U.S. Voters Back Medicare Expansion but Not Eliminating Private Insurance

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Democratic presidential candidates are presenting policy ideas that are broadly popular with Americans, including tuition-free state colleges, but other proposals—such as Medicare for All—could complicate the party’s prospects next year, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

Two-thirds of registered voters support letting anyone buy into Medicare, similar to an idea that former Vice President Joe Biden and some other Democratic candidates have proposed. Two-thirds say that young adults brought to the U.S. illegally should be allowed to stay, an idea broadly supported by the party’s presidential field. Nearly 60% of registered voters support making tuition free at state colleges and universities.

But several other ideas backed by majorities of Democratic voters and some of the party’s 2020 candidates draw significant opposition from the electorate overall, the new poll finds.

Some 56% of registered voters oppose a Medicare for All plan that would replace private insurance, as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and some others have proposed, while 57% oppose the idea of immediately canceling student-loan debt for all borrowers. Mr. Sanders also has proposed the latter, while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren backs it with limits.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-voters-back-medicare-expansion-but-not-eliminating-private-insurance/ar-AAHFNLU?li=BBnb7Kz

[highplainsdem]

1. K&R

[Voltaire2]

2. The HIC has done its job bamboozling people.

[Cha]

6. NO.. this is REALITY.

[Voltaire2]

8. Yes the reality is that the propaganda

barrage from the private health insurance industry has successfully bamboozled people into believing that they “choose” the shitty expensive inadequate health insurance their employers provide.

[Cha]

9. No this is people wanting to keep

their private insurance as well as a public option.. they want choices.

[Voltaire2]

11. You have exactly no choice in an employer based

system. At best you can select between different configurations of the plan your employer has chosen for you.

The entire issue of “choice” is a horseshit propaganda campaign.

[Cha]

12. Americans want Biden's health plan.

[athena]

59. Not all Americans.

[Cha]

72. Of course.. the majority.

[brooklynite]

49. Nobody is saying you HAVE to keep your private insurance.

What is wrong with a choice between MfA and a private plan?

[Hortensis]

54. People would have the public option or the employer option.

Imo, you'd do best to calm down. We have a lot of huge issues to get to, and the Republican Party is fighting to the death or destruction on all of them. With the ACA in place and ready to quickly complete, squabbling over starting all over with a whole new healthcare system for sure isn't even in the top five most critical to get to, no matter how good it might be.

Btw, my own top three right out of the gate are saving our democracy starting with our giant democracy reform package held up in the house. EVERYTHING depends on keeping the power of the vote.

Then how about immediately reuniting children with to their families, rescuing all their other victims, and tearing down not just the detection centers but the concentration camps Trump is planning? Immediately because it's a dreadfully cruel and harmful atrocity. Surely we should get to that? IMMEDIATELY?!

Then, beyond huge, battling climate change.

Wrapped into that last, dozens of other huge issues. Like how about destroying our new ultrawealthy classes before they destroy us and deciding where our incomes will come from in future?

Next to all that and much more, imo squabbling over which of two very similar healthcare programs, as if it really mattered right now, is incredibly foolish and irresponsible.

[athena]

63. I disagree.

Medicare for All is what America needs. It could greatly excite the electorate since Americans like big ideas. And it's not only a big idea, but it's a good idea; no one is safe in the current system. All we need to do is make sure people actually understand what it means (even on this thread, many people don't seem to understand it), and to make sure that right-wing arguments don't muddy the waters. That is up to us.

[Hortensis]

64. Nice aspiring post, Athena. But even imagining that

a version of MfA would be substantially better than a completed ACA with the same coverages, and imagining that we had a Democratic controlled congress, and imagining that our congressional legislators would agree to replace the ACA they created (three BIG questionable conditions):

Why would any president choose to make that a major, enormously expensive, protracted goal over the next two terms, assuming the Republicans didn't get the presidency in 2024 and stop it before completely implemented?

As president, Athena, you'd only have so much Democratic credit to spend and have to choose how best to spend it. Can't do everything, so have to figure out how to use our assets to best advantage. Is there a way to battle climate change, implement our 10-20-30 plan for America's most intractably impoverished rural areas, build clinics, and create new jobs all in one, for really great bang for the buck? Amazing how often our poorest areas are also most frequently hit by floods.

Every month we delay big climate action, the more money will have to be diverted from other crying needs to dealing with disasters alone in future.

[ehrnst]

66. You said that your expertise on M4A was based on living in Canada for awhile.

So how do you know if someone actually does or doesn't understand what Medicare for All, which is the name of a particular legislative proposal, actually is? Or isn't?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=291792

You have posted some "inspiring" marketing style language describing the wonderful features that it promises for all, but I haven't seen much from you in the way of understanding the substance in that bill, and how it will actually be paid for other than "it will be better than what you have, and cost less!" because some things will be eliminated and that money will just pay for other stuff.

What is your source of information of what is and isn't in the bill, other than assuming it's the same thing as Canada has?

And how long has it been since you lived in Canada, because access to health care is one of their big concerns this election year, particularly with people over 55:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212467196

[Voltaire2]

71. I should 'calm down'?

What the fork?

