What is Medicare for All?
ok, so she has no idea either. I was hoping to have a valid discussion here. This isn't just about Bernie and Beto.
I don't things Berniesplained to me. TIA
This seems like a decent overview:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/index.html
jamie said:
ok, so she has no idea either. I was hoping to have a valid discussion here. This isn't just about Bernie and Beto.
I don't things Berniesplained to me. TIA
She went into detail so what made you think she had no idea? It's a good intro into how the two plans differ. In the Beto plan, people keep their work insurance unless they decide to do medicare. In the Bernie plan there is no private insurance and everyone is on medicare (single network). In the Beto plan there would be two networks so you might not be able to get the doctor you wanted unless you stayed on the insurance plan. In the Bernie plan everyone is in the same network so you can go to any doctor you want. Iverson felt that this would lead to people hating the Medicare plan and wanting to go back to private insurance (which is why the PI companies are so enthusiastic about it). Beto said in a speech I watched that the Medicare would be expensive also. In the Bernie plan, everyone would be enrolled so no payment (comes out of taxes). You just to to a doctor or hospital and get all the same treatments you normally get.
I honestly don't see why we need some kind of transition plan like this--when just switching over makes so much more sense. The transition plan does not seem like a transition so much as delay and stop plan.
Let's put it this way - Kim's explanation was very basic.
There are so many unknowns - how much will the taxes go up. What are the chances of passing - will we have the majority to pass it?
One thing this will do is fuel Trump and his base - Socialism - Raise taxes - Lose your current plan. The more it's pushed at this stage - it will turn into a negative.
No one fully understands if it's single payer or universal health care. Like I've asked many times - are DACA recipients covered? What will the progressive tax rates be?
There are so many unknowns - it's impossible to legislate it on the campaign trail. At this point, I'm going for a candidate who is open to the idea - but is not all or nothing on it at this early stage. It should NOT be a litmus test.
Just saw Sen. Warren's CNN Town Hall. She went through the various different versions of "Medicare for All" and said that everyone has to come to the table and figure out the best approach.
Sounds reasonable to me.
jamie said:
Let's put it this way - Kim's explanation was very basic.
There are so many unknowns - how much will the taxes go up. What are the chances of passing - will we have the majority to pass it?
One thing this will do is fuel Trump and his base - Socialism - Raise taxes - Lose your current plan. The more it's pushed at this stage - it will turn into a negative.
No one fully understands if it's single payer or universal health care. Like I've asked many times - are DACA recipients covered? What will the progressive tax rates be?
There are so many unknowns - it's impossible to legislate it on the campaign trail. At this point, I'm going for a candidate who is open to the idea - but is not all or nothing on it at this early stage. It should NOT be a litmus test.
I think we all need to start with the basics on this. Bernie is announcing the newest Medicare for All plan soon and no doubt there will be lots of comments from all sides. I believe Bernie's plan will include vision, dental and hearing which is something Medicare should have had and a tremendous need--and regular insurance often does not cover those well. I'm sure he will provide extreme detail because he gets more scrutiny than other candidates.
The insurance companies are spending huge amounts of money to convince people that they are needed. I think we will need to try to see past that. From listening to this I don't get the impression that this is something we need to "transition" into. I get the impression that "transition" just means more delay and we will probably get the metric system (which they said we were going to switch over to in the early 70's) before we get full Medicare for All if we go for "transition." Compromise is inevitable, so you want to start out with the strongest stance, not go in ready to compromise.
I am not so worried about Trump and his base as long as the person going against him has a good plan that will help working people and get them excited (and they sound like an adult--ie. not Beto). I think the "socialism" problem can be handled--and Republicans always call Democrats Socialists. They called Obama that relentlessly.
I think this and the environment are litmus tests. Healthcare is one of the most stressful topics for many Americans. Everyone has either gone through a healthcare crisis or knows someone who has. We all know at least one person with a Go Fund Me (and I heard the Go Fund Me people don't want M4A cause it will hurt their bottom line--but that might just be a rumor).
And of course we only have 12 years left to fight climate change. So, there really is no option except to pick someone who is really aggressive on the Green New Deal (and this).
I think this article sums up my thoughts at the moment:
Conclusion:
As the 2020 campaign approaches, Democrats risk letting the future role of private insurance become a major fault line that divides the party. Advocates of Sanders’s Medicare for all dislike alternative versions that leave private insurance companies in place. But the general public’s disdain for insurers only goes so far, and to pretend otherwise is to build a health-reform plan upon a fantasy. When asked to give up their private insurance, Americans demur. A rhetorical attack on insurers might generate public applause, but that doesn’t mean Americans will support a Medicare for all plan that abolishes them.
