What is Medicare for All?
drummerboy said:
nan thinking that Medicare Advantage is a company throws some serious shade on how much she knows what she's talking about regarding health care. Medicare Advantage is kind of a big deal in the American healthcare space.
Are the videos saying the same thing?
Videos are totally the same thing. For someone who claims to be so informed to get this incredibly basic fact so very wrong is stunning. This is what happens on both sides - people just get talking points that reinforce their base viewpoint and run with them.
Steve said:
What do you even mean that Sebelius works for "Medicare Advantage?" Do you even know what Medicare Advantage is?
Medicare Advantage is the supplemental piece of Medicare, covering the gaps, and there are different plans for it. Sebelius, Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, now sits on the board of a company called "Devoted Health" which sells Medicare Advantage plans.
Sebelius was involved with the development of Harris' plan and Devoted Health will directly benefit from implementation of this plan.
But, other companies under Medicare Advantage will also profit, which is why they are so positive about Harris' proposal. They see it as an opportunity for tremendous profit:
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1157040868244672513
nohero said:
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.
The terminology is not being used accurately by many people, but that does not change the fact that Harris is touting the endorsement of a person who helped her write her plan and who sits on the board of a company who will directly benefit. Harris' plan is a gift to healthcare companies.
drummerboy said:
nan thinking that Medicare Advantage is a company throws some serious shade on how much she knows what she's talking about regarding health care. Medicare Advantage is kind of a big deal in the American healthcare space.
Are the videos saying the same thing?
You could watch them and find out instead of making accusations. What you would find out is that Bernie's plan expands Medicare before rolling it out so that Medicare Advantage is no longer needed. Kamala just rolls it out as it is so Medicare Advantage can get even bigger along with the profit. Medicare Advantage is being used as an umbrella term without the umbrella, which might not be technically correct, but the basic facts here remain the same.
Steve said:
Videos are totally the same thing. For someone who claims to be so informed to get this incredibly basic fact so very wrong is stunning. This is what happens on both sides - people just get talking points that reinforce their base viewpoint and run with them.
Like you have your talking point that I am always wrong without bothering to pay attention to the main idea of what I am saying.
nan said:
drummerboy said:You could watch them and find out instead of making accusations. What you would find out is that Bernie's plan expands Medicare before rolling it out so that Medicare Advantage is no longer needed. Kamala just rolls it out as it is so Medicare Advantage can get even bigger along with the profit. Medicare Advantage is being used as an umbrella term without the umbrella, which might not be technically correct, but the basic facts here remain the same.
nan thinking that Medicare Advantage is a company throws some serious shade on how much she knows what she's talking about regarding health care. Medicare Advantage is kind of a big deal in the American healthcare space.
Are the videos saying the same thing?
I asked a question. I didn't make an accusation. Pay attention.
drummerboy said:
I asked a question. I didn't make an accusation. Pay attention.
I am paying attention, and that's why I noticed. But, enough. Continue on. I thought you supported Medicare for All. What happened?
Enough already! Many of us here believe in the ultimate goal of universal, single payer healthcare. We differ on how to get there. Some espouse the radical ditching of everything we have come to know, and throw us into the great unknown. Others ( including me) believe we need to take major, but not radical, steps to pave the way. Both views are legit, but some on this forum don't seem to accept the legitamacy of the alternative views. Common sense says there are alternatives, but "my way or the highway" doesn't advance the conversation. How 'bout we discuss those alternatives with less heat, and more truthiness in what we say! If nothing else, it will keep me sane!
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Enough already! Many of us here believe in the ultimate goal of universal, single payer healthcare. We differ on how to get there. Some espouse the radical ditching of everything we have come to know, and throw us into the great unknown. Others ( including me) believe we need to take major, but not radical, steps to pave the way. Both views are legit, but some on this forum don't seem to accept the legitamacy of the alternative views. Common sense says there are alternatives, but "my way or the highway" doesn't advance the conversation. How 'bout we discuss those alternatives with less heat, and more truthiness in what we say! If nothing else, it will keep me sane!
No, "paving the way" will create a situation that will ensure that it never happens. It is a trojan horse. Again, it creates two networks and the sickest people will be on the Medicare so the pool will not be big enough to realize the savings. We need to get rid of health care profit--then we will have the most coverage for the cheapest savings. Also, there will still be millions not covered and medical bankruptcies will not stop.
