insurance, but part of what makes the secret dirty is that by fighting the ACA and Medicare for all and everything in between, they're saying "I've got mine and I don't care if you don't." Well, FUCK THAT.

[George II]

31. The biggest reason for large rate increases after the ACA went into effect is...

...the insurance companies were essentially lying to their customers, telling them they were "covered" when in many cases the were just barely covered. Once we had the ACA, they had to tell the truth and provide a certain level of insurance. To make up for the increased coverage, they had to increase rates.

[Blue_true]

16. The ACA did not impact people's company sponsored healthcare.

Most large companies immediately implemented the keeping kids on policies until 26 feature. Big companies already were pinning insurers on covering seriously ill employees fully, they did that through their power to select an insurer for tens of thousands of people.

What happened in 2010 is democrats did a relatively weak job of explaining the ACA while republicans successfully demonized the legistlation and democrats, hence the big electoral setback. The ACA has become more popular each year as more people understand it.

I agree with allowing people to buy into Medicare. That really helps self employed people that now have to deal with the vagueness of health insurance plans while running companies.

[c-rational]

17. Agreed.

[ooky]

33. Even for the ones that do they would probably be happy to know there is an

affordable option available to them if they suddenly lose their job, or want to leave it to pursue other options. And then there are the employer plans that are nearly as bad as having no insurance at all. Both of my adult children have those kinds of plans.

[bullwinkle428]

2. Medicare as it currently stands certainly has not eliminated private insurance

for those participating in it, so I can't see how it would be eliminated if it was extended to those under age 65.

[GoCubsGo]

18. Just like the public health service in Canada has not ended it there.

People up there can buy supplemental insurance to pay for expenses not covered by the public plan. It's just like Medicare Advantage here.

[greymattermom]

26. I have medicare

and private insurance. That's what would happen.

[Adrahil]

3. We need a robust public option.

Not Medicare for All, IMO.

[Hoyt]

4. A Public Option to buy into Medicare avoids having to cram it down throat of people too stupid

to understand they'd be better off.

If Medicare is as good, and reasonably affordable, as we think, people will gravitate to it quickly, even some employers. Of course, any legislation would have to include subsidies for people who can't afford Medicare rates (the rates won't be as cheap as some think, at least initially).

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. And a public option would offer robust competition

to private insurance, as well as more vigorous cost controls.

[Voltaire2]

5. Which proposed Medicare for all plan

outlaws private supplemental insurance?

[creeksneakers2]

48. Kamala Harris briefly did.

Kamala Harris Backtracks After Vowing to ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance Market


https://news.yahoo.com/kamala-harris-backtracks-vowing-eliminate-131505611.html;_ylt=AwrJ61xX1WBcRH8AcJRpCWVH;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Bernie Sanders has too.

[Voltaire2]

49. Neither do.

The last senate and house bills allow private supplemental insurance. As do almost all existing universal systems.

The propaganda machine is relentless.

[wasupaloopa]

8. Medicare uses insurance companies. I have Health Net of CA

Nobody knows what Medicare for all would look like.

It would have to pass both houses of Congress and that is never without compromises.

I would think we would still have insurance companies but with added regulation providing coverage for all. But we would still pay through the tax system or payroll deductions.

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. "Nobody knows what Medicare for all would look like. "

THANK YOU!!!

[Hoyt]

14. There are a lot of people right here that think Medicare Advantage Plans, like Health Net,

should be abolished, despite over 30% of beneficiaries voluntarily choosing it.

Insurance Companies also administer traditional Medicare under government guidelines. I suppose we would save a little if claims were paid, beneficiary questions handled, etc., but direct government employees, but I don't think the government will ever take that on -- too much money needed up front and I think government officials would rather blame another entity for problems that invariably arise in a large health program.

[wasupaloopa]

20. Health Net covers what Medicare doesn't. I could not

afford to pay what Medicare does not cover.

[Hoyt]

23. I get it. I had Kaiser Advantage for awhile and thought it was great.

[Caliman73]

65. That was by design, Republican design.

Republicans have been taking little chunks out of what Medicare can cover and handing over to private insurers. It isn't that Medicare cannot cover or manage it, it is that it was taken away from Medicare intentionally.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

34. I have run across that attitude here and I just don't understand.

I'm on Medicare and I have an Advantage Plan. So far, so good.