Let's just not box ourselves into one corner. Glad to hear that Warren had several versions.
nan said:
I think we all need to start with the basics on this. Bernie is announcing the newest Medicare for All plan soon and no doubt there will be lots of comments from all sides. I believe Bernie's plan will include vision, dental and hearing which is something Medicare should have had and a tremendous need--and regular insurance often does not cover those well. I'm sure he will provide extreme detail because he gets more scrutiny than other candidates.
The insurance companies are spending huge amounts of money to convince people that they are needed. I think we will need to try to see past that. From listening to this I don't get the impression that this is something we need to "transition" into. I get the impression that "transition" just means more delay and we will probably get the metric system (which they said we were going to switch over to in the early 70's) before we get full Medicare for All if we go for "transition." Compromise is inevitable, so you want to start out with the strongest stance, not go in ready to compromise.
I am not so worried about Trump and his base as long as the person going against him has a good plan that will help working people and get them excited (and they sound like an adult--ie. not Beto). I think the "socialism" problem can be handled--and Republicans always call Democrats Socialists. They called Obama that relentlessly.
I think this and the environment are litmus tests. Healthcare is one of the most stressful topics for many Americans. Everyone has either gone through a healthcare crisis or knows someone who has. We all know at least one person with a Go Fund Me (and I heard the Go Fund Me people don't want M4A cause it will hurt their bottom line--but that might just be a rumor).
And of course we only have 12 years left to fight climate change. So, there really is no option except to pick someone who is really aggressive on the Green New Deal (and this).
Word salad BS. Full on single-payer won't pass, at this stage. To push it, with ZERO accommodation is fatal. Instead, a revised ACA, with a robust public option starts the conversion. Time will get the private folks into the public plan.
jamie said:
Let's just not box ourselves into one corner. Glad to hear that Warren had several versions.
I think people will gladly give up their private insurance plans if they can keep their doctors and hospitals and not have to worry about co-pays or premiums. Much more peace of mind. I think the people who write these articles are more worried about the insurance companies, than regular people.
Everyone said gay marriage would never pass and it did. If we can get that, we can get this. It's going to take some effort and people are going to have to demand it, but it can be done.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Word salad BS. Full on single-payer won't pass, at this stage. To push it, with ZERO accommodation is fatal. Instead, a revised ACA, with a robust public option starts the conversion. Time will get the private folks into the public plan.
To be honest, revised ACA is just as bad a catchphrase as M4A. What exactly are we revising? Will we finally be implementing the public option? Will that be federal or state based and if the latter, how do we force governors who didn’t implement the Medicaid expansion and state exchanges to implement the public option?
ridski said:... force governors who didn’t implement the Medicare expansion ...
MedicAID expansion. Big difference.
kthnry said:
MedicAID expansion. Big difference.
Thanks, I’ve corrcteed it. But still, not a big difference in this case as I’m mentioning it as an example of state vs fed power.
nan said:
Everyone said gay marriage would never pass and it did. If we can get that, we can get this. It's going to take some effort and people are going to have to demand it, but it can be done.
Marriage equality nation-wide was not the result of legislation passed by Congress. It was brought about via a Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. You selected an example which argues against your point.
OK, here is full text of Medicare for All bill, section by section summaries and more:
If a candidate articulated a new health program, including explanation of how financed, that "merely" cut our premiums by a third, and likewise cut down on the dramatic all encompassing deductibles of the ACA plans, I would worship at the candidate's feet. I don't need utopia, I just need better.
nan said:
Everyone said gay marriage would never pass and it did. If we can get that, we can get this. It's going to take some effort and people are going to have to demand it, but it can be done.
"would never pass and it did"? Every place it was on the ballot it failed, pretty much. SCOTUS made it legal - it didn't "pass" anything.
sheesh
Exactly how do you think gay marriage was legalized anyway?
drummerboy said:
"would never pass and it did"? Every place it was on the ballot it failed, pretty much. SCOTUS made it legal - it didn't "pass" anything.
sheesh
Exactly how do you think gay marriage was legalized anyway?
But we got it by hook or by crook. I'm just saying DREAM BIG!
From the Medicare For All Bill that I linked to above:
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/03/13/house-section/article/H2709-1
What this bill does is it offers, first of all, comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country. We say that that includes primary care; it includes vision, dental, hearing; it includes mental health and substance abuse; it includes long-term services and supports, maternal healthcare, and more.
Everybody in the country will have access to healthcare when you get sick, not when you need an emergency room, not when you simply can't take your illness anymore, but when you actually get sick.
This bill is the first time that we will actually have long-term care supports and services included in this coverage. This is very, very important because it covers seniors, obviously, our elderly, as they get toward the end of their life, and it includes people with disabilities who have, traditionally, been left out of this entire sphere.
