What is Medicare for All?
drummerboy said:
Someone's trying really hard to tell us they're really the only place to get real news.
Really.
Not the best name, but they do serious, in depth stuff -- and always presented by serious adults--no fooling around. It can be a bit dry sometimes. but you will probably like it better than the millenial kids or comedians I usually post. They have been around since before a lot of other independent news sites so that's probably why they picked a name like that. They started in Toronto in 2003 and then relocated to Baltimore, Maryland in 2011. Arron Mate used to work there, and I have not followed them so much since he left, but I should because they have stuff not covered elsewhere. They remind me a bit of Democracy Now which I also like and forget to watch. So many choices now; there is no need to watch CNN or MSNBC propaganda.
Anyway, try this 7 part interview I posted--the Potter guy is interesting and you learn about him and his evolution from corporate spokesperson to public advocate/whistleblower. It's a good story--not just policy discussion.
Is it safe to say that Potter is on Bernie's team? Potter is on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy with the architect of M4A - Gerald Friedman.
This is just weird. It's like all of these Bernie supporters created this group (2015). There's something extremely fishy here.
jamie said:
Is it safe to say that Potter is on Bernie's team? Potter is on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy with the architect of M4A - Gerald Friedman.
This is just weird. It's like all of these Bernie supporters created this group (2015). There's something extremely fishy here.
Potter is for Medicare for All, not a particular candidate (that I know of). In the videos he mentions Sanders and Warren--who are the only ones supporting Medicare for All and not taking money from Wall Street. He talks a lot about the negative influence of Wall Street on healthcare.
There is nothing fishy about people who truly want Medicare for All traveling in the same circles or working together or endorsing candidates that support what they want. It makes sense.
Maybe you should try watching the videos--they are interesting and give some important background and commentary. I had heard of Wendell Potter, and his investigative work a long time ago, but did not realize what it was about. He used to be a key spokesperson for an insurance company, so he knows how the sausage is made.
jamie said:
Is it safe to say that Potter is on Bernie's team? Potter is on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy with the architect of M4A - Gerald Friedman.
This is just weird. It's like all of these Bernie supporters created this group (2015). There's something extremely fishy here.
What's fishy?
Who is funding the Business Initiative for Health Policy?
It's just odd that the experts speaking out for M4A are also on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy. How can they possibly not be biased?
I prefer experts don't work directly with the architect of said plan.
jamie said:
Who is funding the Business Initiative for Health Policy?
It's just odd that the experts speaking out for M4A are also on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy. How can they possibly not be biased?
I prefer experts don't work directly with the architect of said plan.
Did you watch the videos? There is no attempt to hide anything. Here is the website of the Business Initiative for Health Policy: https://businessinitiative.org/
The Business Initiative for Health Policy is a public education and advocacy effort focused on advancing the business and economic rationale for adopting a Medicare for All system in the United States, the only developed nation in the world without guaranteed universal healthcare.
BIHP believes that the current profit-driven healthcare system poses an existential threat to American business, particularly small and mid-sized businesses, and that its continuation will lower profits for business owners, adversely affect innovation and entrepreneurialism, depress wages for millions of working Americans creating drag on the economy, and hamper international competitiveness.
BIHP further believes that a Medicare for All health care system is the only way to ensure a healthy citizenry, which is both a basic building block of a stable and prosperous nation and an essential component of enduring competitive advantage in the global economy.
These are the go-to guys on Medicare for All. Wendel Potter has been working on this since at least 2010. This is not some fly by night group formed for the 2020 election. They are experts on writing Medicare for All policies. So, no surprise, politicians who need help crafting a Medicare for All policy go to this group. When you want a house built you go to an architect. When you want a Medicare for All policy, you go to the Business Initiative for Health Policy.
If you won't watch the 7 videos above, you can watch this short sample below:
jamie said:
Who is funding the Business Initiative for Health Policy?
It's just odd that the experts speaking out for M4A are also on the board of Business Initiative for Health Policy. How can they possibly not be biased?
I prefer experts don't work directly with the architect of said plan.
This makes no sense. Experts should definitely get involved with policy making. And what "bias" are you talking about? It's possible to be an expert and have a strong point of view as to what direction policy should take. Is that bias?
Seems to me that a lot of the reaction to M4A is kind of knee-jerk, and based on some unfounded fear that if we don't have private insurance (at least in the same form we have now), all hell will break loose.
To me, such opposition is just an example of how brainwashed America is against government involvement in health care.
I just didn’t remember Gruber starting an organization when crafting the ACA.
jamie said:
I just didn’t remember Gruber starting an organization when crafting the ACA.
