I'm all for paying higher taxes for a Medicare for all system.

[Yavin4]

I have no problem with paying higher income taxes and/or higher sales taxes in exchange for a system where I don't have to pay a monthly premium, then a co-pay, then a deductible, and then still have additional bills. The peace of mind that we would have as Americans regarding our health care costs and the savings that it would bring would alleviate a ton of stress on all of us. If we have to cut defense spending to pay for M4A, then so be it.

We have to get over our fear of taxes. Taxes allow us to pay for things that we all need at a huge discount.


One cost. One payment. One system.

[Poiuyt]

1. The studies are showing that any tax increase would be more than offset by not having to

pay insurance premiums, medicine, and co-pays. It would be a net win—I don't hear enough pro single payer advocates talking about this!!

There needs to be some way to ensure that employers would pass on their savings to their employees.

[wasupaloopa]

5. Give me a link to those studies

[Celerity]

43. the links are the rest of the advanced world, regardless of whatever system they use to get there

The American healthcare system, ACA included, sadly (although is it vastly better than what the Rethugs would foist upon us all), is one giant wealth transfer system.

We pay BY FAR more per capita than any other nation, all for a system that is not even remotely in the top tier (hell not even in the top 20.)

It is one of the biggest scams going, along with the MIC.

I am NOT saying that MFA is the only way to proceed either, but something needs to change to RIP out root, stem and all the rapacious profit motive and the leech middle-men/women for what is now a fundamental human right.

[wasupaloopa]

56. I thought so. You can't defend what you are talking about. What rest of the world healthcare

systems are you expert on?

Maybe Bernie did all the studying and we just take his word for it. That idea that all the employers not paying for health insurance will pass the savings on to employees is a real Bernie doozy.


What company, that drops an expense, goes right back and incurs a like amount of expense by giving away the cost in money?

[Celerity]

68. I grew up in London (NHS) & have lived in the Nordics as well, so I'm well versed in other nations

I also have lived as a child in Hong Kong, Australia, and Monaco, so have had numerous conversations about this very thing with my parents on a comparative basis.

I am NOT a Bernie fan, that is such a weak ploy to try and frame shift, and I also, as I said before, do NOT think that MFA is the only option to move forward.

Sanders is not the be all and end all of the healthcare debate, but if you think our (the US) overall healthcare system is NOT broken overall in its current iteration, especially the overall cost basis vis-a-vis versus benefits, returns and the wealth extracted from the American people, I will gladly debate that with you all day and all night.

In Sweden, where I am currently at for uni, the total costs that a person can accrue for healthcare services in a rolling 12 month period is 1100kr (113 USD at current FOREX rates) and 2200kr (226 USD at current FOREX rates) per rolling 12 month period for ALL prescription drugs. There are NO premiums, and that 339 USD per rolling 12 months is the most you can pay, including all hospitalisation, operations, ALL drugs, etc.

If you want to drill down into the taxes, then if you make between around 20,000 USD and 60,000 USD per year you actually pay more in overall taxes in NYC than you would here in Stockholm, when you figure in 350 USD per month in overall US insurance and drugs costs (which is a very low amount I am positing for a US taxpayer to pay for all premiums, co-pays deductibles, and pharma.) That is just the overall taxes btw, if you start to do a total NET cost analysis, it is truly staggering how much more the average US person pays versus a Swede (who can have any sort of chronic disease or catastrophic health event and pay basically shite out of pocket.)

Your average Swede pays a massively lower part of their income for all healthcare, no matter how horrid and/or chronic their health issues are, WITH ALL TAXES INCLUDED, than the average US taxpayer does, and receives better care by far on an overall basis.