The mainstream media wants you to see the public option as the "sensible" choice, but it is not sensible.
No middle ground.
nan said:
drummerboy said:I am paying attention, and that's why I noticed. But, enough. Continue on. I thought you supported Medicare for All. What happened?
I asked a question. I didn't make an accusation. Pay attention.
Who said I didn't?
Pay attention.
nan said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:No, "paving the way" will create a situation that will ensure that it never happens. It is a trojan horse. Again, it creates two networks and the sickest people will be on the Medicare so the pool will not be big enough to realize the savings. We need to get rid of health care profit--then we will have the most coverage for the cheapest savings. Also, there will still be millions not covered and medical bankruptcies will not stop.
Enough already! Many of us here believe in the ultimate goal of universal, single payer healthcare. We differ on how to get there. Some espouse the radical ditching of everything we have come to know, and throw us into the great unknown. Others ( including me) believe we need to take major, but not radical, steps to pave the way. Both views are legit, but some on this forum don't seem to accept the legitamacy of the alternative views. Common sense says there are alternatives, but "my way or the highway" doesn't advance the conversation. How 'bout we discuss those alternatives with less heat, and more truthiness in what we say! If nothing else, it will keep me sane!
The mainstream media wants you to see the public option as the "sensible" choice, but it is not sensible.
No middle ground.
Perfect...My way or the highway! What an effin' joke from someone who thinks Medicare Advantage is a company!
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Perfect...My way or the highway! What an effin' joke from someone who thinks Medicare Advantage is a company!
You are saying my way or the highway. Medicare for All IS the highway. Your way is the ditch.
So in a world of Medicare only, where there is no private insurance, what happens when there's a Republican president and congress? Say they decide to pass a law saying "any doctor that performs or provides referrals for abortions cannot be paid by Medicare," effectively outlawing abortion nationally? Or they add work requirements? Or any other scenario we can come up with. Is there any concern or thought about the removal of non-Medicare options in these scenarios?
PVW said:
So in a world of Medicare only, where there is no private insurance, what happens when there's a Republican president and congress? Say they decide to pass a law saying "any doctor that performs or provides referrals for abortions cannot be paid by Medicare," effectively outlawing abortion nationally? Or they add work requirements? Or any other scenario we can come up with. Is there any concern or thought about the removal of non-Medicare options in these scenarios?
Any time we have Republican presidents, the world gets worse. Also, happens under establishment Democrats, but not as bad, and not about things like abortion. The way things are going now, it is getting harder and harder to get an abortion and in some states almost impossible. This is not a reason to oppose Medicare for All, since the benefits are so significant. No one knows what is going to happen, but avoiding the election of Republicans would be the best way to start, not rejecting Medicare for All, a program that is likely to help Democrats stay in office.
Found this Medicare for All Saving chart from Gerald Friedman (https://businessinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/We-Can-Have-Improved-M4A-Friedman-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf)
:
PVW said:
You expect Democrats to remain in power indefinitely?
Well, we only have 11 years left, so if we don't abortion will not be our biggest problem.
PVW said:
So in a world of Medicare only, where there is no private insurance, what happens when there's a Republican president and congress? Say they decide to pass a law saying "any doctor that performs or provides referrals for abortions cannot be paid by Medicare," effectively outlawing abortion nationally? Or they add work requirements? Or any other scenario we can come up with. Is there any concern or thought about the removal of non-Medicare options in these scenarios?
That's a very good point. I haven't even heard that prospect acknowledged in the discussion of this issue.
The danger is complacency. If there is a transition to M4A with no private insurers, people will get used to that as the status quo. Health coverage and the terms of that would be less in their minds during elections. Meanwhile, a conservative who accepts the need to address climate change and doesn't rely on an appeal to racist thinking, but who is still to the right on taxes and social issues, could be a contender.
It's not a hypothetical that people who stop thinking there's a need to protect reproductive health coverage in M4A. There was a lot of complacency about reproductive rights during the 2016 election; only after Trump had two Supreme Court nominees confirmed have a lot of people woken up to the fact that Roe could actually be reversed.
nohero said:
PVW said:That's a very good point. I haven't even heard that prospect acknowledged in the discussion of this issue.
