Kamala Harris is open to compromise on private insurers' role during 'Medicare for all' push

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

By stating she would eliminate private insurers as a necessary part of implementing "Medicare-for-all," California Sen. Kamala Harris during a CNN town hall Monday night sent a shockwave through the national health care debate.

Harris' comments underscored the extent to which a move to single payer would radically overhaul the current system and, in frankly addressing one of the transition's most politically difficult steps, stepped directly into her critics' crosshairs.

Republicans attacked Harris within minutes of her remarks, tweeting that she "says she wants to eliminate private insurance even if you like your plan." By Tuesday morning, former Starbucks boss Howard Schultz was piling on and fellow billionaire potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, was dismissing the entire plan as a fiscally ruinous pipe dream.

As the furor grew, a Harris adviser on Tuesday signaled that the candidate would also be open to the more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the industry, being floated by other congressional Democrats. It represents a compromise position that risks angering "Medicare-for-all" proponents, who view eliminating private health insurance as key to enacting their comprehensive reform.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-eliminate-private-insurers-backlash/index.html

[ananda]

1. Too bad..

That’s all..

[GulfCoast66]

4. Respectfully, you are incorrect.

Around 50% of Americans get their healthcare from their employer. Good healthcare since the ACA mandates. Senator Harris knows these people will not vote for someone wanting to take that away. Especially for something New. and Better. Trust Us!

She knows the best way to Universal Healthcare like in France is a mixed system that keeps employers on the hook and using the popular ACA to get there. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, just make it better.

This actually makes her a much more attractive candidate.

[MooDrew]

90. Respectfully, your hypothesis is wrong

Not your 50% number, but the idea we could have the other 50% on some sort of Medicare for all program while everyone else stays with their employer plan. It won't work for a lot of reasons.

1. What most people don't realize is that employer plans aren't all that good. If you develop a serious chronic illness or suffer a catastrophic injury while on an employer plan, you will quickly realize that the system is designed to eject you onto Medicaid as quickly as possible to get you off the employer's health care rolls. Most people can't continue to work while suffering a serious illness or catastrophic injury. With no work income, they can't afford the astronomical COBRA premiums.


2. Employer-based insurance is much more expensive than you realize. If you want to verify this for yourself, ask your human resources person what your COBRA premium would be if you left your employment. Wayback in 2003 my wife who was in her late 20s left her job. I was in my mid-30s and was on her plan too. Our COBRA premium was $18xx.xx a month for a policy that had a pretty high out of pocket. Those premiums have only gone up since then.


3. If you don't put those people on employer plans into the pool, the people on the government plan end up being the most expensive to cover as they are generally speaking the sickest. A plan that does this is likely to fail as the costs become overwhelming. You in effect are leaving all the gravy (people least likely to need care) in the system to go into health insurance companies' pockets. As I mentioned, employer-based health insurance is largely illusory for the middle class and low-income folks. Someone that gets really sick or injured is going to end up on Medicaid or eventually Medicare anyway, so why have their employer spend their healthy years paying into private insurance? The gravy would serve a much more worthwhile purpose paying expenses of those who need care.

4. By keeping half the people on employer-based insurance you are cutting off the best source of funds for a universal healthcare system. Take all of those employers that are paying monthly health insurances premiums for their employees and have them pay a payroll tax to fund a universal healthcare system instead. That is what that conservative George Mason Study showed. That if you took everything that was currently being spent on healthcare it would be less expensive to have a zero dollar out pocket universal healthcare. For all of those saying but Medicare isn't free, those numbers solve that problem too.


I am not even going to get into other cost efficiencies that having everyone in the same system would bring such as lower cost prescription drugs that you don't get with a split system as you envision it.

[GulfCoast66]

92. I was talking as much about the political angle as the practical

And your post attempted to do what is politically impossible. Get those on employer based healthcare to vote for someone to take it away. It won’t happen.

Because you are correct that having half the people on employer healthcare and the rest on a Medicare system will never work.

We have to recognize the realities of the situation.

