What is Medicare for All?

My main question with that poll is - how did they find 1,472 people to answer so many questions?  Seriously - were they paid?  lol  

jamie said:
My main question with that poll is - how did they find 1,472 people to answer so many questions?  Seriously - were they paid?  lol  

It was a poll many people wanted to see because previous polls used confusing questions. So, now the people, you included I believe, who say that people who want Medicare for All don't want it if they will lose their current plan have been shown to be misinformed.  People want Medicare for all, and don't mind losing their current insurance as long as they can keep the same doctors/hospitals.  

By the way, a Public Option, which many of the candidates support instead of Medicare for All, will not do that.

Turns out there is a doctor's group advocating for Medicare for All called Physicians for a National Health Program.  Here is their website with lot of resources: 

http://www.pnhp.org/sitemap/

Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 20,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Since 1987, we’ve advocated for reform in the U.S. health care system. We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system–including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 30 million Americans who have none.

Our members and physician activists work toward a single-payer national health program in their communities. PNHP performs ground breaking research on the health crisis and the need for fundamental reform, coordinates speakers and forums, participates in town hall meetings and debates, contributes scholarly articles to peer-reviewed medical journals, and appears regularly on national television and news programs advocating for a single-payer system.

PNHP is the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.

nan said:
Turns out there is a doctor's group advocating for Medicare for All called Physicians for a National Health Program.  Here is their website with lot of resources: 
http://www.pnhp.org/sitemap/

Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 20,000 members and chapters across the United States.
Since 1987, we’ve advocated for reform in the U.S. health care system. We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system–including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 30 million Americans who have none.
Our members and physician activists work toward a single-payer national health program in their communities. PNHP performs ground breaking research on the health crisis and the need for fundamental reform, coordinates speakers and forums, participates in town hall meetings and debates, contributes scholarly articles to peer-reviewed medical journals, and appears regularly on national television and news programs advocating for a single-payer system.
PNHP is the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.

 Funny, but I don't see "Medicare for All" mentioned anywhere in your excerpt, nor anywhere in the home page you so politely provided. They do reference single-payer healthcare as a worthwhile goal.

as I said before, I think that the Supreme Court would hold that requiring all doctors to accept Medicare would exceed Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.  I also think that there are probably substantive due process arguments to be made.  This isn't regulation of a profession (which is almost always done at the state level), its control if the profession (if you want to practice at all, it's under our compensation plan).

If you were to ban private health insurance, there is no need to require doctors to accept M4A. They would have little choice if they chose to continue practicing and wanted to get paid.

Do you think there is some constitutional right which would prohibit the banning of private insurance?

Wait... they can’t get paid out of pocket?  So either accept the gubmint payment or go home?  Licenses revoked and all that?

ctrzaska said:
Wait... they can’t get paid out of pocket?  So either accept the gubmint payment or go home?  Licenses revoked and all that?

I didn't think it necessary that I mention that, since the number of doctors who would choose to do that is probably insignificant.

jamie said:
nan - show the poll where people are 70% for M4A when they also know will lose their current plan.

 70% will lose their current plan, whether we have M4A or not. Plans change year after year, companies switch their employees “choice” of plan annually. I can practically guarantee that no one has the same insurance plan with the same network of doctors they had 10 years ago.

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 Funny, but I don't see "Medicare for All" mentioned anywhere in your excerpt, nor anywhere in the home page you so politely provided. They do reference single-payer healthcare as a worthwhile goal.

 Single-payer and Medicare for All are the same thing. I don't think they want to look like they are endorsing a presidential candidate. But, Medicare for All is mentioned in the website. There is a discussion about Jaypaul's bill and I saw other references.  Here' one with a picture: https://pnhp.org/about/

ctrzaska said:
Wait... they can’t get paid out of pocket?  So either accept the gubmint payment or go home?  Licenses revoked and all that?

 They can choose to accept only out of pocket, as some of them do now.  I doubt there is going to be a big demand for that, but the extreme wealth of a few might provide opportunity. Not a lot of people will be choosing to pay for chemo out of their paychecks.

ridski said:
 70% will lose their current plan, whether we have M4A or not. Plans change year after year, companies switch their employees “choice” of plan annually. I can practically guarantee that no one has the same insurance plan with the same network of doctors they had 10 years ago.