This is a discussion. Discuss. If you find the discussion a diversion from other issues, take it up with the op who posted a ridiculous push poll.

[ehrnst]

67. Actually, it's not "horseshit" if Americans believe that M4A would mean that a public plan

is simply "optional," for someone who wants to keep their insurance, and would prefer it to be that way.

Pro tip: telling someone that their perception of their own insurance is "horseshit propaganda" isn't the best way to convince someone that you have any respect for them or what they want... or get them to trust that you have any clue what their particular experience is.

[ooky]

85. I had no choice in my employer based health insurance plan,

but the plan itself was pretty good. It took care of the health needs for me and my family and didn't cost me an arm and a leg. Not all employer based plans are like this, but some are, and those voters don't want to be told their plan will be replaced by something they don't trust - without having an option to stay in the plan they already have (and some like).

[Blue_true]

15. When I worked for corporations, I had platinum level

healthcare coverage. I knew coworkers that had major illnesses and were not remotely ruined financially because our health insurance paid for everything. THAT is the reality that many Americans are experiencing, you can dismiss people's actual experiences if you want, but seldom does that go well.

It was not until I was out of a corporation and on my own did I realize how good my healthcare coverage was. An equivalent policy out of my pocket ran $850-$1100 per month.

We can talk about WHY healthcare is so expensive, I have come to see that the reasons are far more complex than people who decry the costs are willing to admit (a negative message that has scheming, evil corporations always sells better). I think that people being more responsible of taking care of their health (eating healthier, portion control, exercise, enough sleep, limiting alcohol or drugs and limiting smoking or not starting to begin with) helps dramatically with costs, but how many Americans are doing those things?

[Voltaire2]

18. Or you could be working part time at whole foods

and have Amazon delete your coverage entirely.

The point is you have no choice and no say. Your employer is making all those decisions for you. It is healthcare serfdom. If you have a “good” employer you do ok, if you don’t, too bad for you.

It is a stupid undemocratic system.

[Blue_true]

21. Biden's plan deals with part time workers. That would be part of the ACA expansion.

Proper expansions of the ACA in my view would involve several facets:

First, significantly lower the income level that people need to make to qualify for premium assistance in the ACA, that will sweep in millions who are locked out or are paying too much out of pocket for their coverage.

Allow any individual that does not qualify for ACA subsidies and any company that wants to, to buy into a large ACA group plan. This would prevent insurance companies from herding and picking off individual companies and individuals to force them into options that involve poor coverage or higher rates.

Add a Medicare buyin option to cover the Americans that are in the 45-64.11 year old age range that may be unemployed or underemployed and can't find better work. Have a feature where the unemployed can sign up for free coverage (even if they were not poor before becoming unemployed, they can qualify for a robust Medicaid like coverage and not miss a beat).

Trying to completely build a system from scratch like Senator Sanders is proposing is what we should avoid, that will end with Americans that now have coverage losing it, if republicans regain full power again and attack the ACA again.

Look, the clear majority of Americans are saying that they are uncomfortable with a concept that eliminates private insurance. When are the proponents of what Bernie is proposing going to listen to that and stop literally saying those Americans don't know what they are talking about?

[ehrnst]

27. The ACA has made some real progress there, where nothing else had.

Progress is better than no progress.

Teddy Kennedy said that one of the biggest regrets of his career was walking away from negotiations with Nixon for health care reform, because Democrats told him Single Payer or nothing.

Nixon proposed a health care reform plan that was to the left of the ACA. Kennedy walked away from the table.

So we got nothing. Kennedy said that if he had decided to move forward with negotiations and compromised, and then continued to implement it with Congress after Nixon resigned, we'd have something much closer to what Canada has today.

Instead it took nearly 40 more years to actually get something passed into law that worked, that got people with pre-existing conditions access to health care plans, that got Medicaid expanded to non-disabled low income adults, that put caps on what people would pay out of pocket for expensive/long term treatments for serious illness like cancer, that forced the insurance companies to spend .85 of every dollar of premiums on health care, that allowed states to take money to experiment with different types of reform - like starting M4A in their own state, like Green Mountain Care attempted to do.

Or Maryland who regulates rates for medical procedures, and creates incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions, bringing down premiums all across the board,

The ACA acheived more progress than anything since Medicare/Medicaid - and it has survived, damaged, but intact, despite all of the GOP attempts to destroy it, and return us to what we had before the ACA.

And tell me, if the SCOTUS of 2010 ruled that states didn't have to expand Medicaid - that there would be no consequence for them if they refused - what do you think that the SCOTUS of 2020 will rule when states refuse to participate in M4A? There isn't going to be any way that M4A can avoid state participation in terms of administration. Medicaid is completely administered at the state level, much like National Health Care in Canada is administered. Like Canada, the US population and sheer land mass is too large, and the health care system for it too large for it to be run out of DC.

The reason that Medicare can be run that way is that it serves a limited segment of the population, and is financed primarily by the much larger population that pays in, but does not use it.

[The Mouth]

37. Politics is the art of the possible. EOM

[ehrnst]

42. Knowing the difference between impossible and possible makes one a much better lawmaker.

Encouraging magical thinking might make for an "uplifting" campaign, but people want someone who can get things done.