The Swedish government also pays a massively lower rate to the big pharma firms for the EXACT same drugs than the US government does, even though the US obliterates Sweden in terms of scales of economy. The Swedish government also has run a budget surplus for several of the past years, and has far less wealth inequality and a far more vibrant capitalistic economy than the US does. Upward socio-economic mobility is vastly higher here as well. Only the UK is worse than the US in terms of upward mobility within the entire OECD. Also, before you say, oh, Sweden is a heterogeneous (ie mostly white) society, bear in mind that Sweden is now more diverse (in terms of overall percentage for first, second, and third generation foreign born, non European-decent (ie. non-white) population than the US is. I am a mixed race non-native Swede myself. Sweden took in the US-population-adjusted equivalent of over 45 million refugees since the beginning of the 2001 Afghan and 2003 Iraq wars and still maintains a vastly more economically fair, upwardly mobile, healthier, less wealth-extractive society.

You want to defend the US healthcare system, go ahead, the rest of the advanced world is laughing at you.

[wasupaloopa]

71. I will read your post later and take notes and reply later..

You have more knowledge that I gave you credit for. My apologies.

I think I can say correctly that given our political make up, we will never have a congress and president that will pass a healthcare bill that will raise taxes to pay for everyone's healthcare where individuals pay nothing.

[Celerity]

72. I am one of the few who says there is almost no chance even the Public Option will pass, let alone

some pie-in-sky Sanderite MFA pipe-dream.

So there is that.

here is my rationale for why it will not (I have been saying this for months)


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287285755#post18


The country would be better off if MFA passed, BUT it will not pass, and I highly doubt the public option will either. Like I said, the system is broken.

[TexasTowelie]

75. I agree that in the long run that there might be cost savings under a single-payer plan.

However, there would be tremendous up-front costs for hiring and training the personnel for a single-payer system and developing the administrative processes and computer systems to handle 330 million clients. During the meantime the current customers will have to handle the bureaucracy of switching between current providers and the M4A system. That process will be annoying to the population and I doubt that it could even be partially functional within a two-year timeframe based upon my experience (and computer systems implemented in various states). If we do change to a universal healthcare system, then the Democratic Party should probably expect to lose the next election because it will be viewed as a boondoggle by the voters during the conversion process.

IBM and Accenture could not meet the deliverable dates or replicate the productivity of the legacy computer systems the job when they tried to upgrade computer systems for the Texas Health and Human Systems. I have zero confidence that they (or any other IT provider) has the skill level to complete the tasks necessary, while also running the legacy systems in parallel.

I'm also uncomfortable with any government system having complete access to the medical records of the entire country. It sounds completely Orwellian and I fear how that information might be used since it could affect employment decisions.

[Celerity]

76. There will never be a single payer system for healthcare in the US for decades, maybe not in my

lifetime, and if I live to the average age of my mother's and fathers families' previous several gens, we are talking the 2090's when I die. I have a great-grandmother and two great-great-aunts who are all in their mid to late 90's, with one turning 100 next year.

I specifically said, as well, that MFA was not a necessary path in order to improve the broken US healthcare system.

You also made an error here (only you know if you did it on purpose) by conflating single payer with 'universal healthcare'

If we do change to a universal healthcare system, then the Democratic Party should probably expect to lose the next election because it will be viewed as a boondoggle by the voters during the conversion process.

Every single candidate left, even Delaney and Biden say their plans are for universal coverage. Biden, when he says it, is not being truthful about his own plan, which on his own website only say 97% will be covered (ie. 10 million uninsured) and that has been fact-checked as correct on multiple occasions.

Finally

I have to laugh at

I'm also uncomfortable with any government system having complete access to the medical records of the entire country. It sounds completely Orwellian and I fear how that information might be used since it could affect employment decisions.

Number one, no one agency would have access to records anymore than they already do (If you think the NSA, etc cannot get hold of anything they want, well, I have a little bridge to sell you, it is called the Öresund.)

Number two, hiring departments have long ago figured out how to ascertain if a person if a person has a chronic disease, etc without direct medical record access anyway. There are myriad numbers of ways to extract that type of info out, especially in the US, where it is legal to ask for a credit check to be run and other personal info to be given as a a condition of placement application.

and

finally

What do you think is going on now? As if I am going to trust rapacious for profit private firms MORE than a public agency that has NO profit motive. LOLOLOL

I am sure there will checks and protections built into any public system, IF one is ever passed.