We can use the ACA. Eliminate the hour exception to healthcare. You hire them, you pay insurance on them. With limited co-pays and minimum yearly maximum payments. This will reduce the huge part time work force.

Make for profit heath insurance illegal and make them all nonprofit. They exist today and are used in other nations.

Perhaps most importantly, raise taxes in a progressive manner to help fund the insurance on those who don’t qualify for employer insurance.

This totally leaves out cost controls, but even with Medicare for all this must be dealt with. Same with the pharma issues.

To me this is doable politically.

Of course the 600lb gorilla in the room is our defense budget. Until it is radically paired down no plan can be paid for.

I really enjoy this debate on DU. Soon it will be the nations debate. But I can think of nothing I want more than a National Debate on Universal Healthcare that recognizes some plan will emerge.

Have a nice day.

[MooDrew]

93. It just has to be sold the right way

It can't be sold as we are taking your work coverage away. It has to be sold as we are giving you something much better, and then you have to spell out the parts that are better.

IMO that is what was wrong with how the ACA was sold. You left people hanging with that Gold, Silver, and Bronze nonsense as well as not being able to tell them what their premium was going to be. There were simply too many variables for the average person to calculate if it was a good deal or not.

Tell them the new plan has zero premium, zero deductibles, zero-copays and no out of pocket expenses. That is something that makes their employer-based healthcare not look so attractive. Over the last several years the employee's share of the premiums, their co-pays, their deductibles and their maximum out of pocket have all gone up on employer-based plans so don't assume people are in love with their coverage.

As someone with first-hand knowledge, the ACA is horrible if you have somebody on your plan that has a serious illness or injury. The yearly family out of pocket is $15,800. Add that to your premium and your first 25k-40k in yearly income goes to medical costs. That is why they had the exemption for catastrophic medical costs. It was an acknowledgment that the ACA doesn't provide useful coverage to these people. When I filled out my exemption form, I attached copies of 12 of my most recent judgments for a family member's medical bills onto the form as proof and they exempted me for three years.

[Power 2 the People]

11. +1

[pnwmom]

14. It's not possible to pass most legislation without some compromise. She has set her goal,

and if she becomes President it will be time to help her get as close to possible to reaching it.

No candidate who is not lying can guarantee that all campaign goals will be met.

[Igel]

25. I thought the mantra was

"no compromise--compromise is for losers"?

[pnwmom]

28. That's Trump's slogan. n/t

[ehrnst]

83. Among others. (nt)

[Magoo48]

56. Agreed, too bad.

How about no roll at all for private insurers in the people’s healthcare, none.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. *sigh* Well, that didn't take long....

Maybe Bernie's campaign will pull her back toward Medicare for all...

[GulfCoast66]

6. That would be bad.

Medicare for all is like a unicorn. Sounds good. But no one can explain how to catch it.

Read about the excellent healthcare in France. Then think how easy it would be to use the now popular ACA to get there.

The almost 50% of Americans who get their healthcare from their employer will not vote to have that taken away.

There are better roads to Universal Healthcare than Medicare for All.

[still_one]

15. People don't understand that Medicare is not free. Not only do people pay taxes for Medicare, when

they reach 65 and sign up for Medicare, they pay premiums for Medicare Part B, plus additional premiums for a supplemental or an Advantage plan to cover 20% of the costs that Medicare does NOT cover, and additional premiums may also be required for Drugs and a Dental plan. If you don't have insurance for those, those costs are quite substantial.

The most importnat point is what you made, the votes aren't there today, and even if we do extremely well in 2020, the votes won't be there for Medicare for All.

It may be forgotten, but Vermont did pass a Single Payer system in their legislature, but their governor vetoed it because the numbers weren't there to pay for it, and it would have created an excessive tax burden on the state and those who do business in that state.

It is going to take time, and they need a stepwise approach to acheive some type of universal healthcare. It will take a gradual process.