[ehrnst]

24. I don't see Senator Sanders effectively combatting the misinformation surrounding

M4A, or even attempting to. Most people think that M4A will be optional, and they can keep their insurance if they want to - which one would think is the first step in combatting propaganda.

The thing is, whether or not social media, advertising, FoxNews, or lobbying is "fair," it's a fact, and it's something that has to be taken into consideration by anyone wanting to accomplish anything via legislation. I'm sure it's easy to blame the failure of a policy on "the establishment/big Pharma/Medicine/Dental/etc. didn't allow it," but if you knew that it would be futile going in, why waste the time? If your goal is to get more people access to affordable healthcare ASAP, and there was a more politically possible way to do it, why continue promoting a plan that you know is doomed because of whatever reason? What does that say about one's actual goal?

While half (53%) think that Medicare-for-all would mean private health insurance would no longer be the primary way Americans get health coverage, a substantial share believe that under such a system, private insurers would continue to cover most Americans (40%) or don’t know (7%). In addition, while 62% think that Medicare-for-all would result in all U.S. residents having health coverage, a significant share (34%) do not think this would happen.

On most other major features of the Medicare-for-all proposals, majorities of Americans are unaware of the kind of dramatic changes that the plans would bring to the nation’s health care system. For example:

-69% say that people would continue to pay deductibles and co-pays when they use health care services, though the leading Medicare-for-all bills propose eliminating that kind of cost-sharing;

-55% say people who are covered through their jobs would be able to keep that coverage, though a new national health plan would replace that coverage under Medicare-for-all;

-55% say people who buy their own insurance would be able to keep their current plans, though they also would be included in a new national plan under Medicare-for-all; and

-54% say individuals and employers would continue to pay health insurance premiums, though the Medicare-for-all bills would eliminate such premiums.

Add to the gargantuan task of getting unanimous public support of any particulary policy in a large, very diverse population, any attempt to revamp by retrofit a part of the economy with a workforce the size of France isn't going to be easy, nor fast - and without serious disruption.

If the choice is between gradual expansion of public options such as allowing people 55 and up to buy into Medicare at a higher premium than if they wait - but a lower premium than on the private market, and a plan that we know will be trashed and defeated by propaganda, which makes more sense if your goal is to get more people covered ASAP?

What if the choice isn't actually between M4A and no reform at all? What if that's also propaganda put forward during an election year?

[Autumn]

10. The way I read it Republican and Democrats were polled. I didn't find a link in the article to get

the details. This was all I found in it.

900 registered voters, including 506 who said they would vote in a Democratic caucus or primary.

[Jakes Progress]

78. It's worked on a number of those on this thread.

People are just approving of what their chosen candidate wants without understanding the healthcare situation. MFA is the only way we can afford universal coverage.

[athena]

26. Why are you making right-wing arguments?

Medicare for All is just a way to pay for health care. No one would be forced to change their doctor. Nothing would change, except there would be no paper work; no one would go bankrupt because of a medical emergency; everyone would be covered; and you would have a wider choice of doctors.

I, for one, want Medicare for All. I am being forced to hand over huge amounts of money every month just so my insurance company can increase its profits while limiting what it covers. I have excellent insurance, and I'm one unfortunate incident away from bankruptcy. How is that a "choice"?

Medicare for All does not take away choices. It's the current system we're under that does that.

[athena]

31. Your statement was patently false. Medicare for All does not take away choice.

By claiming it does, the right wing tries to scare people into thinking that they will lose their health care, or that they will not be able to see their regular doctor.

As for "liking" your health insurance, I certainly hope for your sake that you never have that accident or emergency procedure that will make you bankrupt when your beloved private health insurance company decides that it wasn't medically necessary. (See this, for example.)

[ehrnst]

46. No, Bernie Sanders' plan does indeed take away more options than people think

And nobody is guaranteed to keep their doctor, ever. Their doctor might just decide not to accept the insurance that you have, they might cut back on patients, sevices, etc. Not even Bernie can guarantee that.

While half (53%) think that Medicare-for-all would mean private health insurance would no longer be the primary way Americans get health coverage, a substantial share believe that under such a system, private insurers would continue to cover most Americans (40%) or don’t know (7%). In addition, while 62% think that Medicare-for-all would result in all U.S. residents having health coverage, a significant share (34%) do not think this would happen.

On most other major features of the Medicare-for-all proposals, majorities of Americans are unaware of the kind of dramatic changes that the plans would bring to the nation’s health care system. For example:

-69% say that people would continue to pay deductibles and co-pays when they use health care services, though the leading Medicare-for-all bills propose eliminating that kind of cost-sharing;

-55% say people who are covered through their jobs would be able to keep that coverage, though a new national health plan would replace that coverage under Medicare-for-all;

-55% say people who buy their own insurance would be able to keep their current plans, though they also would be included in a new national plan under Medicare-for-all; and

-54% say individuals and employers would continue to pay health insurance premiums, though the Medicare-for-all bills would eliminate such premiums.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/press-release/poll-most-americans-dont-realize-how-dramatically-medicare-for-all-proposals-would-revamp-nations-health-care-system/

[athena]

52. You don't seem to understand what "Medicare for All" means.

You've posted an article about what people think Medicare for All would mean. The article is trying to show that they are confused about what it means; it's not saying that Medicare for All will be what they think it will be.