Oh, wait........... Medicaid, and Medicare... are you worried about them spilling your beans?

smdh

[TexasTowelie]

77. Yes, I'm worried about Medicaid and Medicare spilling the beans

considering that we are proceeding to a more authoritarian government. While other parties can obtain certain information from things like credit reports, I don't see why we should make it easy by having a central repository of such information. Imagine having a remark from a medical file that states something like "injured during the Antifa rally" associated with you and how that information might persuade a caregiver to either provide or deny treatment?

And sorry, but I used to work for a government agency (13 years) and despite the claims of protections you mentioned, I'm very familiar with how confidential information has been used, misused, and abused. If you had my background, you would have almost zero reassurance about checks and protections. I even know how much my aunt received in an insurance settlement when she injured her ankle in an elevator accident, but I never divulged that information to anyone (including my aunt).

And while government agencies do not have a profit motive, they do have extreme pressure to reduce costs and improve productivity. The project that I worked on with the state ran a budget between $200K and $250K when I started. By the time I left over a decade later, the costs ran under $50K and it went from four full-time employees to one (me) while the work volume roughly tripled. With that type of pressure to reduce costs, computer systems get developed that barely meet the specifications but also contain plenty of erroneous data because the systems are developed by the lowest paid programmers. If you dealt with computer system glitches and semi-incompetent programmers as much as I have in the past, then you would know that those deficiencies don't bode well for patient care.

Like I said, the upfront costs of developing the processes and computer applications will be staggering and I think that people would want to scrap the system quickly because they will compare their experiences obtaining care under the new system versus the old. There isn't a lot of patience among people these days--I know because I got locked into about an hour-long phone call yesterday on some government benefits I receive. It was a negative experience for the clerk and for me. I wouldn't want that experience to be multiplied by 330 million until after some gun control laws are implemented.

[Celerity]

78. So you do not support a public option? As it would obviously

be a massive increase in terms of the government controlling healthcare.

I am not being flippant. I think you make some very valid points. What would you like to see in terms of overall outcome with the US healthcare system?

It seems so doomed due to the cultural side (profit motive uber alles in the private sector continuing to up the rate of wealth extraction, incuding the selling of data, and then your concerns about the governmental sphere, including the transitional phase, as well) AND the political side (no electoral path to having a consensus for change due to the RW gaming of the electoral map via gerrymandering, judicial RW capture at both federal and state levels, and systemic voter suppression, then Citizens United et al., along with the private sector's billions in lobbying/advert/manipulative power preventing so much in terms of an honest debate, and finally the constant threat of an expanded government-run system (IF we did get it) being put under the cosh by the RW from every conceivable angle and level.)

[TexasTowelie]

83. I never said that I don't support a public option so don't extrapolate and put words in my mouth.

You are attempting to build a strawman so you won't get any further response.

[Celerity]

84. How is asking you a question putting words into your mouth?

I asked you if you support the public option, nothing more, nothing less. I never inferred you either did or did not support it. It is disingenuous to say I did.

[TexasTowelie]

85. Your actual question was, "So you do not support a public option?"

If you were actually concerned about my stance on the public option, then the question would be "So do you support a public option?" The way that you framed the question infers a statement disguised as asking a question. I've been here for awhile so please don't play word games with me because that is disingenuous.

[Celerity]

86. That is pettifogging. My phraseology just flowed naturally from the colloquy.

I am going to stop now, as I am not going to continue to attempt to interact as IMHO there is an absence of good faith emminating from your end.

Cheers

[TexasTowelie]

87. Let's see.

I didn't mention the public option at all in my reply, then you concluded that I was against the public option even though I haven't expressed my opinion about it anywhere on DU, then the phrasing of your "question" is essentially an accusation with a question mark at the end. However, you are offering another opinion that I lack good faith.