I wonder how many will start a circular firing squad because they don't appreciate the complexities involved

[GulfCoast66]

16. That is why you will continually see me pushing back on Medicare for all on DU.

And pointing out the advantages of the French system and how we can use the ACA to achieve it.

Cause the French went just what we are.

[still_one]

19. I don't know if the Universal Healthcare System in France is right for us or not, but I believe your

assessment is correct, the ACA could easily migrate into a universal healthcare system like they have in France

[GulfCoast66]

21. Of course our system will not be identical to theirs.

But they provide a road map to get to where we want to be.

Keep in mind we are on DU. There will Always be a contingent who wants it to be 100% government run. And I respect their position. Just disagree with it.

One of my main goals is to prevent support of Medicare for All becoming a mandatory position on DU.

Because there are better ways to get Universal Healthcare.

[still_one]

23. We are pretty much on the same page, but as far as your goal, I wish you the best because I think

a good number of folks may not be receptive to understanding what is involved. Details get lost in sound bites many times

[GulfCoast66]

24. I know. But will fight the good fight.

I have not been attacked yet and since we all support Universal Healthcare I hope I won’t be.

I think we are in the early stages of working out how we get there.

The one thing I can guarantee is it will not be an expected route!

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. Yeah, it's such a rare unicorn that only the rest of the developed world has some form of it nt

[GulfCoast66]

61. You confuse Medicare for all with Universal Healthcare.

They are not the same.

Everyone here supports Universal Healthcare. But Medicare for all is more a slogan than a viable system.

There are much better and achievable was to Universal Healthcare than Medicare for all.

[Fiendish Thingy]

73. Sanders doesn't make a distinction - does Harris?

Medicare for all is a euphemism for Universal Health Care; you are the first person I've seen make such a distinction- how can you when there is no legislation yet, only campaign rhetoric?

[GulfCoast66]

77. I don't think everyone agrees with your perception

Medicare for all normally stand for Single Payer in most peoples minds from what I can tell.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Yup, leave it to Bernie to advocate for the people, not the insurance companies...

Exactly why we need him... hope he runs.

[shanny]

33. + a zillion

[TomCADem]

42. Yup, Bernie Would Shutdown The Government And Never Compromise...

...until he got Medicare for all. And you know what, Federal workers would happily work without pay to make sure that happens!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. hahaha, yes!!

[Politicub]

74. You do understand how Medicare works, right?

People on Medicare have the option of going with a private insurer as part of Medicare Advantage. My husband chooses a private insurer for his Medicare provider because it's a more cost-affective option for the conditions he manages.

Original 80/20 Medicare is good for some people. But for many, the 20% co-insurance would be difficult to provide without a Medigap policy. And Medigap policies are really expensive.

If a candidate is proposing universal healthcare that does not include Medicare Advantage or covers all costs, then it is not Medicare and shouldn't be called that.

[ehrnst]

81. Maybe her campaign will move him further left on social justice issues

even farther than Hillary did.

[pangaia]

3. Republicans eat shit. That is all.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. It is a LIE spread by repugs that ANYONE likes PAYING for insurance.

Find me ONE American who LIKES paying for insurance. I dare anyone.

[GulfCoast66]

7. We are going to have to pay for healthcare.

No matter who provides it.

The ACA is the best tool we have for achieving Universal Healthcare. But it will not be free.

[shanny]

34. We already pay for it. We just don't have it.

Where have you been?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Seriously!!

[ehrnst]

84. Medicare, at present, is funded by a mechanism

by which the majority of people paying into it are not on it.

Turning that on it's head in a span of 8 years (which Sanders proposes) while ending private insurance will create a huge disruption in delivery of health care.

A gradual expansion over decades, like HRC was proposing is the most likely way it will happen.

Social security didn't start out covering what it does now, and neither did any other universal health care system - especially those that have been in existence for 70 years, being tweaked and modified with medical technology and increased lifespans.

[ancianita]

38. It's never been. All who get paychecks already pay into FICA, Social Security, which runs Medicare.

End the cap on Social Security, and its Medicare branch can better afford to eliminate the health insurance middlemen. Many health care experts have already proven that current healthcare systems' essential personnel and services can be rolled right into existing systems Medicare has had in place in all 50 states.

