2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumn Medicare-for-All, Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem
Demonizing government and taxation is a Republican thing to do. Anyone who would prefer a $900/month "premium" to a $300/month "tax" shouldn't be running around outside without adult supervision.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/22/medicare-all-clinton-reminds-us-shes-part-problem
In ignoring the fact that a single payer plan would, as Sanders quickly pointed out, do away with the cost of private insurance, meaning that the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care, not only was Clinton wrong on the claim that the Sanders plan would cost the middle class more, but she knew it. As Sanders said of her, I know you know a lot about health care. Hillary Clinton, lets remember, was the point person for Bill Clintons unsuccessful 1993 health insurance reform, to the point where it was sometimes called Hillarycare. People have applied a lot of negative labels to Hillary Clinton over the years, but stupid is not one you hear very often. This was not an actor like Ronald Reagan, delivering lines he may or may not have understood. This was not George W. Bush, struggling over words and concepts. It was a telling, cynical moment.
In ignoring the fact that a single payer plan would, as Sanders quickly pointed out, do away with the cost of private insurance, meaning that the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care, not only was Clinton wrong on the claim that the Sanders plan would cost the middle class more, but she knew it. As Sanders said of her, I know you know a lot about health care. Hillary Clinton, lets remember, was the point person for Bill Clintons unsuccessful 1993 health insurance reform, to the point where it was sometimes called Hillarycare. . In ignoring the fact that a single payer plan would, as Sanders quickly pointed out, do away with the cost of private insurance, meaning that the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care, not only was Clinton wrong on the claim that the Sanders plan would cost the middle class more, but she knew it. As Sanders said of her, I know you know a lot about health care. Hillary Clinton, lets remember, was the point person for Bill Clintons unsuccessful 1993 health insurance reform, to the point where it was sometimes called Hillarycare. People have applied a lot of negative labels to Hillary Clinton over the years, but stupid is not one you hear very often. This was not an actor like Ronald Reagan, delivering lines he may or may not have understood. This was not George W. Bush, struggling over words and concepts. It was a telling, cynical moment.
In a 2004 interview, Senator Elizabeth Warren (then a professor) told Bill Moyers that when explaining a banking industry-backed bankruptcy bill to First Lady Clinton in the late 1990s she found that I never had a smarter student. Warren went on to tell how Clinton flipped from opponent to proponent of the bill, however, once she saw herself as representing Wall Street in the Senate.
The health care story is similar. Back then, the for-profit health insurance industry went all out to obfuscate the facts of the Clinton bill, most memorably with a series of TV ads featuring a pair of actors named Harry and Louise. Yet by the time Senator Clinton was running for reelection in 2006, yesterdays enemies had become todays campaign contributors. The New York Times reported her the second highest recipient of health care industry campaign contributions, trailing only Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Washington health care lawyer and lobbyist Frederick H. Graefe told the paper that People in many industries, including health care, are contributing to Senator Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Therefore he felt that If the usual rules apply, early donors would get a seat at the table when health care and other issues are discussed.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This premium is for each individual. There are co-pays and as a person on Medicare I still have to pay for a Medigap insurance to assist in paying for health care, I never see these points given when talking about Medicare for all. So it will be $300 in taxes plus another $200-300 in medical insurance. This will be per individual.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)then the costs would be distributed and you might not even have the Part a and Part b and Part D nonsense anymore.
Since the whole country would be under one plan that would be administered by Medicare, then they would probably want to streamline it to cut admin costs.
Your assumptions at this point in the game are shaky and misleading.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Taxes are higher, that is a fact. I know something about Medicare, it is not free, there are co-pays, it is not free.
jhart3333
(332 posts)Please stop trying to justify the insurance/healthcare industry in the US. It places a horrific burden on people in this country and denies us our basic right to health care.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)I am on disability and have Medicare. My costs have gone down substantially. Even with the whole part B, D stuff.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)there would probably be a re-formed version of Medicare when it becomes single payer, Medicare for All.
So, to just simply say that people will have to pay for X or Y or Z is just that, MISLEADING
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So its a lot cheaper and everyone has good coverage.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--Canada, Taiwan and S Korea, have no deductibles. Copays in other universal systems are administered in highly variable ways. and usually have lower income exceptions. Bottom line = taxes are cheaper than premiums.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's only France.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)doctors visits, etc, Part D is for drug coverage, I don't see either of these two going away, it will be hospital coverage and a few other things covered by Medicare Part A, what good would it be to have hospital coverage without doctors and prescriptions?
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)$300 a month increase in taxes, will be the same as a premium, not free.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)exact numbers.
Where the heck are you getting $300 from, pray tell?
Sanders has not furnished numbers because they would be inaccurate until an analysis was done. But, yours are no more accurate, and for the same reason.