Yes, cheers. Have a good night.

[Poiuyt]

57. Physicians for a National Health Program has a lot of good information

https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/

Also:

https://www.healthcare-now.org/what-is-single-payer/

What does it cover?
Under the single-payer legislation in the House (H.R. 1384):

Everyone would receive comprehensive healthcare coverage under single-payer;
Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay;
Employers would no longer be responsible for health care costs and coverage decisions;
Single-payer would reduce costs by 24%, saving $829 billion in the first year by cutting administrative waste and allowing negotiation of prescription drugs (Friedman, 2013); and
Single-payer would create savings for 95% of the population. Only the top 5% would pay slightly more. (Friedman, 2013)

[wasupaloopa]

62. National Nurses United, Our Revolution, Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Democrats of

America.

That is no more a reliable reference than Bernie is.

The single payer in America idea needs to be studied by a non partisan think tank that will take the whole macro world of health care into it's study.


With out that you are just making shit up

[wasupaloopa]

2. There will be no such thing. You will still make a monthly payment. We will never

have a system where you pay nothing for healthcare. The sooner people stop thinking like that the sooner we will beat trump.

Americans at this time do not want government run health care. We are not nor will we ever be a socialist country.

Asking for government run healthcare where you never put any skin in the game is like Beto confiscating guns.

It only plays into trump’s hand. We need to win in 2020 before we get anything.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. This is not government run

Medicare for all isn't Government run healthcare, it's government funded health care.

And the majority of the country wants it right now.

[wasupaloopa]

9. No they do not want government funded healthcare

[Johnny2X2X]

13. 55% favor Medicare for all

Yes they do.

https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/02/majority-backs-medicare-for-all-replacing-private-plans-if-preferred-providers-stay/

[PSPS]

22. LOL. Ok, whatever you say.

[wasupaloopa]

15. Who decides Medicare reimbursement rates? Who decides what the annual deductible is?

Who decides what part A B C and D covers? Who enacted Medicare? The government!

[roody]

35. Bernie's plan has no deductible.

[wasupaloopa]

59. Bernie has no plan. He makes shit up. You and I can do just the same.

Now if anyone wants to hide my post because I said Bernie makes shit up, I am not the only one here and out in the real world that says that.

[BlueMississippi]

70. +1000 nt

[Gothmog]

73. Good post

[NYMinute]

74. Excellent post. I agree completely. nt

[ehrnst]

79. +1000. (nt)

[roody]

80. If you can read, you can read it.

[wasupaloopa]

82. Read that Bernie will raise taxes,everyone will have the best healthare insurance companies disapear

we save billions of dollars, drug prices will drop, there will be no for profit hospitals or clinics, doctors and nurses will be happy to work for less, there will be practically no need for administration people and the Broken Bridge is for sale.


A plan has to be doable! The above is no plan it is a fairy tale.

I can read. It takes critical thinking skills to understand Bernie.

[roody]

90. You can read the bill.

[wasupaloopa]

91. There is no bill. It is a Bernie made up thing that I just described.

I will never understand why Bernie’s followers cannot use critical thinking. They just follow like pied piper.

[roody]

92. Ok, you win. Go to Congress.gov.

Look for S. 1129, Medicare for all act 2019. You can do this!

[wasupaloopa]

95. How many bills has Bernie introduced in his career? How many became law? A couple of post office

names.

Bernie has been introducing bills for years. He use to go on Thom Hartman's show every Friday to announce his current bill he introduced.

[roody]

97. Not reading it?

[Celerity]

98. it always helps to give a link

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text#toc-idbd1d01a7be234fa2be16a252c6a2fbb6

[lunatica]

7. The poster didn't say pay nothing

He said pay TAXES!! That means everyone pays for healthcare just like everyone pays for the largest military and most modern in the world!

Damn!