And nobody is guaranteed to keep their doctor, ever. Their doctor might just decide not to accept the insurance that you have, they might cut back on patients, sevices, etc. Not even Bernie can guarantee that.

Under Medicare for All, the government is everybody's insurer. You go to your doctor, your doctor files a claim with the government, and the government pays the bill. You have access to health care by virtue of being a resident of the United States. Your doctor cannot reject you because everyone is the same as you. And since there is a lot less paperwork, and no money is wasted on advertising, there is a lot more money to be spent on services.

I urge you to learn more about single-payer health care before you freak out about it.

[ehrnst]

61. No, that's not in his bill, and no physician is required to treat you.

No physician is required to stay in a particular practice - a GP might decide that they prefer to specialize.

You don't seem to understand that I posted an article that indicates that there hasn't been an effective response on Senator Sanders' part to the misinformation that people have about M4A, and that they would have the option of keeping their private insurance, when they wouldn't.

And since there is a lot less paperwork, and no money is wasted on advertising, there is a lot more money to be spent on services.

I urge you to stop lecturing people about what is and isn't in the bill until you learn more about it. Those particular cost transfers are not included in the bill, and you have simply assumed that things are far less complex than they are. Especially now that the campaign promise has gone this election year from all being completed in a mere eight years, down to just two years. (Last time I looked, anyway.)




But, I'm curious, where are you getting this information that you're posting about M4A?

[athena]

62. I know about single-payer health care because I have lived under such a system.

I lived in Canada for seven years.

But of course, Americans who have never lived under such a system and don't even understand what it means know a lot better than I do.

By the way, you don't seem to have read the article, since it's just explaining the results of a poll asking Americans what they think Medicare for All means. It does not say that people would continue to have private health insurance, which they almost certainly wouldn't (since it would no longer be "single-payer" health care). It mainly shows how much misunderstanding there is. Sanders is only mentioned once, and briefly.

[ehrnst]

65. So you're describing National Health in Canada, not M4A, as per Sanders.

Which is something very different indeed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

And you feel free to lecture people on M4A, even though you haven't looked at the bill, nonetheless. Because you lived in Canada, you know a lot better than anyone who's actually looked and the bill does. Not only that, you claim to know the funding mechanisms, and that money that 'was once spent here will be simply move over there' with no impact whatsoever on patient experience, in a health care system that has been baked into the economy for 70+ years, that employs more than live in France.



So, then of course you know that Canada is primarily administered at the province level, and that M4A will presumably be administered from one federal office, yes?

And you know that Canada didn't have a national plan until all of the provinces developed their own systems independently from each other, starting in the 1950's and that took way, way more than two years, as M4A promises, yes?

And that it was nearly 20 years after all those plans were given a federal layer, tweaking in 1977 to give more control back to the provinces, until the Canada Health Act in 1987 gave Canadians what they have now - which cost controls necessitate that Canadian citizens buy a private insurance plan, or pay out of pocket for dental and rx, yes?

And you are aware that the state that sent Senator Sanders to the Senate, did not have the political will to get Green Mountain Care off the drawing board, because the final numbers crunched meant that Vermonters would have to face an 11% hike in taxes, which was unacceptable to them? Interestingly, Senator Sanders gets prickly and brushes it off when someone asks him about lessons learned from that, and hasn't indicated that he's even interested in knowing, or understands why it didn't get off the ground. That doesn't bode well for his ability to accept new data that might actually help him to refine his plan. I think he doesn't take well to people telling him that he has something to learn about health care.

But in any case, Green Mountain Care didn't make it off the ground, Coloradocare was voted down soundly in 2016, and California's attempts to go single payer stalled as well.

So, no, we're not going to get where Canada is, the way Canada did, from a very different expectation of medical care from patients in Canada (or anywhere) had in the 60's, from where we are now, covering way way more services for way way less money, in 20 years let alone two.

Here is an interactive tool that allows you to see a simplified overview of all the current public plan proposals. I suggest you take a look at it before "correcting' anyone else on M4A:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/


BTW - I lived in the UK for years, and know a thing or two about that system, but would never consider that a license to lecture anyone else about a US health care proposal that I hadn't even read.

[oasis]

91. Great post. Thanks for the useful info.

[Demsrule86]

48. That is not true...those who get good insurance though work would no longer have it.

And would be forced onto a different more expensive and possibly inferior plan.

[athena]

60. Don't you understand that there would be no "plan"?

Single-payer health care means the government is the universal insurer. It is less expensive, not more. And health care is not inferior; it's superior because you're not supporting a private for-profit business as part of getting care.

Please do some research into single-payer health care before you make incorrect claims about it.

[Demsrule86]

68. We have no idea what the health care in a government plan will be like...and no matter what people

would lose their existing healthcare...bad bad idea to run on.

[ehrnst]

69. Please do some reasearch into how Medicare for All will actually cover, and how it will work

concerning patient experience before you lecture other people about how they don't know what it involves.

Like saying that there will be "no advertising."