So in a world of Medicare only, where there is no private insurance, what happens when there's a Republican president and congress? Say they decide to pass a law saying "any doctor that performs or provides referrals for abortions cannot be paid by Medicare," effectively outlawing abortion nationally? Or they add work requirements? Or any other scenario we can come up with. Is there any concern or thought about the removal of non-Medicare options in these scenarios?
...
No it's not. It's a terrible point.
We're supposed to design legislation based on what the Republicans might do in reaction?
Are you kidding?
(That's not to say legislation should not have safeguards against political meddling, but I don't think that's what's being suggested here.)
drummerboy said:
No it's not. It's a terrible point.
We're supposed to design legislation based on what the Republicans might do in reaction?
Are you kidding?
(That's not to say legislation should not have safeguards against political meddling, but I don't think that's what's being suggested here.)
It's a point to consider when making the policy decision to have government be the sole funding source for health insurance coverage. I did not write that it means that M4A shouldn't be considered. If the prospect of politically limiting what's covered isn't even talked about, that's ignoring an important issue.
My observation has been that M4A is being pushed rather dogmatically, with questions and risks given slight or no acknowledgment. The fact that medicare-only polls poorly while medicare for everyone who wants it polls well? Denied, downplayed, or ignored. The fact that it is guaranteed that at some point Republicans will control both Congress and the WH? Same.
It's very well possible that despite the political and policy risks, "only Medicare" is the best policy Democrats can put forward. But the case would be a lot more convincing if its advocates actually acknowledged those risks.
If I ask "why is a public option, that offers much of the advantages of medicare-only while mitigating much of the risk, a worse approach than banning private insurance," and the response is to complain about the insurance industry, then that tells me medicare-only advocates haven't actually thought much about the risks, which greatly undermines my confidence in their arguments.
nohero said:
That's a very good point. I haven't even heard that prospect acknowledged in the discussion of this issue.
The danger is complacency. If there is a transition to M4A with no private insurers, people will get used to that as the status quo. Health coverage and the terms of that would be less in their minds during elections. Meanwhile, a conservative who accepts the need to address climate change and doesn't rely on an appeal to racist thinking, but who is still to the right on taxes and social issues, could be a contender.
It's not a hypothetical that people who stop thinking there's a need to protect reproductive health coverage in M4A. There was a lot of complacency about reproductive rights during the 2016 election; only after Trump had two Supreme Court nominees confirmed have a lot of people woken up to the fact that Roe could actually be reversed.
Right they will accept having healthcare as a right as the status quo. They will no longer lay awake at night wondering if they are going to go broke or die. How horrible--stop the presses. Saying it might someday affect funding for abortion is not an argument to keep private health insurance. If abortion is made illegal, private health is not going to cover it either and they might stop covering for businesses who oppose it. I don't see this as any kind of show stopper for the M4A.
What do we do with the thousands of people presently employed by Health Insurance companies?
PVW said:
My observation has been that M4A is being pushed rather dogmatically, with questions and risks given slight or no acknowledgment. The fact that medicare-only polls poorly while medicare for everyone who wants it polls well? Denied, downplayed, or ignored. The fact that it is guaranteed that at some point Republicans will control both Congress and the WH? Same.
It's very well possible that despite the political and policy risks, "only Medicare" is the best policy Democrats can put forward. But the case would be a lot more convincing if its advocates actually acknowledged those risks.
If I ask "why is a public option, that offers much of the advantages of medicare-only while mitigating much of the risk, a worse approach than banning private insurance," and the response is to complain about the insurance industry, then that tells me medicare-only advocates haven't actually thought much about the risks, which greatly undermines my confidence in their arguments.
Medicare for All polls well. The polling depends on the phrasing of the question. If you ask people would they want their taxes to go up and their insurance pulled they tend to say no. When you explain to them that they will be paying less overall and have expanded benefits and be able to the doctor/hospital they want they say yes. Who wouldn't?