[wasupaloopa]

10. Than what difference does it make if you pay taxes or premiums?

[lunatica]

12. About the same difference it makes to pay for a multi billion dollar military

A lot. We don’t even feel it but we get the most advanced, deadliest, most expensive military in history wavy paying our taxes. The same could easily be true of healthcare.

[Yavin4]

18. Here's the difference.

You pay taxes once, and when you need healthcare, you don't have to pay a co-pay, a deductible, and then pay for things not covered.

[PSPS]

24. You're not paying the billions in CEO salaries for their yachts, jets and bimbos.

There's a huge profit in the private medical insurance racket.

[Mariana]

27. Most people can afford to pay their taxes.

Few people are bankrupted because their taxes wiped them out. The same is not true for insurance premiums and/or medical expenses.

[Bettie]

16. "Skin in the game"...

WTF does that even mean? That we all have to bankrupt ourselves or go without health care because we're not rich enough?

OH, and NO ONE is suggesting a system where no one pays.

Everyone pays, through taxes, instead of paying into a profit-driven system.

Within that profit driven system it is in the best interest of those making the profit to ensure that they deliver as little actual care as possible.

If they do deign to deliver care, that the person receiving it must pay as large a portion of it as the profit-making entity can get away with.

[Yavin4]

17. My post clearly states that I am for paying higher taxes.

I even said that I am for paying higher sales taxes and cutting defense. I never said that it would cost nothing.

In fact, my position is that EVERYONE pays into it and EVERYONE gets covered. it's that simple.

[roody]

34. Government-run health care is not government-run insurance.

M4All is government-run insurance.

[pangaia]

45. ".where you pay nothing for healthcare." Who says you may nothing?

The 'premium' would be included as a tax, but less than one has to pay now.

"..... government run health care." It is NOT government run health care.

"We are not nor will we ever be a socialist country." .... That is true. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with being or becoming a socialist country.

BTW, where do you think the 'government' gets it money?

[Celerity]

46. lololol, tell Canada and the UK, etc that they are 'socialist'. RW talking point much?

We are not nor will we ever be a socialist country

and

Americans at this time do not want government run health care.

that is positively laughable

Try running on a platform for the abolition of Medicaid and Medicare.

What the hell do you thing the PUBLIC OPTION is???

Even Biden is rolling with that.

[exboyfil]

3. Medicare currently has at least two of those things

Premium and Deductible. I think there is also a copay. It is very confusing.


Medicare is also handled very much like private insurance (employers or the government pay for a private company to administer the benefits).

You want a system where you don't pay anything then that is Medicaid.

[stopbush]

30. Actually, your survivors can be billed for Medicaid expenses you incurred

while alive.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-medicaid-recovers-the-cost-long-term-care-from-your-estate-after-you-die.html

[exboyfil]

53. Only to the extent of your estate

If you never acquire assets, then there is no recovery. My grandma incurred a half million dollars in Medicaid care in her 9 plus years in a nursing home.

This is one of the reasons that I have been advising my mom to use the equity in her house to let her stay in the house even if she needs nursing care. She had thoughts of it being a vacation home for me, but I couldn't cover the expenses even if I received it free and clear.

[roody]

36. M4All as written by Sanders has no copays, premiums, or deductibles.

One pays by paying taxes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Medicare For All is not Medicare.

It’s actually an enhanced Medicaid

[lunatica]

4. I'm with you on getting the importance of taxes!

Without them we would be living in a world that looks like 100 years ago! Or even older!

[wasupaloopa]

8. Do you think you will pay less in taxes because you will pay a lower rate than someone wealthier?

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Thus your share in supporting single payer will be less than someone else no matter how much you use the system?

And a young person who does not need healthcare who has a decent income pays but gets nothing in return?

[Yavin4]

19. Again, you would pay more in payroll taxes and additional sales taxes on non-essential

goods and services like food, housing, energy, clothing, and education. We could even rebate the sales taxes back to the poor.