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/the-work/advertiser/public-health-england/10412

[Uncle Joe]

77. Do you believe that Elizabeth Warren has studied Medicare for All?

She seems to be all for it.

[ehrnst]

81. I don't agree with her on that, but unlike other candidates, she has shown

an ability to listen to qualified, non-partisan experts, accept new data when presented to her, and intellectual agility. She has a respect for scholarship, and is not threatened by credentialed people who say, "You could do this more effectively another way." She doesn't need people around her constantly telling her she's right, completely and unassailably the authority on all things progressive.

At this point all the candidates are making their initial ideas known, and Medicare for All is still a vague enough concept in most people's mind that a candidate can change their own version of it to be more of a public option available to many.

Like Obama on Gay Marriage, and Paul Wellstone on health care reform, I believe she's someone who can and will come around and say she learned some things that caused her to change her mind. She genuinely cares about promoting what will work more than she does about her own ego.

[ehrnst]

70. Why are you insulting people? "right-wing arguments"

And no current doctor would be forced to continue treating anyone, or to remain in the medical profession, or practice in a community clinic area that wouldn't be in your area.... so no one is ever "guaranteed" to keep their doctor.

Woe unto those who didn't learn that lesson when Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," and it was used to discredit him by the GOP.

[NurseJackie]

4. Ta-dah!

[GeorgeGist]

5. Push polls always get the answer you want.

[Cha]

7. Two-thirds of registered voters support letting anyone buy into Medicare, similar to an idea that..

Two-thirds of registered voters support letting anyone buy into Medicare, similar to an idea that former Vice President Joe Biden and some other Democratic candidates have proposed. Two-thirds say that young adults brought to the U.S. illegally should be allowed to stay, an idea broadly supported by the party’s presidential field. Nearly 60% of registered voters support making tuition free at state colleges and universities.

[tritsofme]

14. It's not a "push poll" just because you don't like it's result.

[Joe941]

13. We can't have two systems. Private insurance must go.

[Blue_true]

17. I can promise you that if elimination of private insurance is attempted by fiat,

two things will happen. First we will never get MFA because republicans will keep getting elected. Second, we will likely be stuck with Trump.

It is better to set up a system that allow Americans to come to view the way insurance is handled now as bad, getting them to that points likely involves a process like Biden and Buttigieg are proposing, and one that I believe Warren will eventually come around to, cover the Americans that are now falling through the cracks, leave people that are happy with their private insurance alone, build a strong set of results for the public option, more private policyholders will gravitate to the public option, repeat that process until private insurance is reduced to covering cosmetic surgery and non life-threatening elective surgery - the insurance that provides critical health coverage to Americans would be the combination of the ACA and Public Option.

[The Mouth]

19. Any candidate running on eliminating private insurance

WILL lose.
and deservedly so.

[Blue_true]

20. I am afraid so. Elimination of private insurance by fiat like Bernie is proposing is a total

non-starter right out of the gate. That is essentially telling tens of millions of Americans that they don't know what they are doing, thst Bernie and a handful of people do.

When I spent my earlier working life working for corporations, I was very happy with my private insurance. The most that I paid out of pocket was $125 for an out of network emergency room visit. I paid $25 for my share of a monthly policy that I know was a platinum level policy that actually cost more like $850-$1150. Clinic visits for emergencies and visits for annual Physicals cost $5-$15 each time, hardly a financial burden. My experience is what tens of millions of people that have private insurance are experiencing.

[ehrnst]

23. Most people don't really understand that his plan will eliminate private insurance

They think it will still be an option for them or anyone who wants it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212463517

And if you let anyone who wants to join a public plan, employers will stop offering any plan at all because they will tell their employees to get the public plan, which will effectively put an end to private insurance.

This is why the ACA subsidies were based on income and access to employer subsidized and administered insurance.

[Blue_true]

73. Employers that just send their employees into a public plan with nothing else should

be heavily penalized under the right healthcare policy. I DO approve of allowing employers to join the ACA on behalf of their employees, but that would come with the responsibility to buy the best plan for their employees, best defined as no deductible, no cap, full coverage for everything, and best being defined by ACA requirements. What allowing employers to join would do for employers is lower their costs by getting them into an enormous in scale group plan, instead of the companies having to deal with insurance companies individually. A couple of years ago, we saw Chase Manhattan, Berkshire Hathaway and one other large company put all their employees into a massive collective insurance plan, that change gave them more leverage with insurers than they had alone, the ACA change that I mentioned would be such a change on steroids.

[ehrnst]

82. The ACA has specific eligibility guidelines for employers to send their employees to the exchanges

The number of employees, the average salary that employees get, etc.

My brother in law works for a small company of 15, but they are all paid extremely well - six figures. Because of their salary, the employees were not eligible for any subsidies on the exchange, and because the company was so small, they were exempt from providing health care coverage, or having to seek a group rate for their employees.

Because they were ex-pats in other countries for years, my sister could not really get a job, or start a career, so there was no way to get health care via that route.

So now they are permanently in the US, and they have to purchase health care coverage for a family of four at $4,000 a month.

If that company was a housekeeping company with minimum wage workers, those workers would be eligible for subsidies on the exchanges.

There had to be tradeoffs in order to fund the ACA, and while they complain about the price, they know that it made things better for many people who didn't make six figures.