 Plus, people change jobs, get fired, divorced, die and leave the family without healthcare, and move.  So big life changes often automatically include healthcare headaches.

nan said:

 Pg. 8 Section 107

13 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be
14 construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act,
16 including additional benefits that an employer may provide
17 to employees or their dependents, or to former employees
18 or their dependents. 

nan said:
 There won't be any private insurance companies.

 This is the part that is breaking my brain, nan. You continue to say there won’t be private insurance companies when the legislation says private insurance will exist to cover everything M4A doesn’t. This is what I’ve been saying all other countries with public health insurance have, and yet you persist in saying we won’t when it’s written in the bill that we will, and you posted it right here and then a few posts later said YET AGAIN that their won’t be private health insurance. There will. It’s going to happen. Stop saying it will be gone. It won’t.

ridski said:
 This is the part that is breaking my brain, nan. You continue to say there won’t be private insurance companies when the legislation says private insurance will exist to cover everything M4A doesn’t. This is what I’ve been saying all other countries with public health insurance have, and yet you persist in saying we won’t when it’s written in the bill that we will, and you posted it right here and then a few posts later said YET AGAIN that their won’t be private health insurance. There will. It’s going to happen. Stop saying it will be gone. It won’t.

 Ok, this is the confusion that happens to everyone, not just "us."    To me, the fact that there will be a small market remaining for private insurance to fill in the gaps is akin to the argument that doctors will opt out of Medicare for All and only accept people who pay out of pocket.  It's small potatoes, nothing like the huge % of of the economy that healthcare now comprises.  For the most part, the big insurance companies will be wiped out so I consider them gone.  

So you are technically right that insurance companies will still exist, but when Bernie Sanders talks about getting rid of all insurance companies, he has the big picture correct.

Some candidates have been taking advantage of this confusion to make their support for M4A sound like it could go anyway.  Kamala Harris does this all the time.  She will say, oh, there will still be some insurance companies, but not clarify if she means fill in the gab ones or duplicate services.  So later on when she does not even try for Medicare for All, she can say, "I always said there would still be health insurance companies" and that's why Bernie came out after and said, Medicare for All means getting rid of the insurance companies to counter.  

So, people need to start saying, "No insurance companies providing duplicate services."  

nan said:

 Single-payer and Medicare for All are the same thing. 

 I don't believe that this is really accurate.  Single-payer is a generic description of an approach to covering the cost of healthcare.  Medicare for All (at least as it has been described in this thread) is a specific legislative proposal that not only describes how health care will be paid for, but also specifies requirements for what is or is not covered, etc.

sac said:
 I don't believe that this is really accurate.  Single-payer is a generic description of an approach to covering the cost of healthcare.  Medicare for All (at least as it has been described in this thread) is a specific legislative proposal that not only describes how health care will be paid for, but also specifies requirements for what is or is not covered, etc.

 You might be right about definitions, but they are closely compatible, and this website does not seem to distinguish since they have links to a Medicare for All bill.   They support Medicare for All.

nan said:


Edited to add before I get attacked by the Warren supporters:  I don't think Warren has the will or the ability to get M4A passed--however, since she and Bernie are friends, it is possible that she would put him in a position to work on that issue.  So, there would be some glimmer of hope voting for Warren.  Also, Tulsi is for it, despite what he said at the debates --but she is not winning.  As for the rest - forgetabout it. 

 Not an attack but if she who persists has the "will or the ability" to win the  nomination and election she has the will and ability to get M4A and possibly whatever she turns her mind to.

nan said:
 You might be right about definitions, but they are closely compatible, and this website does not seem to distinguish since they have links to a Medicare for All bill.   They support Medicare for All.

 That may be, but in general you can’t infer support of M4A from support of Single-Payer. 

sac said:
 That may be, but in general you can’t infer support of M4A from support of Single-Payer. 

 Maybe not, but I have not seen an example where that differs and in this case they do support M4A.

STANV said:
 Not an attack but if she who persists has the "will or the ability" to win the  nomination and election she has the will and ability to get M4A and possibly whatever she turns her mind to.

Don't be so sure.  Taking on the insurance companies will be a heavy lift even for a President.  That is why Bernie keeps talking about growing coalition to demand it, as other big changes such as giving women the vote needed.  Warren seems to only want to work legislatively, and she sometimes caves to the establishment.  Also, her enthusiasm for M4A seems tepid.  It's hardly mentioned on her website.

Biden misrepresents and lies about Medicare for All

Biden's misrepresentation and lies about Medicare for All inspired a quiz on the Sanders' for President page.  Take the quiz and see how much you know;

Who Said it?