[wasupaloopa]

50. You don't know that. That is part of the fairy land made up stuff.

Any one of us can throw together a wish list of things to throw in the pot of universal healthcare. It doesn't make it so.

My wife works for a company that makes cameras for non-invasive surgery.

So her company should keep making those cameras and sell them to who and at what price? What ever your tax level says it should sell for?

Medical professionals should work for what ever reimbursement your tax level says they should get?

You haven't even thought this through have you.

No think tank told you this had it?

Just pay taxes and all the medical community will get in line because you have a right to healthcare right?


Have you given a thought to the fact that other people don't want what you're selling?

[Disaffected]

20. The young person

who does not need healthcare (yet) will need it sooner or later and, if lucky, in later years. At that time the then young persons will be in the same situation, on and on i.e. it's paying forward, kinda like life insurance.

I don't understand why these single payer concepts are seemingly so hard to grasp.

I have read BTW (and I think it's very plausible) that if the current total US health expenditures were devoted to single payer, everyone in America would have healthcare second to none.

[LonePirate]

33. The concepts are hard to grasp for two reasons.

1. People despise any sort of change related to the health care system in this country. The system is such a frightening behemoth that destroys pretty much everything in its wake that people are afraid to poke the bear, so to speak.

2. Many DU members have fallen hook, line and sinker for the right wing bullshit talking points about MFA. We’re Democrats. We should want what is best for everyone. We should want a simpler and more equitable system. We should know that taxes might go up but payments made currently to insurance companies or employers or any sort of health care business will go down. This is not a difficult concept but some Dems refuse to accept this for reasons they will need to explain.

[wasupaloopa]

54. "I don't understand why these single payer concepts are seemingly so hard to grasp." Because you

make them up as you go.

They are not real concepts. They were not derived from a think tank or any other group studying the healthcare problem.

[Disaffected]

58. Seriously??

Such concepts form the basis of existing successful, single payer, universal coverage systems. Existing that is in pretty much every industrialized, first world country except the USA.

[pangaia]

48. "and a young person who does not need healthcare who has a decent income pays

but gets nothing in return?"

My god, do you understand how insurance works?



Insurance is IN CASE something happens. It's not like investing in Coca-Cola stock. And trust me, when you get older, stuff HAPPENS. And one day-- a prelude (long or short) to the end and then --DEATH !!!

And for the obvious..... WHO SAYS a younger person doesn't need health care? What happens if a 28 year old gets hit by a fire truck?

Or a 100 mph fast ball?

[wasupaloopa]

55. I thought we were talking about taxes now it's insurance!

[pangaia]

60. you pay a tax, which covers "insurance,'if you will, for when you have medical bills.

[aggiesal]

11. Pool our money together, it goes a lot further ...

I pay about $600 a month for a family plan HMO.

I'd much rather pay $200 a month for medicare for all

[Disaffected]

21. Yes,

and get the damned HMOs out of the picture, along with the legions of associated lawyers, accountants and physician support personnel. Let doctors attend to medicine instead of paperwork and arguing with the HMOs over coverage and payments.

[aggiesal]

25. If people want their Cadillac plans, they should be allow to have it ...

But, I'm sure the insurance companies will get a lot less $$$'s because
of less demand.

[Disaffected]

28. I would not be too adverse to that.

As long as the single payer system remains intact i.e. a robust single payer system and, private care for those who want that as an option and are willing/able to pay for it. No opting out of single payer though.

IIRC, France has something similar to that.

[aggiesal]

32. And Medicare should still be part of their payroll tax ...

They can't have a Cadillac plan and forego supporting the public option.
They have a choice.
Pay for your private plan, but pitch in for the public plan, or
just use the public plan.
Insurance companies, be damned.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Me too, and with 'insurance' companies out of the picture we have plenty of money to pay for it.

[Celerity]

47. I had some gaslighter try and tell me that there were no major profits being made in the US

healthcare system.