A lot of people don't understand how very limited Medicare actually is. It provides a ground floor of certain basic coverage, which is what some version of Medicare for all ought to do.

[George II]

37. You're the first person on DU that I've seen (other than me) who mentioned that private insurance..

....companies administer Medicare. Lots of people don't realize that. I have Medicare and supplemental insurance. Other than having a Medicare card from the government and having my ~$120 premium deducted from my social security check, I have no interaction whatsoever with the government. My doctors don't even want to see my Medicare card, just my supplemental insurance card.

The system of contract administration to the private insurance companies works relatively efficiently, and it keeps the actual cost of supplemental insurance way down. It also gives them lots of opportunities to sell other programs/plans to their clients, which "supplements" their income from supplemental plans (hah, I fit that one in!!!), further keeping the cost of supplemental insurance down.

In round numbers, we pay $125/month for Medicare and $25/month for supplemental insurance. When I was working I was paying about $200/month for company coverage.

If Medicare were expanded to everyone, those benefits of cost savings would carry over, but everyone has to realize that there ARE private insurance companies deeply involved, too. And that makes the system better overall.

[Hoyt]

44. 40 years ago, I worked for a state Medicaid agency. Best job I ever had in terms of satisfaction.

The actual claims payment system was handled by the agency's staff and computer programmers. It was a friggin mess. They got so far behind, the providers were going a year or more before being paid. The payment rates sucked anyway, but that just made it worse and providers were dropping out, which was a big problem getting services to beneficiaries/patients.

Finally, the powers that be just decided that private insurers could probably handle that better because they would invest the money into designing an efficient claims adjudication system. It worked much better, but there were always problems because the rules were hard to determine and follow.

Nowadays, they've gone too far, I think. Most state Medicaid agencies put patients in Medicaid managed care plans. The plans are funded so poorly by the government, that by the time the insurance companies take their cut, there is inadequate funding in a lot of cases. Of course, everyone blames the managed care companies and I am sure there is some truth to that. However, I think the government officials like that because they can blame them for any problems rather than having to admit inadequate funding is the main issue.

Fortunately, Medicare Advantage plans seem to work very well. There is some concern that if you get really sick, the copays will get expensive. But Medicare Advantage Plans do have annual limits on one's out-of-pocket costs that help minimize the impact. Traditional Medicare has no such limit, so you are dependent on supplemental insurance if you get really ill.

Of course, another gripe about Advantage plans is that you have a limited network of doctors. Personally, that doesn't bother me. I don't really care how nice they are, as long as they know what they are doing.

The fact that over 30% of Medicare beneficiaries choose to enroll in Advantage Plans tells me they are successful. And, you can go back to traditional Medicare in certain conditions.

[GoCubsGo]

19. Actually, we do know what "Medicare for all" looks like.

It looks a lot like what the Canadians have. The public health service covers the basics. People have the option of buying private supplemental plans to cover care beyond the basics.

[wasupaloopa]

21. Nobody knows what Medicare for all looks like

because it is what ever Congress passes and a President signs.

[Hoyt]

24. The biggest coverage hole in Canada is the lack of coverage for prescription drugs unless one

purchases insurance coverage. That is similar to Medicare, where there is no prescription coverage unless you buy a plan.

[edhopper]

10. BUT!

Medicare includes buying into private supplemental plans now!!

Bogus poll.

[Rebl2]

11. Medicare is

good, but it only pays 80% of the bills. (Of course you pay a premium for it taken out of your social security.) That is why we see so many supplement insurance commercials directed at those on Medicare. I like my insurance I have now and when I go on Medicare I hope to keep it as my supplement. I take a very expensive biologic drug that, if my dr. is right, Medicare won’t pay for. I’ve got a few years to research that before I go on Medicare.
I think the best thing would be is to let people go on Medicare if they want to and pay a premium like seniors do. Maybe somehow adjust it to the amount of money they make.

[Kahuna7]

15. That's what I've been saying. Stop calling it that. That will end up

turning off more voters than it will appeal to. Senior won't want their precious Medicare tampered with. I do believe Medicare should be extended to 55. Then present a public option plan not associated with "Medicare."