Majority Backs ‘Medicare for All’ Replacing Private Plans, if Preferred Providers Stay
Reduced support for single-payer overcome by assurance that Americans would not lose their doctor and hospital
You never see that poll mentioned on mainstream media. A public option does not offer much of the advantages of Medicare-for-All. It will still be too expensive and there will be multiple networks with one being much preferred over another. It is set up to fail. There are huge risks to a Medicare for some approach -- and why don't you consider those?
nan said:
Right they will accept having healthcare as a right as the status quo. They will no longer lay awake at night wondering if they are going to go broke or die. How horrible--stop the presses. Saying it might someday affect funding for abortion is not an argument to keep private health insurance. If abortion is made illegal, private health is not going to cover it either and they might stop covering for businesses who oppose it. I don't see this as any kind of show stopper for the M4A.
That's a deliberate distortion of what I wrote. I did not write anything against "healthcare as a right as the status quo." My point was about the complacency that can arise as a result of that.
Just as I did not write objecting to the recognition of reproductive health freedom under the Constitution; instead, I noted the complacency that did happen in 2016 as a result of people assuming that they didn't have to worry about protecting it.
nohero said:
That's a deliberate distortion of what I wrote. I did not write anything against "healthcare as a right as the status quo." My point was about the complacency that can arise as a result of that.
Just as I did not write objecting to the recognition of reproductive health freedom under the Constitution; instead, I noted the complacency that did happen in 2016 as a result of people assuming that they didn't have to worry about protecting it.
Complacency happened through the 8 years when Obama was President. They ignored his prosecution of whistleblowers, his deportations (Deporter in chief) his assaults on unions, his horrible education policies, his taking 2 wars to 7, his cabinet picked out by Citigroup, his helping the 1% over the poor and much more. People were zoned out and they still are based on Obama's popularity numbers and the apparent enthusiasm for his demented Vice-president. Reproductive rights was part of a larger problem of denial and does not provide a reason to deny people the healthcare they should have as found in other countries. You are really working with slim pickins' here. It does point to a serious problem with identity politics and the cult of the personality.
nan said:
Medicare for All polls well. The polling depends on the phrasing of the question. If you ask people would they want their taxes to go up and their insurance pulled they tend to say no. When you explain to them that they will be paying less overall and have expanded benefits and be able to the doctor/hospital they want they say yes. Who wouldn't?
Majority Backs ‘Medicare for All’ Replacing Private Plans, if Preferred Providers Stay
Reduced support for single-payer overcome by assurance that Americans would not lose their doctor and hospital
https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/02/majority-backs-medicare-for-all-replacing-private-plans-if-preferred-providers-stay/
Phrasing of the question indeed. Here's how they phrased it:
"As you may know, during the Democratic presidential primary debates some candidates advocated for installing a ’Medicare for All’ that would diminish the role of private insurers but allow people to keep their preferred doctor and hospital. Would you support or oppose ’Medicare for All’ if it diminished the role of private insurers but allowed you to keep your preferred doctor and hospital?"
If they substituted the word "eliminate" for "diminish", how would that have changed the response?
PVW said:
Phrasing of the question indeed. Here's how they phrased it:
"As you may know, during the Democratic presidential primary debates some candidates advocated for installing a ’Medicare for All’ that would diminish the role of private insurers but allow people to keep their preferred doctor and hospital. Would you support or oppose ’Medicare for All’ if it diminished the role of private insurers but allowed you to keep your preferred doctor and hospital?"
If they substituted the word "eliminate" for "diminish", how would that have changed the response?
I showed you a poll where they said eliminate and the majority were on board with Medicare for All.
nan said:
PVW said:I showed you a poll where they said eliminate and the majority were on board with Medicare for All.
Phrasing of the question indeed. Here's how they phrased it:
"As you may know, during the Democratic presidential primary debates some candidates advocated for installing a ’Medicare for All’ that would diminish the role of private insurers but allow people to keep their preferred doctor and hospital. Would you support or oppose ’Medicare for All’ if it diminished the role of private insurers but allowed you to keep your preferred doctor and hospital?"
If they substituted the word "eliminate" for "diminish", how would that have changed the response?
And I showed you the actual question asked on the poll.
nan thinking that Medicare Advantage is a company throws some serious shade on how much she knows what she's talking about regarding health care. Medicare Advantage is kind of a big deal in the American healthcare space.
Are the videos saying the same thing?