The US healthcare system is one giant wealth extraction scheme. At current rates of increase we are going to be spending close to 6 trillion USD per year by 2027, 2028. That is madness.

In the past 10 years, we have spent around 33 trillion dollars. ONE health insurance firm alone (UnitedHealth Group) has made over 66 billion dollars in net profits over that time span, 12 billion USD in 2018 alone, 22.5 billion in the last 2 years, and are on track to make 150-160 (or more as they continue to expand, so scales of economy will act as multipliers) billion USD combined net PROFIT between 2019 and 2028. That is RAPACIOUS, and it is mostly skimmed off of the middleman role of for-profit INSURANCE.

Look at the massive difference between what the US spends per capita versus the rest of the nations, and the gap is only going to get larger.



The only way this system gets fixed, given the current political/structural landscape is more than likely via partial systemic collapse, as there is simply no way this rate of cost/profit increase can continue decade after decade. The ACA cost increases where back-loaded to kick in starting around 2017 or so and forward. That year is when, for example, United Health's profits exploded. Citizens United and other endemic factors have opened the spigot to the raw buying and regulatory capture of our entire political/governmental superstructure by Big Healthcare, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance. That is only being exacerbated under the odious Trump administration's deregulatory schemes, which if they get their big 'win' at SCOTUS level and the entire ACA is trashed, will expedite this entire situation even more timeframe-wise towards a catastrophic outcome.

[elocs]

23. Yep, the Democratic candidate should run on a platform of higher income taxes--a sure winner.

Reality may suck, but it is what it is.

[aggiesal]

38. Why would it be paying higher income taxes? ...

Medicare is a payroll tax, so you are already paying into Medicare.
If your get your health insurance through your workplace, you are
paying for a private insurance policy.
I'm paying $600 for private insurance for a family through an HMO.
My company pays a portion as well.

If that disappears, and I pay additional $200 in Medicare for the
public option, I saved myself $400.
And, companies don't need to offer any medical insurance to their
employees, so their expenditures go down. I don't know why they
wouldn't approve of this.

It's a win-win-win-win ... for everyone.

[elocs]

49. It's also not going to happen but it makes for a great promise

that can't be delivered.

[LonePirate]

42. That's more RW garbage that conveniently leaves out the reductions in outlays for premiums.

It is easy to conjure up images of a boogeyman when most MFA proposals are not understood by an uninformed public.

[elocs]

51. It's true though. Try running on "we'll increase your taxes" and see what happens.

Reality sucks, but it is what it is.

[LonePirate]

52. It's misinformation because it leaves out half of the equation.

It implies people will still pay all of their current premiums, co-pays, etc. along with new taxes and that is not the case at all. Yes, Repubs and some Dems will refuse to mention the fact that those expenses will drop considerably if not 100%. Yet DUers, especially, should not engage in that sort of deception.

[elocs]

63. Trying to explain away "we'll raise your taxes" is a loser, but you can't accept that.

Nice try with attempting to tag me with the RW label, but I've been voting for Democrats and supporting good Democratic ideas that have even a small chance of becoming law for 47 years now, but MFA is not one of them.
Plus, as I say in my sig, I'm not a DUer, I just post here.
Unfortunately I won't be reading your posts anymore.

[Hoyt]

26. All Warren and Sanders need to do is tell folks how much it will

cost in taxes and/or premiums.

Put up a website calculator where each person can enter their income, etc.

This “it will all equal out to what you are paying now” junk, doesn’t cut it for most voters. I’m fine with insurance companies being put out of business, but I think until people see the numbers, they’ll at least want a choice like a Public Option.

Also have CBO score it.

[Disaffected]

29. All good ideas

makes you wonder why it hasn't been done yet.

[uponit7771]

37. 👍🏼

[Vinca]

31. It has to be made really simple for people.

Example: If your taxes go up $5,000 a year, you are still $7,000 ahead of the game because you don't have to shell out a thousand bucks a month for health insurance.