But, you can be darn sure that it will be less than the outrageous premiums that some of us are paying now.
It will depend on income, etc.
I understand you want answers in order to prove that single payer would somehow be worse than premiums in a poorly-regulated private for profit market based insurance system that we have now.
Sorry, but I can't wait for you to be proven wrong.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The GOP wants to stop Medicare so to expand Medicare to all with this bunch in Congress does not have the votes. Second buying into a proposal without having a plan to how much it will cost is not much of a plan.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That is a small fraction of the $900/month I paid before getting on Medicare. Anyone who prefers a higher premium to a lower tax should not be let outside without adult supervision.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You wouldn't be rid of them. And it wouldn't be cheap. Agree, long-term it should save money, especially if the health care system is changed and us beneficiaries are reasonable in how we utilize services.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No system is going to be perfect. But if they were changed to contractors performing a service that would at least be an improvement over the gouging that's currently going on.
We need publicly oriented social insurance for everyone based on income. That shouldn't be denigrated as a goal.It should be the goal. Hillarys bullshit posturing against it precludes that possibility.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sanders talks about what should be (and he's often right), not how he can possibly get it done. He might as well be waving his arms about doing away with cancer and other diseases.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I have no objection to farming out paperwork, which would be likely done with single payer as well. uBt that's ALL they do. Right now, we have much less health care utilization than any other industrial country.f Half per capita what we pay now would definitely be cheaper.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)countries because doctors and hospitals profit off those tests, even when not medically necessary.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 24, 2015, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)
just saying it, doesn't make it so. Doctors and hospitals aren't going to give up that profit easily. Point is, Medicare for all only makes sense with big changes to how care is delivered and beneficiary expectations. Don't see it happening with GOPers in control of Congress.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--their values are. But Dems should not ever do the same by advocating policies and values that have broad support. Why?
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)daughter in collage. She got on Obama Care for $350 per month. Any supplemental policy will be much less than either of these!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)will be paid another, it will not be free.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)amounts and keep people from having to ration their medications or going without. No one should ever have to file bankruptcy or go without treatment due to lack of funds. HRC has nothing that will prevent this appreciably.
I know nothing will ever get you to concede anything when it comes to negative FACTS about HRC, so go ahead and send your response and I will let readers judge for themselves.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)for the fact Congress is occupied by republicans. Without getting 66% of eligible voters voting it will not change, this is reality.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)your bullshit arguments you tack over to "ain't gonna happen". Well of course it can't ever happen if we don't start voting for real change.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Many Republicans in Congress to pass Medicare for since they hate Medicare.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If you take that personally that is your problem.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)NEVER passing Medicare for all. Have to vote them out first
eridani
(51,907 posts)--at full volume. And Democrat should not even think about demanding reasonable things that are widely supported?
Bernie! Because fuck this shit!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)About time Dems started doing that--and Sanders is.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Many hate political parties, but will respond to strongly asserted values. 25% of Vermont Republicans vote for Sanders
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and unjustified profit-taking from the system while guaranteeing that everyone is covered from birth to death.
Nobody has claimed that such a system would be free.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)program that covers all standard healthcare services including long term care, prescriptions, mental health, dental health, rehabilitation etc. No copays. No premiums. No exclusions. No cost shifting back to consumers by service providers. The system is entirely funded through taxes including an employer payroll tax and individual income taxes. Both employees and employers currently in the private system would see a net decrease in their total healthcare costs.
The legislation: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/american-health-security-act-of-2013?inline=file
eridani
(51,907 posts)The Washington Health Security Trust can be funded 100% by an assessment of $100-$200 per month per adult over 18 and a payroll tax of 1-1.2% on payroll under $500K per year plus 10-12% on payroll over that. Federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be folded in also. For people already on Medicare during the transition, B + D would cost $50-$75/month.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)She is trump without the wall around the country.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)jalan48
(13,871 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She is perfectly clear...she sides with big money and big power.
She won't rock the boat for the Health Insurance industry...
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Unlike Republicans who don't give a shit about anyone if there isn't a profit included.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)this one says "no way"!
eridani
(51,907 posts)With single payer, you get whatever health care you need with no deductibles.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Though of course I am grateful to Medicare for improving my situation compared to the shitty overpriced catastrophic crap I had to rely on from age 62 to 65.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)are the very same ones who now say we can't have uhc. When did the party become cheerleaders for corporate robbers and killers?
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, eridani.
Broward
(1,976 posts)She identifies as a Dem, but she sounds like a Repub. She would likely govern as one as president if given the chance.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)of our very own Senator Abuela from the great state of Wall Street. Feel the CHill!
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)We need an unencumbered President.