The ACA was crafted with help from the insurance companies. That's a gigantic organization.
nan said:
These are the go-to guys on Medicare for All. Wendel Potter has been working on this since at least 2010. This is not some fly by night group formed for the 2020 election. They are experts on writing Medicare for All policies. So, no surprise, politicians who need help crafting a Medicare for All policy go to this group. When you want a house built you go to an architect. When you want a Medicare for All policy, you go to the Business Initiative for Health Policy.
If you won't watch the 7 videos above, you can watch this short sample below:
I'll try to get around to the other 7 videos at some point - because this one is like talking to a five year old. Is this really how they're trying to sell it? I'm not sure who their target market was with this one.
jamie said:
nan said:I'll try to get around to the other 7 videos at some point - because this one is like talking to a five year old. Is this really how they're trying to sell it? I'm not sure who their target market was with this one.
These are the go-to guys on Medicare for All. Wendel Potter has been working on this since at least 2010. This is not some fly by night group formed for the 2020 election. They are experts on writing Medicare for All policies. So, no surprise, politicians who need help crafting a Medicare for All policy go to this group. When you want a house built you go to an architect. When you want a Medicare for All policy, you go to the Business Initiative for Health Policy.
If you won't watch the 7 videos above, you can watch this short sample below:
I don't get your objection to this video, or your "five year old" comment. I thought it was well done, and actually I wish to god that more lefty advertising took this approach of step by step dismantling of right-wing b.s.
My only quibble is that I don't think that the video deals with the taxation issue correctly. I'm still waiting for some M4A advocate to clearly explain that we are currently paying x 100's of billions of dollars each year for health insurance, between employee and employer contributions, and these payments would simply be shifted to M4A as taxes, so that much of the tax hike would be illusory. It's just a wash, more or less.
jamie said:
I'll try to get around to the other 7 videos at some point - because this one is like talking to a five year old. Is this really how they're trying to sell it? I'm not sure who their target market was with this one.
The 7 videos are an interview with Wendell Potter. This video gives a response to common lies told by insurance advocates. It's a typical informational video, not condecending. The market is clearly the many people who are confused about healthcare and want a short high level overview explaining an alternative to what they may have previously heard. This approach is helpful because it gives you the talking points on both sides and you can figure out where you need to do more research. Drummerboy made comments about taxes, so he will need to look further on that. What specific part did you take issue on, besides tone, or are you just closed off to Medicare for All in general?
I am not closed off to M4A - but I don't need videos lecturing me as to why we need it. I want videos that detailed how it will be achieved. Details details details. The facts are that most people are for M4A until you tell them they can't keep their current plan. 70% or more are for M4A, but:
According to Kaiser, support for Medicare for all drops to 37 percent if survey takers are told that the bill would eliminate private insurance companies, with 58 percent opposed.
jamie said:
I am not closed off to M4A - but I don't need videos lecturing me as to why we need it. I want videos that detailed how it will be achieved. Details details details. The facts are that most people are for M4A until you tell them they can't keep their current plan. 70% or more are for M4A, but:
According to Kaiser, support for Medicare for all drops to 37 percent if survey takers are told that the bill would eliminate private insurance companies, with 58 percent opposed.
Kaiser is affiliated with Kasier Health--hardly an objective source. Why are you opposed to listening to experts on M4A, but have not problem quoting the obviously biased healthcare industry--the ones who are spending a gazillion bucks trying to make sure they won't get tossed off the gravy train.
nan said:
Kaiser is affiliated with Kasier Health--hardly an objective source. Why are you opposed to listening to experts on M4A, but have not problem quoting the obviously biased healthcare industry--the ones who are spending a gazillion bucks trying to make sure they won't get tossed off the gravy train.
Do you have criticism of the survey itself? Or just with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which released the poll?
By the way, a little googling shows that the Kaiser Foundation hasn't owned any part of Kaiser companies for over 30 years.
nan said:
Kaiser is affiliated with Kasier Health--hardly an objective source.
No, it isn't. But don't let the lack of affiliation stop you from impugning the original funding or the board members.
https://www.kff.org/history-and-mission/
(Cross-posted with South_Mountaineer, nohero, Klinker, basil or whoever the hell that is above me.)
South_Mountaineer said:
Do you have criticism of the survey itself? Or just with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which released the poll?
By the way, a little googling shows that the Kaiser Foundation hasn't owned any part of Kaiser companies for over 30 years.
I am suspicious of the way the questions were asked and I would still consider that source suspect. Seriously, who has employer-based healthcare they feel secure about? I literally know no one and I know people at many income levels. Also, even if someone did like their healthcare, they would probably worry about their children since after age 26 they have to find their own. That's been the death of some who had major medical issues. Even teacher's insurance, which used to be free has gone up quite bit and covers less. Seriously, do you or people you know feel confident about employee-based healthcare as serving the country well?
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:I am suspicious of the way the questions were asked and I would still consider that source suspect.
Do you have criticism of the survey itself? Or just with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which released the poll?