My father's business employs 5 people, including himself, and he went ahead and made health insurance part of the employee benefits, partly because it would allow him to get insurance at a reduced rate, because his income went into that higher level, and partly because the ACA gave incentives to small businesses with median/low income employees to do this.

Unfortunately, there are people who are self-employed who make too much to be eligible for subsidies, and don't qualify for the small business incentives to provide health insurance. Many of those people simply pay the $600 fee in their taxes and hope for the best. There are a lot of self employed people who are angry about the ACA, because the ACA got rid of the low premium/high deductible catastrophic insurance policies that they had before.

It's complicated. Anyone who tells you that there is a simple solution to this very complicated part of our economy is running for office, or selling something.

[Blue_true]

83. You make many excellent points. But I believe that expanding the ACA income cap,

and offering a large group plan like Medicare for All that want it, would address most of the issues that you pointed out. My issue with MFA is that it take us back to battles that we have already fought, some of which we lost.

[The Mouth]

35. It took me many years and much sacrifice to get a Union job

Screw with my benefits and I will do everything in my power to hurt you.

Medicare for those who want it is a winner, but not getting rid of private insurance.

[Blue_true]

74. Most people that like their health insurance would do the same as you. nt

[question everything]

32. Together with winning the White House in 2020

and beyond, if we continue pushing this

And the House, and the Senate

[Gothmog]

16. NBC/WSJ poll shows Biden's healthcare stance (optional Medicare buy-in) much more popular

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Freethinker65]

28. Yep. Medicare Buy In as an option. Let consumers decide.

Consumers will either opt for Medicare coverage or keep private insurance.

You will be able to switch jobs or retire early and know how much Medicare will cost you with a buy in.

Businesses and corporations that wish to provide private policies, with perhaps increased non-Medicare provided benefits, for their employees can continue to do so. Private insurance can adapt to the consumer market change.

[athena]

25. Why are you propagating right-wing talking points?

Medicare for all would not limit choice in any way. You would still get to choose your own doctors. In fact, you would have a wider choice of doctors, since everyone would by definition be "in plan".

I suggest you do some research on what "Medicare for All" means before you go around repeating misleading right-wing talking points.

[question everything]

33. +1

[athena]

38. I pointed out all the ways in which your post was wrong and misleading.

By claiming that I objected only because I didn't like what you're saying, you're demonstrating that you will happily use the typical DU tactic of putting words in someone's mouth, and hoping that no one will read closely enough to realize that you're misrepresenting what the person said.

Medicare for All does not take away choice. To claim that it does is a right-wing talking point. Ergo, you are repeating right-wing talking points.

You may believe that Medicare for All is impossible to pass in the current climate. But by repeating the right-wing talking point that Medicare for All would take away people's choices, you are helping keep that climate anti-Medicare for All. America needs Medicare for All, sooner or later, regardless of whom you support for the presidency.

[Demsrule86]

50. Medicare for all...all would be on Medicare...not a plan they chose...by definition it takes away

choice.

[athena]

57. .

Not worth it.

[The Mouth]

36. Differing opinions are fine

Accusing another poster of 'repeating misleading right wing talking points' is dishonest and disruptive bullshit. It is a simple fact that eliminating private insurance is a losing issue. YOU do not get to decide what 'repeating right wing talking points are'. Many of us here support a progressive agenda, and also realize that politics is the art of the possible.

So kindly state the positives of your view, but don't attack people with a different (and more realistic) take on it, please.

[athena]

39. Medicare for All does not take away choice.

Medicare for All is not "[t]elling people we know what's best for them whether they like it or not." Those are right-wing talking points, whether you like it or not.

You may think that Medicare for All is a losing issue. But that is not the same as saying that Medicare for All takes away choice, or that Democrats who favor Medicare for All presume to know what is best for people "whether they like it or not". You may be very confident of your opinion, but you are in no position to shut me up about calling a right-wing talking point what it is.

[The Mouth]

40. It damned well is.

There is simply no guarantee in any proposed 'medicare for all' plan that allows someone to keep the insurance they currently have and like.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

And Until Senator Warren releases her plan in better detail you have no evidence that any 'medicare for all plan' would let people keep what they have if they like it.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/elizabeth-warren-campaign-medicare-for-all

You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[athena]

41. Do you understand what "Medicare for All" means?

Did you actually "choose" your health insurance? Or did you just pick one of the two or three plans that your employer allowed you?

And who, in their right mind, would "choose" something that would limit their choice of doctor, could refuse to pay for their treatment for any reason, and would require them to pay more for the same treatment?

Medicare for All doesn't let you "choose" your private insurer because the government is the universal insurer. It does, unlike private health insurance, let you choose your doctor and your hospital. That is true of all single-payer plans. It's misleading to claim that private health insurance gives you choice, and that Medicare for All would take it away. But I suspect that you knew that.

[The Mouth]

43. Yes, I did "choose" my health insurance. Very carefully.

I have exactly the plan that I wish for. And the doctor.

Make it cheaper, sure, allow people who aren't as fortunate to receive health care, of course, eliminate the option I currently have, go to hell.

