Lobbying group opposing single payer comes out against 'Medicare at 50' bill

[turbinetree]

Source: Think Progress

Major players in the health care industry are even against Democrat's incremental approaches.
AMANDA MICHELLE GOMEZ
FEB 13, 2019, 3:27 PM
UPDATED: FEB 13, 2019, 4:17 PM

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats introduced a bill that would allow people to buy into Medicare beginning at age 50 — and already major players in the health care industry are coming out against it.

Around noon, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced “Medicare at 50,” legislation to let people between 50 and 64 years old buy Medicare coverage when they are shopping on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. It took industry lobbying groups only an hour to come out against the proposal.

“We can all agree that every American deserves access to affordable health coverage and high-quality care, but this proposal — whether you call it Medicare for All, Medicare buy-in, single-payer or a public option — moves us toward a one-size-fits-all health care system that is wrong for America,” said Lauren Crawford Shaver, executive director of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, in a statement. Crawford Shaver told ThinkProgress by email that the group also sent a letter about the bill to Capitol Hill.

The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future is a coalition that recently formed to oppose single-payer after Medicare-for-all bills garnered support among key Democrats. About 16 groups are a part of the coalition, including America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Federation of American Hospitals, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/major-hospital-lobbying-group-comes-out-against-medicare-at-50-bill-7a17c641da9e/

---

NO Miss Crawford Shaver you are wrong..............................it's that simple..................your a paid lobbyists...................

[guillaumeb]

1. Money is against the proposal.

Shaver is a paid lobbyist working solely for the interest of her employer.

[thewhollytoast]

6. She works for vampires and Medicare is like sunlight to them.

Nice bunch if you like hanging out with ^ssholes.

https://americashealthcarefuture.org/about-us/

Toast

[guillaumeb]

10. Firesign Theater.

I remember them.

[ananda]

2. Ignore them Dems!

Do it anyway!

[geretogo]

3. Health care for the wealthy few .Bankruptsy and early death for the masses . Isn't our fascist

oligarchy just wonderful .

[forgotmylogin]

4. They deride "One Size Fits All"

When it's not - nobody has to buy in. Private insurance companies will sell you all the private health care you want, I would reckon.

[msongs]

5. reduces the ways they can rob you blind while providing nothing in return nt

[in2herbs]

7. I admit I am not totally educated on all the different types of coverages that are being floated but

what is the difference between a regular policy that accepts pre-existing conditions with no premium increase and what a Medicare at 50 will cover?

[tosh]

14. Profit n/t

[Celerity]

16. Thread winner

[sdfernando]

8. Here I fixed it for Ms. Shaver....

“We can all agree that every American deserves access to affordable health coverage and high-quality care, but this proposal — whether you call it Medicare for All, Medicare buy-in, single-payer or a public option — this would eliminate my job and cause health care companies to lose money and profits from overpriced and unnecessary procedures,” said Lauren Crawford Shaver, executive director of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, in a statement. Crawford Shaver told ThinkProgress by email that the group also sent a letter about the bill to Capitol Hill.

[Honeycombe8]

9. I'm all for Medicare expansion, but I think this would seriously damage the ACA.

AGE is the ONE group that insurers are allowed to stick it to disproportionately, in the ACA. What a 30 year old would pay $300 for in the ACA, a 55 year old might have to pay $900 for, or more like $900 for a WORSE policy (that's the case for me). And the govt didn't oversee those premiums to ensure they were fair.

Removing those high premiums would mean the insurers would have to increase premiums for the others, which would eventually end the ACA, as even more insurers pull out.

But as Monk would say...."I could be wrong. But I don't think so."

[progree]

12. My understanding is that the ACA allows a max of 3 times the premium based on age

but medical costs for the age 55 to 64 demographic are about 5 times that of age 20-somethings. IOW, in the ACA the young are subsidizing the old. Or to put it another way, the 20-somethings are paying 1/3 the premiums of the 55 to 64 year olds, but have only 1/5 of their medical costs. Thus having the age 50-64 people out of the ACA would help the ACA a lot (allowing lower premiums for the remaining 49-and-under), but they would be an expensive group to insure in whatever program they end up in.

I was in the ACA as a 60-something, so I do sympathize about those super-high premiums -- I didn't like paying them either.

[Honeycombe8]

15. You're talking generalities.

The ins. cos. make a ton of money off the older crowd. It's true the max is supposed to be triple...but there is no oversight. Example: They are required to carry a certain number of medical providers for each area. They don't, and the govt didn't do anything about it.

The govt doesn't have the staff to oversee all the details. The ins. cos. are more on the honor system, from what I could tell.

I can tell you that Blue Cross got about $35,000 from me for several years of terrible policies (really bad ...really really bad). The total amount of claims they paid for me in total for all the years was about $100. Almost 100% of the amount they rec'd was gravy, and went to make up for the payments they had to make for birth control and maternity coverage and such for the younger crowd. And for cancer treatments for all ages, and whatnot. (Disclosure: I got a subsidy.)

I know the stats say that older people have much higher bills, but in actuality, that is only SOME of them. Not even most. The big bills really start after age 65, when they're on Medicare.

The reason I didn't turn in claims for all but one of the years was that I couldn't find a doctor to take the insurance. The medical provider lists were fraudulent. They were not just outdated. They were fraudulent. I saw a couple on tv talking about that same problem with BC; her husband had cancer, and they couldn't find even a GP to take the insurance,much less specialists. BC was sued in another state over it. The govt never got involved. It just doesn't have a system for oversight.

There is no doubt in my mind that the HMO that cost almost $1,000/mo. for me (an HMO with $4,500 deductible, which is what we used to call a catastrophic policy) would be less than 1/3 that amount for a 30 year old.

Without the mandate, and without the group that pays the biggest premiums, the ACA would wither on the vine, as they say. The remaining ins. cos. that still provide it, would begin to pull out. They can't make money on $100/mo policies.

[paleotn]

11. One size fits all?

What the fuck does that even mean? If you're sick, you're able to seek medical care without having to worry about not being able to pay the rent or buy food? Is that's what this fucking idiot means by one size fits all?

[YOHABLO]

13. These rat bastards of the AMA have been against National Health care and Medicare for decades. F 'em