Single payer experts have argued that not only can private healthcare do it, but those carriers who choose to go their own way will find the "invisible hand" of the free markets' competition, which will force their personnel, production and health delivery systems to streamline through healthy cost cutting. The very wealthy may prefer, because they like choices, to afford their services rather than single payer.

No one in the private sector wants to admit, and most of the public aren't aware, that the private sector has never been able to beat this government's 3% overhead, administering services, and sheer purchasing power (of research and development, pharmaceuticals, etc.) because government doesn't expect to add profit margins to everything it does.

[ehrnst]

85. What "health care experts" have stated that all this can be "rolled over into existing Medicare

systems?"

Can you provide links to these many experts' research?

[ancianita]

94. Sure. PNHP is my favorite because they've worked on the data for 32 years.

I recommend that you explore their extensive website.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_of_the_physicians_working_group_for_singlepayer_national_health_insurance.php?page=all

Most of their research is over ten years old.

http://pnhp.org/resource/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-program/

Per Wikipedia for purposes of overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#United_States

[ehrnst]

82. Many people say they like the what their insurance provides

rx coverage, etc.

People like their Medicare Part D, and they pay for that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

96. That is NOT what I stated. Find ONE person that WANTS to pay for

insurance.

[Autumn]

8. That was fast. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. It sure was... just check it off to a "rookie mistake" I guess. Why we need...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
Take your pick!!! They both rock!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. I never bought it.

When she announced her support, her staff was surprised. It seemed like a gimmick,

[still_one]

9. Medicare as it stands today doesn't eliminate insurance companies. Private insurers offer

Supplemental and Advantage plans to cover 20% of the costs that Medicare does not cover, along with drug plans, and dentistry plans which may require additional premiums.

The bottom line is as of today the votes aren't there for Medicare for all, and even if we do extremely well in 2020, the votes won't be there either.


It won't happen over night, and will require a stepwise approach toward that goal.


In fact, it probably would occur happen first at individual state levels first if it happens.

[PeeJ52]

10. Exactly...

It's working great for me so far.

[ehrnst]

86. That's the way it was done in Canada - and it took nearly 20 years.

And with Coloradocare being voted down, Green Mountain Care not being able to get off the ground in the state that voted for MFA's biggest proponent to the Senate, and California tabling single payer in 2017, that road may be much longer for us.

[Chemisse]

12. A gradual shift would be more practical and easier to implement.

That's what Obamacare was doing, it seemed, by keeping insurance coverage, but expanding Medicaid.

It's hard to trash an entire industry all at once without immense pushback. When done gradually, the businesses have a chance to expand into other areas while the health coverage is being reduced.

Also, Medicare is not as great as it sounds. I am looking at it for when I retire and it's going to cost quite a bit to supplement it so that I will have decent overall coverage.

[pangaia]

17. How much will it cost you for a supplement or advantage plan? What do yu foresee as 'quite a bit?'

I've been on Medicare for 10 years with an advantage plan. A 'pretty good one' as those things go.
2 of those years I paid ZERO premium. One year about $85/month. Now about $50/mo, I believe.

Includes drug plan.

These plans have been with 2 different NON-PROFIT companies...

[Chemisse]

62. My husband is currently researching it for me

But I am under the impression it will be at least 200 per month for a gap plan (in addition to the $135 for the basic part B) plus the percent copay (which has no cap to it). So, all in all, I think I will have to pay a lot out of pocket, but I am waiting for what he comes up with.

I have a lot of health issues and prescriptions, so there will be a lot of 20% copays for me to consider in my budget.

[still_one]

20. The ACA could be a foundation for a Universal System, and no it wouldn't get rid of private insurers

but neither does Medicare

[Chemisse]

63. That's how I saw it. It seemed to be a pathway toward universal. n/t

[shanny]

36. No, Obamacare wasn't...although it would have with a public option.

[NJCher]

39. There's an Advantage Plan that costs $0 per month

Just an FYIl

[Chemisse]

64. Thanks. We'll have to look for that.

There sure is a lot of information to pore through!