Joe Biden is attacking Medicare for All with lies straight out of the playbook of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and the health insurance industry. Can you guess who said it?

https://berniesanders.com/who-said-it/

Biden is an improvement over Trump.

But he is a corporate Democrat. Don't assume politicians like Biden spend their nights thinking of helping the shrinking middle class or the poor. To select Biden is to continue business as usual, the accumulation of wealth to the 1%.

nan said:
Biden misrepresents and lies about Medicare for All

Yeah, the wonders of Obamacare. Privatized healthcare. Corporate insurance healthcare with our taxpayer subsidy to the insurers. Imagine if Roosevelt made social security like that, forcing people to buy annuities from private insurers. Imagine if our public schools were all privatized where we would pay tax dollars to private entities to supply the schooling. We may yet succeed in that.

Yet, the critical need of healthcare, the cost is privatized using private insurers. With healthcare fees set to motivate you into buying insurance. Going to an emergency room for a few hours can cost ane uninsured 5,000. Whereas, the contracted insurance company fee will be about $600.

I know people who had Obamacare. Years of paying in large premiums and getting the free preventive checkup. Yet when a medical need arose not one of them ever got paid. The average Obamacare deductible is now 6,000. Wonder why even with Obamacare medical bankruptcies are as high as ever? Wonder why with all the health advantages of Obamacare our life expectancy is going down?

Biden said 20 million got coverage. How many got anything back when they got sick? 4 million? If that?

Bernie Sanders delivered a major speech on Medicare for All last week.  

Joe Biden is now officially the candidate of private insurance.  We "earned" our health insurance coverage.  How can anyone vote for this crap?

Kamala Harris releases a glorified public option plan with a 10 year implementation and says it's still Medicare for All.  It keeps private insurance involved, so it will not save the money or create the one network that a real Medicare for All plan would. 

Here is a video explaining why her new fake M4A plan is garbage:

Harris has been bragging that Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama cabinet member endorses her Medicare for All without revealing that Sibelius works for Medicare Advantage, the company that will financially benefit the most from Harris's plan. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on this during the debate. 

nan said:
Harris has been bragging that Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama cabinet member endorses her Medicare for All without revealing that Sibelius works for Medicare Advantage, the company that will financially benefit the most from Harris's plan. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on this during the debate. 

What do you even mean that Sebelius works for "Medicare Advantage?"  Do you even know what Medicare Advantage is?

nan said:
Harris has been bragging that Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama cabinet member endorses her Medicare for All without revealing that Sibelius works for Medicare Advantage, the company that will financially benefit the most from Harris's plan. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on this during the debate. 

There is no company called "Medicare Advantage".  I know that's what Tulsi said, and what's been dutifully repeated.  

Medicare Advantage Plans, sometimes called "PartC" or "MA Plans," are an “all in one” alternative to OriginalMedicare. They are offered by private companies approved by Medicare. If you join a Medicare Advantage Plan, youstill have Medicare. These"bundled" plans include Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Medicare Part B (MedicalInsurance), and usually Medicare prescription drug (Part D).

People should read what Senator Harris actually proposed instead of relying on the people in these videos. For example, it says this:

"First, when we pass my plan, all Americans will immediately have the ability to buy into Medicare. This is similar to the immediate, introductory buy-in provided in Senator Sanders’ Medicare for All bill. Right away, it will lower costs and give us a baseline plan as we transition to Medicare for All."

With respect to the participation of private companies, it says this:

"Third, in setting up this plan, we will allow private insurers to offer Medicare plans as a part of this system that adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits. This would function similar to how private Medicare plans work today, which cover about a third of Medicare seniors, and operate within the Medicare system. Medicare will set the rules of the road for these plans, including price and quality, and private insurance companies will play by those rules, not the other way around. This preserves the options that seniors have today and expands options to all Americans, while also telling insurance companies they don’t run the show."

The argument that it's the same as the current Medicare Advantage ignores what she actually says: "Unlike the current system, private plans in the new Medicare system will be held to stricter consumer protection standards than they are today, such as getting reimbursed less than what the Medicare plan will cost to operate, to ensure that they are delivering meaningful value and unable to profit off of gaming consumers or the government."

There's more, and if you read it (I had linked to it before, but I guess it was ignored) you can see the difference between what she proposed, and the mischaracterizations being used by the folks in the videos that object to it.