[bullwinkle428]

30. That is EXACTLY what 2020 candidate John Delaney is saying. He knows that the Repukes

will fear-monger the shit out of everyone that's on Medicare right now, and attempt to say that their coverage will get totally diluted once everyone else becomes a part of it.

[area51]

22. Some more information

here on Medicare for All.

[Gothmog]

25. For this thread

Link to tweet

[George II]

28. Two simple sentences tells most of the story.

[Voltaire2]

50. If you lie to people you can get any answer you want.

Tell people medicated for all means death panels will murder your mother and people will oppose it.

No shit.

[Gothmog]

27. The Medicare-for-all paradox

here is a good article on why it is so hard to change the US system https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/14/18117917/medicare-for-all-single-payer-pros-cons-work-health-insurance

“It’s a real barrier to doing anything big,” says John Holahan at the Urban Institute, who helped create a proposal explicitly designed not to disrupt work-based insurance. “Most people with employer plans are reasonably happy with them.”

When Vox conducted focus groups on single-payer, led by opinion researcher Michael Perry, one recurring concern we heard was from people who mostly like the insurance they have and were worried about losing it under Medicare-for-all.

“I wouldn’t like that,” Richard M., a federal official who gets his insurance through his work, said when told he would have to give up his insurance. “I like having an option. And I mean at this stage, I’m working full time, I should have an option.”

The polling bears out this sentiment: 83 percent of people with employer-sponsored insurance said in March 2016 that they thought their health insurance was excellent or good, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The status quo is powerful in American health care — while there are problems, people are worried about big changes that could upend the system they rely on today.

President Obama did a good job with the ACA. This was a major step forward. Getting to single payer will be very difficult given the current US structure

[uponit7771]

29. Please lets not let the KGOP frame this !!!

[Eyeball_Kid]

32. Is there something wrong...

... a public option? The general public GRADUALLY grew to like the ACA. The same would occur with a public option. Let undecided folks see the benefits before buying in.

[Freddie]

35. Medicare AVAILABLE For All

To buy or employers to offer. That is what will sell.

[Rebl2]

46. Exactly!

[totodeinhere]

36. Medicare for All should not have to preclude private insurance.

In most European countries that have universal health care private insurance is also allowed. And if Medicare were to continue to pay only 80% then people would need to purchase a private Medigap policy unless theywere were poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

[OnDoutside]

38. Jon Lovett had a great idea for this,

If you want to keep your private healthcare, keep it. For anyone else, you have free access to Medicare. He thinks that it would give Medicare time to bed in and the buying power would make it a far better option for those private policy holders.

[George II]

40. Free access or unfettered access. Medicare right now isn't free - we've all been paying into it...

....since 1965, and there is a monthly premium, too.

Expanding Medicare would be simpler than a lot of people think, but to completely overhaul it the way it's been proposed would destroy the current system. On top of that, we have to keep in mind that private insurance companies are deeply invested in the current Medicare system, which keeps premiums for basic Medicare and supplemental insurance down.

[OnDoutside]

41. The angle he was getting at was in the selling. When Obama was selling the ACA, Republicans lied

by saying Obama was coming to take you doctor/policy etc away. So what Lovett said is to say "Ok, anyone who wants to stay with the
private insurance policy they love etc, can do so....but for EVERYONE ELSE, we are going in this direction".

[George II]

42. I get it, thanks. Unfortunately the insurance companies were lying to Obama and their own clients...

....with respect to the coverage they were providing. Once the ACA went into effect, it was discovered that the insurance companies weren't providing the bare minimum as called for in the ACA, so they had to drop clients in some cases (i.e., they "couldn't keep it" ) or raise rates a huge amount. I think we were all a little naive, thinking the insurance companies were being up front with everyone.

[Vinca]

39. Private insurance can still exist . . . you just won't need it as much (if at all).

Tell a worker that since his employer will no longer have to pay for health insurance he might make thousands of dollars more a year and they might reconsider.

[Cold War Spook]

43. My wife and I are covered by the government.

I have VA and my wife has Medicare and CHAMPVA. 32% of Americans are already covered by the government. I have 6 pages of physical and mental health problems and 15 medications and know that without the VA I would not be alive today.