[athena]

47. A beautiful demonstration of the attitude that is turning the U.S. into a third-world country.

Let me reword your post to make it clearer:

"Make it cheaper [for me], sure, allow people who aren't as fortunate to receive health care [as long as it's inferior to mine], of course, eliminate the [superior] option I currently have, go to hell."

Yes, it's clearly all about you. Even providing better health care at a lower price isn't good enough because you think you're better off than others right now, and you're worried that getting the same coverage as everyone else might -- just might -- mean you lose something. You can't say what exactly you would lose -- you would, after all, have a wider range of doctors to choose from, and you would have to pay less -- but the very idea that you would get the same care as everyone else threatens you. Who wants better care at a much lower cost when you can be comfortable in the knowledge that you're getting better care than the majority of Americans!

Thank you for demonstrating what makes Medicare for All politically so difficult in the United States. Enjoy your president. After all, he agrees with you.

[Demsrule86]

51. Do you understand that unions gave up pay and other things for their good health care that

it was always a priority...now why should they sacrifice for something that is unlikely to pass and is being forced down their throats...just curious what health care plan do you have?

[athena]

56. My health care plan? It's Canada's health care plan. It works well for them.

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2019, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

I have lived in Canada. I know what it's like there. When you're sick, you go to the doctor, and you get care. You never owe anything. You pay for it as part of your taxes, but the additional amount you pay in your taxes for health care is much lower than what we pay in the United States for health insurance (which not only doesn't necessarily cover everything but comes with co-pays and deductibles that go up every year).

Even people who are in unions will get better health care under a single-payer health care system than they do in the current system. The only reason you think they won't is because we have been led to believe in this country to believe that health care costs a lot more than it needs to.

Think about the following: currently, hospitals are allowed to charge $4 or more for a single Band-Aid. Under a single-payer system, they wouldn't be able to do this. There would be only one insurer ( the "single payer" ), i.e., the government, which would regulate the costs for things. As a result, there would be a lot less paperwork. On top of that, the government is not a for-profit business with top executives who want high salaries and bonuses, so a lot less money would be wasted in administrative costs. Finally, no money would be wasted on advertising.

I will never understand why Americans are so much more comfortable having a private company deal with the payment for their health care than they are having the government deal with it. You have zero power with a private insurer. They are under no obligation to prove anything to you. With single-payer health care, on the other hand, if you don't agree with something, you can get it changed through the political system: you can write to your representatives; you can engage in grassroots activism. It would be much harder for the government to refuse to cover a procedure than it is for private insurance companies.

[The Mouth]

58. Nope.. Working hard, sacrificing, and planning for something is 'elitist' and makes one selfish

Especially to people who know nothing about insurance, or political realities.
Medicare for all, with everyone getting the same level of care and and having infinite choice is a great idea! I'll give my unicorn a ride in my Lamborghini when I go to sign up for it.

[question everything]

34. Which is probably the reason why Warren has yet to release her health care bill

If nominated, she will pivot, will abandon the eliminating of private plane. And, one hopes, all the other freebies.

[Demsrule86]

53. It is too late for that....the flip flop commercial write themselves if she changes her positions...

and if she doesn't the socialism...they are coming for your work insurance commercials will be used. Sometimes you make the mistake of taking views that disqualify you for the general during a primary. I believe Warren has done this so I hope she is not the nominee...we must get rid of Trump...sure I support any Democrat in the general but we need to win. I support Biden not only because I like him but because he can win a general which is going to be way tougher than folks think.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. I'm fine with this

I honestly think that we need to ditch the private insurance companies, but, realistically, that's not going to happen, at least not right away. I think that we need to open up Medicare/Medicaid for everybody and let people choose what they want. Given a fair chance to prove itself, I think that, over time, people will start to move away from private insurance and sign up for Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance companies will either go away or be absorbed, creating a national health care M4A system. I don't think that, absent a sea change of opinion, people will consent to the complete removal of the private insurance system in one fell swoop.

[PhoenixDem]

75. No brainer ... MFA is like jumping off a cliff ... nt

[Lib 4 Life]

76. That's soley because private insurance is a known. m4a is an unknown.

has nothing to do with actual policy for many.

[Jakes Progress]

79. I wish Warren would explain it better.

And that the "let's let everybody have a choice" candidates would be more honest.

Warren needs to start saying that she supports universal healthcare coverage, and that she has a plan that would save money. Then tell those that demand a combination of MFA and private health insurance that would be too expensive. Explain that when they have that option, the average voter would be footing the bill for corporate CEO's to have gold plated bed pans when the get their botox treatments. One of the original tenets of the ACA was that people had mandated insurance. Without it, the cost would be excessive. The only purpose of private insurance is to make insurance corporations rich.

Tell people that they can have private insurance if they want it, but they will pay for Medicare first. The if they or their company want to foot the bill for private platinum service, go ahead.

I've had company insurance and I've been on Medicare. Give me Medicare any day.

[Gothmog]

80. How long will Warren dodge on health care and taxes??

Link to tweet

None other than late-night host Stephen Colbert made it painfully clear that Warren is ducking. He asked twice about whether taxes will go up and practically begged her to level with voters. “I’ve listened to these answers a few times before," he said, "and I just want to make a parallel suggestion to you that you might defend the taxes, perhaps, you’re not mentioning in your sentence: ‘Isn’t Medicare for All like public school? There might be taxes for it, but you save money sending your kids to school, and do you want to live in a world where your kids aren’t educated? Do you want to live in a world where your fellow Americans are dying?’”