Podcast and transcript of an interview (12:37) with Diane Archer on Medicare for All and how it compares to Medicare for America and how we can pay for it.
We Already Spend More Than Medicare for All Would Cost Us
https://truthout.org/audio/we-already-spend-more-than-medicare-for-all-would-cost-us/
The March 11 Washington Post headline told readers that the Medicare for All bill, recently introduced by Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, “reflects influence of hard-line progressive groups.” Not quite a hit piece, but something very like it, the article said “a slew of groups further to the left” shaped the bill, which would “upend health coverage for tens of millions of Americans,” and “cost many times more than the ACA.” Which is why, the Post claims, “To some progressives, this is a step (or steps) too far.”
Words like “upend” and “drastically” do their work. And at one point, “advocates on the left” are counterposed with “most health policy experts.”
“Supporters of the Jayapal bill insist there’s a groundswell of grassroots enthusiasm” for overhauling the country’s healthcare, the piece says—without reference to any of various polls that wouldindicate precisely that.
The thing is, public support for a fundamental change in the way we do healthcare persists, despite years of this sort of elite media treatment—perhaps because for most Americans, healthcare is not a partisan debate, but a crisis.
Joining us now to talk about how Medicare for All would respond to that crisis is Diane Archer. Founder and former president of theMedicare Rights Center, she is president of Just Care USA. She joins us now by phone from here in New York. Welcome to CounterSpin, Diane Archer.
Taxes will increase with government involvement. But insurance premiums will decrease. The overall effect will be a net decrease in per-capita expense.
And keep in mind, your insurance company doesn't provide so much as a Band-aid towards your health care. Rather, it decides if it will pay for your health care. Now, they gotta pay something or you wouldn't buy it. But their goal is to pay as little as they can get away with. That is why insurance companies get sued when they deny payment. That is why we see "GoFundMe" requests for medical care.
Jonathan Pie: " When the government outsources to private business, who gets healthcare and who doesn't, the contract between the government and its citizens is broken."
He concludes, that is why we have Brexit. That is also how we got Trump.
Establishment Democrats Are Undermining Medicare for All
The Democratic establishment — deep in the pockets of the health industry — wanted to make sure any blue wave election in 2018 would help sink, rather than support, the growing movement for a single-payer health care system. The recent decline in co-sponsors of the House Medicare for All legislation is, in part, a byproduct of this strategy and a reminder of the great obstacles corporate Democrats have put in front of the single-payer movement.
nan said:
Establishment Democrats Are Undermining Medicare for All
The Democratic establishment — deep in the pockets of the health industry — wanted to make sure any blue wave election in 2018 would help sink, rather than support, the growing movement for a single-payer health care system. The recent decline in co-sponsors of the House Medicare for All legislation is, in part, a byproduct of this strategy and a reminder of the great obstacles corporate Democrats have put in front of the single-payer movement.
Wrong...it's an acknowledgement that true single-payer health care is a nonstarter in this political environment. 30,40,50 years from now, it may happen, but not without the incremental steps to make it happen.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Wrong...it's an acknowledgement that true single-payer health care is a nonstarter in this political environment. 30,40,50 years from now, it may happen, but not without the incremental steps to make it happen.
Incremental steps = never going to happen. Waiting patiently for the oligarchs to reward is an exercise in futility. Read the article and understand the obstacles and then help demand that we get what other countries take for granted. This will be difficult, but passivity is not the way to go.
nan said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:Incremental steps = never going to happen. Waiting patiently for the oligarchs to reward is an exercise in futility. Read the article and understand the obstacles and then help demand that we get what other countries take for granted. This will be difficult, but passivity is not the way to go.
Wrong...it's an acknowledgement that true single-payer health care is a nonstarter in this political environment. 30,40,50 years from now, it may happen, but not without the incremental steps to make it happen.
It's not passivity, just recognition of reality...something you have ZERO clue about.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
It's not passivity, just recognition of reality...something you have ZERO clue about.
It was easy peasy for almost every other country. Why should the richest country in the world allow so many to go bankrupt and/or die because of no or inadequate healthcare? Not a reality we should accept.
Will it require businesses that currently pay for health insurance to increase their employees salaries to offset the increase in taxes they will need to pay?
jamie said:
Will it require businesses that currently pay for health insurance to increase their employees salaries to offset the increase in taxes they will need to pay?
The increased taxes will come from their no-longer-need-to-be-paid insurance premiums, not from their salaries.
This is not hard. Why are people so confused about this?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
leather couches $300
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
Beto's Medicare for America (and some other candidates) vs. Bernie's Medicare for All
A good explanation is in this video STARTING at 12:21.