[pecosbob]

45. Ignore anything The Hill has to say about most anything...a billionaire's slanted mouthpiece

Health care insurance is akin to extortion and should go away. I don't care how it's done.

[KWR65]

47. The best option is to allow employers to buy in for medicare at $5 per hour for a maximum of 40 hrs.

per week. It will be way cheaper then what they pay now and they would force their employees to join Medicare for all.

[MichMan]

53. Where did you come up with that amount?

That would cost employers $200 per week or $10,400 per year for each employee

Plus the employee would still need to pay 20% co pay and deductibles plus additional $$ for dental, vision, and prescriptions.

[KWR65]

55. Medicare costs $11k per person.

[TexasBushwhacker]

59. Current Medicare covers the elderly and disabled

Having a public option or Medicare for all would bring in millions of younger, healthier people into the coverage pool. The cost per patient would go down dramatically.

[KWR65]

60. You are forgetting the millions that will not be working

So we have to pay for them also. Also part timers would be bringing in only $5 for ever hour worked.

[TexasBushwhacker]

61. I'm not forgetting them

Are you forgetting that there are plenty of countries that have lower GDP per capita than the US that do have universal health care. I'm not saying it will be easy or cheap, but it's not impossible. Maybe if we reallocated some of the billions we spend on our bloated military industrial complex it would be affordable. It's all a matter of priorities.

[MichMan]

69. That would be a big bill for those who are self employed

Nearly $1000 per month

[KWR65]

71. That would be a big bill if they buy health insurance on the private market also.

There is no free lunch when it comes to health care even if the government provides the insurance.

[sharedvalues]

51. Good to get this clear. Medicare-for-All is a first step.

[TalenaGor]

52. truthfully the insurance are getting through work it's pretty cheap or free

I paid 0 for myself but I pay $400 a month for my husband.....
If we were on private insurance without employer assistance we would probably be paying $1,500 a month

What I don't understand is.... Why does anyone have to go out of business? The load that the Medicare system would take on ...
Why couldn't private insurance companies easily be converted into claims processing and enrollment centers it's almost exactly what they do now.... all those people would have jobs......

Nobody has to go out of business in fact there's going to be more business just be working for somebody else really...

Oh there it is..... The wealthy business owners I suppose they would be out of business.....

Yeah I'm okay with that.....They're already set for life and they can go do something else without much effort...or retire in luxury..... Can you feel the struggle lol

[democratisphere]

54. Can't have your cake and it it too.

Private healthcare insurance is on it's way to bankruptcy and it is not sustainable. We can get it straight now or wait till after the whole thing crashes.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

56. All polls are suspect

regardless of subject matter, imho, because we don't know who they talked to and we don't know how they phrased the questions. Plus the link is from The Hill and they ain't exactly Edward R Murrowish………….

[Johnny2X2X]

57. Educate people on the fact this would mean everyone gets a raise

Medicare for all would be a cheaper way to do things, meaning that instead of paying $400 a month for insurance, I would get $400 more on my check, which I would then pay some more in medicare taxes, maybe $350 more, so it would be a net gain for me. And what's more, my employer would no longer be burdened with paying for my medical insurance, so I might be able to get a raise from them.

[MichMan]

70. Why do you think employers will give back any savings in raises?

[spanone]

58. Most folks I know on Medicare (me included) also have private insurance (supplements)

[theophilus]

62. Poll: Just 13 percent know their ass from a hole in the ground then. n/t

[Hortensis]

63. End of private insurance, eliminating choice, is an extremist/zealot position.

Don't worry, be happy. Won't happen.

Note that all the nations with what are agreed are the best national healthcare systems offer mixed choices. Those allowing one authoritarian choice are not exactly the planet's most advanced nations, and sometimes among the least.

And, the U.S. is not exactly in the front of healthcare delivery system advances. We have many successful variations to study and continue to advance our our own unfinished national system, the ACA, from, but all are mixed systems.

The zealous left may be noisy, but good sense and the needs and desires of the quiet majority vastly outnumber them.

And as usual, aren't we once again all glad we voted Democrat?

[WeekiWater]

68. If we keep moving the way we are...

That 13% number will be dramatically higher in the next twenty years.

Don’t back down, Harris. The conversation is every bit as important as you possibly winning. More so I would say.