[a kennedy]

13. We need both.....MEDICARE DOES NOT COVER ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES .....

so we are going to need some type of other coverage to get us through the EXPENSIVE medical system here.

[TryLogic]

45. You have been listening to advertisements for supplement plans, etc.

No Medicare does not cover every penny, but it covers most. After a surgery bill for about $65,000, I had to pay about $1300 out of pocket, for example.

[Chemisse]

65. That would be devastating for someone trying to live on Social Security.

Add a few more of those for an elderly person with a chronic disease, and they are simply not going to be able to access care.

[David__77]

18. Medicare for all is totally reasonable.

If people want to buy stuff on top of that no one would stop them. I’m sure there will continue to be providers who opt to only receive private cash payments, for instance.

I’m sure Harris will get to address this thoroughly a number of times during the campaign. While I can understand being open to alternatives, there’s no substitute to making comprehensive health care a universal right not contingent on personal payment.

[still_one]

22. First of all when people turn 65, they start paying premiums to Medicare. In addition, people

covered under Medicare are responsible for 20%, which can be quite substantial, and why most buy a supplemental or advantage plan to cover that 20%. Those require additional premiums. A drug plan may also be required which require an additional premium, and if they want dental coverage another premium might be required.

In other words, Medicare today is contigint on personal payment for premiums for part B, and another premium for a Medigap plan, all which require premiums.


Yes, people can opt out of Part B and Supplemental/Advantage/Drug coverage, but then they will only be covered for Part A, which is only if they are hospitalized. Good luck with those other Medical Costs if one doesn't have insurance for that. If you opt out of Part B at the beginning, and later decide the premiums will increase signicantly for those who later want Part B. A similar situation applies for a supplemental plan if one opts out initially, and later wants to opt in.

[David__77]

26. I get that. This could represent expanding the coverage of Medicare.

Not just in terms of who’s covered also in terms of individual coverage. 100%, not 80%, and prescription coverage.

It would be very expensive- and, I think, worth it.

[still_one]

27. I don't think it has the votes Dave, but it is definitely is an ideal goal to try to acheive

[David__77]

30. I agree on both points.

I distinguish the strategic and the tactical and recognize that incremental change can be great and fine. I also appreciate recognizing shared goals.

[still_one]

37. I think most of us here have those shared goals

[Hoyt]

29. I think that is smart. Private insurers carry out a lot of functions under Medicare now,

including adjudication of claims, and offer plans for over 30 million, about 33%, Medicare beneficiaries who voluntarily choose to enroll in private Medicare programs that save them money over traditional Medicare, a supplement to cover gaps in what Medicare doesn’t pay, and the Part D drug plans.

Plus, I think a Public Option will get us to Medicare-for-Most quicker without sending those too stupid to realize the current system ain’t working into “socialized medicine” shock. Gotta fool the ignorant white wingers into something better for society.

[NJCher]

40. "We don't have the votes"

"Where's the money going to come from?" Here's what AOC says on this point: she notes that no one ever says that in regard to anything but universal health care. They don't ask "Where's the money going to come from? about some outrageous money sink in Afghanistan or Syria. Some obscenely expensive fighter plane; meanwhile, Boris Putin influences U.S. elections through Facebook and the U.S. government comes off looking like a total sucker. Yeah, lotta' good that fighter plane was against Putin.

Not long ago there was an excellent story posted here about a police officer who used to be an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. He became a local police officer and took a 100k salary loss to come back here. He said that our government spends millions for them (intelligence officers in the Middle East) to spread around incentives like dinners for tribal chiefs.

Does that not make you indignant? They have money for tribal chiefs but no money for the citizens who pony up the dough. Eff them. Demand universal coverage and let them figure out how to adjust their "dinners for tribal chiefs" budget so they can pay for it.