[uponit7771]

39. A lot of Americans don't shell out a thousand a month for HCI, employer based HCI is taken

... care of.

What do those people do?

thx in advance

[Vinca]

67. If employers don't have to shell out millions for health insurance coverage, chances are their

employees will get a significant raise. I've always wondered why businesses don't lobby Congress for Medicare For All.

[ProfessorPlum]

89. Me too, it's puzzling to me.

They'd be free of having to deal with insurance companies too.

[c-rational]

40. Bingo!

[forgotmylogin]

41. As long as taxes go for something worthy, I'm all for them.

I want roads and bridges in good repair, I want mail and fire and police service. I'm paying about $50/paycheck toward my health insurance and my income won't change if that went to single-payer healthcare.

Just like Warren was saying her "two pennies per dollar" tax on income after the first 50 million (sheesh!) - which would be reinvested in childcare and school and the future workforce. Once someone has made 50 million, they should be expected to chip in for the common good.

[LiberalFighter]

61. We should go back to the tax brackets we had back in the late 1970's.

With adjusted inflation of course.

[roamer65]

66. I'd even take the tax rates from 1982.

Top rate was 50 percent.

[GulfCoast66]

64. This entire argument leaves out on glaring fact.

Most voters not on Medicare have a large percentage of their insurance cost paid for by their employer. Now, you may think that freed from that obligation they will generously gift that to their employees in raises. But most Americans know better.

That is why Medicare for all will never be voted in. Not saying it won’t work, although I don’t see it as the panacea some think it would be.

But Americans will never vote away their current healthcare for an unknown promise made by anyone, especially a politician. Not happening.

Which is why we should use the ACA to follow the French example which is often touted as the best in the world.

In short:

Insurance companies must be nonprofit. There are several to choose from but standard of care is set by law.

All employers pay the premium on their employees.

A person’s not covered by an employer pay a government supplemented premium based on pay. Poor folks have 100% of their premium covered.

And much more detail not important for this conversation.

What is good about this plan is we can use the ACA to get there. Like the French did, one step at a time.

To me this is the only route that is actually obtainable to achieve affordable healthcare for all Americans.

[roamer65]

65. A single payor system will even cut the cost of auto insurance.

You will only need liability.

[George II]

69. I think many of us would be willing to pay higher taxes for universal health care but....

....how "high" is the question.

[ecstatic]

81. I agree, although it's important to realize that different people

are in different situations. My premiums are 100% covered by my employer, so I wouldn't necessarily be better off. Also, I doubt M4A would pay for my preferred ADD drug (which costs over $300 a month more than some cheaper and less desirable alternatives like adderall).

[Joe941]

88. I can't afford higher taxes. The rich need to be taxed and give the working...

People a break for once! Please.

[Polybius]

94. What would be more:

The $320 a month that I am supposed to pay by making $30,000 a year, or higher taxes?

Higher taxes wouldn't be close to $320 a month, and that's with bare minimum health care. I want to pay zero for doctor's visits and $1 for any kind of medicine.

[Polybius]

93. With Obamacare, bare minimum insurance would be $320 a month for me

No thanks, I want to pay zero per month with my limited income. Higher taxes is fine.

[Lucid Dreamer]

96. I've read all the 80+ posts above.

Thank you all for your input.
I know very little about expenses for health care and insurance. [retired, good health, and my largest catastrophe was completely covered by medicare/private]

There are a lot of really brilliant ideas and a lot of really idiotic one. But I'm so ignorant I can't tell which one is which.

This is not simple. The theory of health economics is one of the most humbling subjects for me because the more I read the less I understand.

I'll still keep reading. Please keep writing.

[former9thward]

99. Medicare has monthly premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

I am always amazed by the number of people that think it is "free".

[brooklynite]

100. The people here aren't the people you need to convince...

[beachbumbob]

101. we don't need higher taxes, the waste and excessive profits in the healthcare industry can easily

pay along with all the monies on fraud committed by the healthcare industry