By the way, a little googling shows that the Kaiser Foundation hasn't owned any part of Kaiser companies for over 30 years.
It's been a few days. Have you checked them out, or just going with your gut reaction based on the name?
And do you have an example of "the way the questions were asked" that makes you suspicious?
South_Mountaineer said:
It's been a few days. Have you checked them out, or just going with your gut reaction based on the name?
And do you have an example of "the way the questions were asked" that makes you suspicious?
I'm still trying to understand these polls. What I did find is that the April Kaiser Family poll found 56% of people support a single-payer system.
That's a lot, and it's been going up slowly over time.
Ok, I also found a discussion of the poll numbers:
The Truth About Medicare-for-All Its Opponents Won't Admit
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-truth-about-medicare-for-all-its-opponents-wont-admit/
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Adam, I’m going to give you the final word. Is there any polling out there where the public support for Medicare for All of the kind that we’re talking about here would convince some of the candidates that are running that it is in their favor to support this because there’s public support for it?
ADAM GAFFNEY: Well, I think that’s precisely what happened. You know, Kaiser Family Foundation polls showed 40 percent support for Medicare for All in the late ’90s, and they now show about 50 percent. There was a Reuters poll last year that actually showed a historic 70 percent support among the public for Medicare for All. So there’s no question that the amount of support that Medicare for All has had from many candidates, that you’ve mentioned, reflects the growing tide of discontent with the health care status quo, and the growing embrace of Medicare for All among the public.
Now, people will push back and say those polls are malleable; when you tell people X, Y, or Z they often are less inclined. But you know what? If you were to also tell people, well, yes, that’s true, your taxes would go up somewhat, but you’d also have no premiums, no copays, no deductibles, no networks, no insurer denials, then the support would go up further.
So the overall gist is that the public supports Medicare for All with a clear majority. But our work is to really help people to understand what this means, what it would do for them, and why we really need all of us to be all in, and have no one out. And that’s the work that’s cut out for us as we move ahead.
SHARMINI PERIES: That was Adam Gaffney, president of Physicians for a National Program. Thanks for joining us, Adam.
So, basically, there is strong support for Medicare for All, and the polls which show less are probably because people did not understand fully what Medicare for All would mean in terms of co-pays, deductibles, networks, and taxes.
Glad for you that you found the poll summary and the article.
That doesn't answer the questions I asked.
South_Mountaineer said:
It's been a few days. Have you checked them out, or just going with your gut reaction based on the name?
And do you have an example of "the way the questions were asked" that makes you suspicious?
From your posts, I assume you haven't found the poll questions.
South_Mountaineer said:
Glad for you that you found the poll summary and the article.
That doesn't answer the questions I asked.
South_Mountaineer said:From your posts, I assume you haven't found the poll questions.
It's been a few days. Have you checked them out, or just going with your gut reaction based on the name?
And do you have an example of "the way the questions were asked" that makes you suspicious?
I found what the poll said they said (https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2019/), but as I said before, I'm not sure of how they phrased the questions and if people really understood.
People are often confused about M4A so if you asked them how they would feel if their taxes went up but you did not tell them they would be paying less than they did before and premiums and deductibles were eliminated and every doctor and hospital would be in the network they would have a different answer than if they just heard "more taxes."
So, as in the interview I posted above, when people really understand what they are getting they want Medicare for All. It covers the most at the best price. The public option would not save nearly as much money and would be more expensive for less coverage.
nan said:
I am suspicious of the way the questions were asked and I would still consider that source suspect.
And now - -
nan said:
I found what the poll said they said (https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2019/), but as I said before, I'm not sure of how they phrased the questions and if people really understood.
So, you're suspicious of the questions but don't know what they were.
DaveSchmidt said:
http://files.kff.org/attachment/Topline-KFF-Health-Tracking-Poll-January-2019
sheesh, more homework.
South_Mountaineer said:
So, you're suspicious of the questions but don't know what they were.
No, I was suspicious that the questions were given the way the posters reported--that is they were asked if they would not like Medicare for All if all health insurance were eliminated without letting them know that they would have no premiums or deductibles.
And my suspicions were confirmed by looking at the posted report.
nan said:
Medicare for All Goes to the Hill
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/medicare-for-all-hearings
Any followup articles? This happened 9 days ago.
Funny that you would post an article written by someone from the Sanders Institute. lol
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Apr 30, 2024 at 4:17pm
Help Wanted
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Part-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Full-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Nanny Wanted Live in or Live out $1400-$1600
May 1, 2024 at 4:49am
-
(929)-390-1830 Help Wanted Aides & Non-Certified Aides Wanted $1800 Cash
May 1, 2024 at 4:44am
Lessons/Instruction
Rentals
Advertisement
Someone's trying really hard to tell us they're really the only place to get real news.
Really.