[PatrickforO]

41. Wow! You know what, Republicans?

I DON'T like my fucking plan. I pay out the nose every month and I'm sick of rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays.

I want Medicare!

[leftofcool]

72. Medicare also rations health care

Husband and I are on both plan A and B and there are many things Medicare does not pay for. Medicare is 134.00 per month per person. Add that up for a family of 5 plus what ever supplements you need for drugs, vision, dental and you will still be paying out the nose with a 20% crippling copay and rationed health care services. For us, it is good but for a family, it will be costly.

[TryLogic]

43. She (They) need to let people buy into Medicare as an option beginning with...

persons 60 - 64 plus 25 - 29. Later, persons 55 - 59 plus 30 - 34. And continuing. This is a variation of what Howard Dean, Dr. Howard Dean, suggested years ago.

There needs to be a transition, of course. Combining older and younger age groups would balance the risk pool.

[djacq]

44. Repubs sabotaged ACA and folks complaining about getting rid of the middle man?!

With ACA, $0 deducted from my pay.

After Repubs sabotaged ACA, under $100 deducted from my pay.

Every private health insurer is a different animal you have to deal with before, during, and after care.

I just want health care.

[AllyCat]

48. Who likes their plan? Our plans all suck! We need insurance out and health care for all IN!

[ehrnst]

88. No one is arguing that we don't need reform. And Dems have been fighting for UHC for decades.

[AllyCat]

89. This:

Republicans attacked Harris within minutes of her remarks, tweeting that she "says she wants to eliminate private insurance even if you like your plan."

[Cha]

54. No it doesn't.. Not at all. I see a lot of members

thinking.. not knee jerking.

[GulfCoast66]

70. Sounds to me like people on DU understand Healthcare is complicated

And a fun slogan will get us nowhere.

And Medicare for all is not the only to achieve Universal Healthcare.

And finally, free healthcare is not free and the most pressing issue is how we choose to fund it.

[ehrnst]

87. +1000.

[Midnightwalk]

50. It will take multiple steps

Keep in mind the size of the problem. We spend 3.5 trillion a year on health care and about twice what any other country does. We have to take save over a trillion a year.

I see claims that Medicare for all saves 5 trillion over 10 years. That's half. Not a bad start, but it's sobering to realize how far we have to go.

I'd be happy to see us moving in the right direction towards universal access and lower costs. I'll take the good if I can't have the perfect. No matter how good any reform is, we should expect that we'll screw up parts of it, not get everything we want and will need to fix more in future legislation.

[revmclaren]

51. Bookmarked for later. NT.

ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[DeminPennswoods]

52. Switched from Advantage to Supplement

and cannot believe the lower cost and Medicare being the primary payer rather than the Medicare Advantage insurer.

I don't think Medicare-for-all would be a hard switch at all. I think a good first step would be to eliminate Medicare Advantage plans and move to supplements or medi-gap policies only along with eliminating the cap on earnings subject to FICA tax.

[democratisphere]

53. Healthcare costs need to be brought down drastically for healthcare for all

to work. No longer can the US healthcare system be allowed to price gouge the patients. Unfortunate that a candidate is already caving to pressure from those that currently have plans with HMOs etc. Those plans need to be eliminated as part of lowering the overall costs. Can't have it both ways.

[srobertss]

55. Is she compromising or hedging?

I think Kamala Harris would be a great candidate and very capable of defeating Trump. But I am very worried about the hollowing out of the middle class and rising income inequality. I’m hoping for someone who is able to stand their ground among the moneyed class. That’s a really hard thing to do. These people can be very mesmerizing and I worry that Harris doesn’t have the proper immunity to their power. I hope she does. But she did let Steve Mnuchin get away with his mortgage crimes. Not that I understand all the details of that, it’s just something I heard. But it worries me. And this feels like she’s already hedging.

That being said, if she’s the candidate, I will happily vote for her.