Let’s be clear: If Colbert and debate moderators can figure this out, her opponents in the primary and, more important, the Republicans in the general election will hit her again and again.

It is not simply a matter of the viability of her health-care plan. It goes to her core critique of the moderates: They are too timid and too scared to do the big things. Well, perhaps they have figured out what the big things cost and don’t see they are economically or politically viable.

Warren’s brand is truth-telling about the rich and powerful, but you simply cannot get the rich and big corporations to pay for all of it. The Medicare-for-all plan introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is presumably the basis for Warren’s idea — despite all her other plans, she has little specifics on health care. Sanders’s plan posits a number of funding sources and specifies a premium for families (“a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All — just $844 a year — saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium”). Now, there are a lot of people who consider themselves middle-class who might have to pay more, but at least Sanders makes some effort to spell out the costs and the savings.

[Gothmog]

84. Remember back when Warren supported Obama are?

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

86. Obamacare Has Made People Healthier

Getting rid of Obamacare is a bad move https://politicalwire.com/2019/09/30/obamacare-has-made-people-healthier/

Washington Post: “Poor people in Michigan with asthma and diabetes were admitted to the hospital less often after they joined Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. More than 25,000 Ohio smokers got help through the state’s Medicaid expansion that led them to quit. And around the country, patients with advanced kidney disease who went on dialysis were more likely to be alive a year later if they lived in a Medicaid-expansion state.”

“Such findings are part of an emerging mosaic of evidence that, nearly a decade after it became one of the most polarizing health-care laws in U.S. history, the ACA is making some Americans healthier — and less likely to die.”

[Cha]

87. Mahalo, Goth!

[Gothmog]

88. Hey Cha

[Cha]

89. KICK!

[DrFunkenstein]

90. Warren Has Said She Supports a Buy-In Option as a Transitional Pathway

Earlier this year:

"I’ve signed onto Medicare for All. I’ve signed on to another one that gives an option for buying in to Medicaid. There are different ways we can get there. But the key has to be always keep the center of the bullseye in mind. And that is affordable health care for every American."

https://slate.com/business/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-dodges-kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-question.html

[Gothmog]

92. Will Medicare-for-all hurt the middle class? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders struggle with quest

Eventually someone will have to tell voters how much these plans will cost and how they will be paid for

Link to tweet

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are running on a multitrillion-dollar plan Sanders wrote to provide health insurance coverage to all Americans through the federal government, rather than from private insurers. Although they have frequently stressed that the middle class would see overall costs go down, a wide range of experts — including one whom Sanders has relied upon — say it is impossible to make those guarantees based on the plans that the candidates have outlined so far.

“Obviously, all of the 180 million people who have private insurance are not going to pay less. It’s impossible to have an ‘everybody wins’ scenario here,” said Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the health policy department at Emory University. “The plan is by design incredibly disruptive. As a result, you create enormous winners and losers.”....

Warren has been pressed in a variety of settings — on debate stages, in interviews, on late-night television shows — but has avoided the question of costs to the middle class. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked her the question in late July several times without an answer, to the point that he said in frustration, “I’m not getting anywhere.”

When asked specifically how she would finance Medicare-for-all, Warren’s campaign said that she is “reviewing the options” suggested by Sanders and is also examining “other options” for how to pay for the plan. Her campaign would not outline what that entails.

The campaign pointed to Warren’s previous statements pledging to not raise overall costs on middle-class families but would not outline how she would accomplish that with a plan that many economists, as well as Sanders, say will require significant tax hikes.

[Joe941]

93. They were against the ACA too.

Private insurance must go. And we need to lead on this and overcome some public misconceptions.

[Gothmog]

94. 73% of people favor [the] public option that would keep private insurance in place

Link to tweet

[Scurrilous]

95. ...

[Gothmog]

96. Support for a public option has been increasing, and for Medicare-for-All has been decreasing

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

97. Why Elizabeth Warren won't talk about the cost of 'Medicare for All'

Link to tweet

The elephant in the waiting room remains the staggering cost of this new system. There's a reason why Warren avoids the conversation about how we're going to pay for Medicare for All. In fact, anyone with a pencil and paper and third-grade math skills would quickly figure out that this proposal simply cannot work.

Depending on whom you ask, cost estimates range from $2.5 trillion to $4.7 trillion per year. It's important to keep in mind that the entire federal budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion (including a $1.1 trillion-dollar deficit). Basically, we would have to double the size of the government through higher taxes on every American employee and fundamentally alter the structure of the American economy.....

Medicare for All fans propose to demolish our current health care system that certainly needs streamlining, more competition between insurance companies and plans and new and better technology. Other issues that must be addressed are drug manufacturing and distribution networks and hospital consolidation.

While we desperately need reform, any realistic policy proposal would recognize that 90 percent of Americans currently have health insurance. Instead, reasonable politicians should focus on how to cover those who are uninsured or underinsured in our current system.