[Afromania]

57. There are things medicare doesn't/won't cover.

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2019, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I assume private insurers will still exist to cover those gaps unless the move to Medicare for all will fundamentally change the way Medicare works. It's coverage will need to cover "everything" to truly work. Meaning that it will include all medical procedures and medicines with minimal, or no, copays. I'd also love to see all the dental stuff conveniently sitting outside of typical medical coverage as part of the deal.

As it stands getting anything done other than a basic dental checkup is going to be a hassle. That is unless it falls into some narrow band of medically necessary usage like a broken jaw. So my bet is that, at least at first, private insurers will probably end up going from medical coverage to dental coverage. At least until the the dental industry also ends being regulated.

[ouija]

58. Well

That took about all of 5 seconds to turn a bunch of people into fucking cowards. You know what you do when you get push back, you claim a national emergency and Make it law This is where the, “Democrats are spineless,” comes from. First sign of push back and now people have to compromise and we can’t do it. What good is private insurance when you also get a $100,000 bill when you leave the hospital?

[Afromania]

71. I don't about cowards, but the practicality of patience needs to come to an end.

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2019, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

This country is in crunch time and anybody we elect needs to be strident about what we need to do. Still, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt of what Kamala means here. I understand that this whole healthcare industry is going to need weeding and we won't be able to flip a switch on the whole thing and I believe that's what she meant because if it isn't then we got some problems.

[honest.abe]

59. A compromise will be necessary to get the necessary votes to reform the system.

Many wont like it but that's reality.

[The Truth Is Here]

60. This is just the beginning of the end.

She is still a nonstarter. Either you're with Medicare for All or not. No in betweens. No more "incrementalism". Like i said, nonstarter.

[honest.abe]

66. LOL..

you wish!

[marble falls]

67. So who would you support?

[ehrnst]

80. So if she gets the nomination, you won't vote for her? Or any Dem candidate

who doesn't walk lockstep with Bernie on MFA?

[Maxheader]

69. I don't want one slim dime..

of the middle class tax payers money to fund any of the multitude of social programs,
the democrats, prez candidates will put forth. It needs to come out of taxes on the 1%ers,
and the outrageous military expenditures....

[Politicub]

75. Medicare uses private insurers today as part of Medicare Advantage

And some people choose to have their benefits administered through Medicare Advantage instead of original 80/20 Medicare.

My husband has a Medicare Advantage plan because it keeps costs more predictable. If you don't choose Medicare Advantage, you are responsible for 20% of your costs (unless you have an expensive Medigap policy), and paying for a prescription plan under part D. Medicare Advantage works like an HMO where you have co-pays for doctor visits and often includes prescription coverage.

Original Medicare is fine for some people. But we end up paying less with an Advantage plan.

If Medicare Advantage is done away with, it means that Medicare's part A, B, C and D laws would need to be repealed and replaced. Does this sound familiar?

That's why I support lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 18 and keeping the other pieces in place. Upending decades of Medicare legislation is a recipe for failure.

[Bradshaw3]

76. This is the trouble with newly adopted positions

Often they are done out of expediency and not because of belief in them or well-thought out policies. Therefore any position becomes a "talking point" or "goal" and candidates suddeny backing away from them and indicates no real desire to implement them.

[ouija]

78. Why

Is it the Medicare for all crowd are the ones who have to compromise? Again, Republicans would claim national emergency and do it while saying fuck you as they sign it into law. Aren’t you all tired of these assholes pulling this shit while we stand around and talk of compromise. No, I’m done with this one way street compromise shit.

[Bradshaw3]

79. Comprising is sometimes necessary in politics

But, yes, our side always seems to be the ones comprising as they change the goalposts. That's why I wonder about candidates who take a stand that has become popular, but then backtrack at the first challenge to their position.

[MooDrew]

95. Amen

The Republicans may have done us a favor with their lawsuit seeking to strike down the ACA in its entirety. Elect a Democrat in 2020 and if the final ruling, in that case, goes that way conservatives want, declare a national emergency and establish a universal health care system. We can cite Trump's border wall a precedent and note how much more dire our emergency is.