What is Medicare for All?

drummerboy said:

So I suggest you go to the top of this conversation, and re-read my posts, and continue looping through them until you understand my main point.

Sure. I’ll do all the work from here on out. And you can remain baffled, or worse, by unions.

My contractually mandated hour break is over, even though I left a job hanging (unions, right?), so let’s get back to it. 

Hey, unions. We understand you’re giving up hard-won medical coverage that cost you raises and pension funding. You may never get those back. But what M4A gives you is the assurance of coverage no matter what happens at the negotiating table. The changes might cause some disruptions in your care, and maybe you won’t like it as much, but your employers won’t be able to take it away from you, as they can now. Isn’t that, at its root, what you were fighting for all along?

Or ...

Hey, unions. Either cluelessness or corruption, maybe both, is keeping you from getting on board with M4A. We don’t understand your position well enough to help get ours through to you, or even have the patience if we did, so either convince yourselves or move out of the way. It’s your problem.

Knock yourself out.

data point - most unions support M4A

No kidding? That’s a point I’d like to see. Then I’d know who tallied all the unions out there, and whether it’s the most unions by number or the most by membership.

But take your time. I’m not sure how many more laps through your previous comments I’m still going to need.

take this for what it's worth:

https://thinkprogress.org/what-unions-think-about-medicare-for-all-2cffd87d7814/

Oh, yeah. I saw that before.

“There is widespread and unprecedented support from unions for Medicare for All. In fact, unions representing a majority of union workers in the United States — over 9 million workers — have endorsed these bills,” a representative from NNU said in a statement to ThinkProgress. “We are at historic levels of labor support for this legislation, a fact of which we are extremely proud.”

The organization sent ThinkProgress a list of 20 national unions who support House and Senate single-payer bills, including those representing government employees, the postal industry, and utility workers. The Coalition of Labor Union Women and several state federations of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, and AFL-CIO central labor councils are also on the list.

But at least three of the most influential unions NNU named aren’t actually married to Medicare for All: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), with 2 million members, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), with 1.7 million members, and United Automobile Workers (UAW), with nearly 1 million members.

In any case, if most unions support M4A, what’s all the fuss and suspicion about?

Joe Biden is trying to actively sabotage Medicare for All through disinformation.

Why a Medicare for All public option won’t work

https://pnhp.org/news/why-a-medicare-for-all-public-option-wont-work/

State-level experimentation:

Colorado has a new plan to bring a “public option” of sorts to the state level

Here’s how it works:

- Every private health insurance company in the state of a certain size is required to offer the “state option” plan, which covers essential health benefits, including hospital care, prescription drugs, maternity coverage, preventive services, and mental health care.

- Those insurance companies are required to spend 85 percent of the premiums they charge for the plan on patient care (up 5 percent from what Obamacare currently mandates).

- The state would set benchmark rates that health care providers can charge insurance companies under the state option; they would be able to charge from 175 percent to 225 percent of what Medicare pays, down from the approximate 289 percent commercial insurance plans currently pay.

That latter part of the plan is a crucial policy measure to cut down health care costs in the state, something Polis’s administration has tackled head-on. Colorado has among the highest hospital costs in the country, which the state government says is the direct result of hospitals failing to contain costs. Colorado hospital costs grew 58.7 percent between 2009 and 2017, when they were 14 percent above the national average, according to a January state report.

By setting rates closer to what Medicare pays, the state hopes insurance companies can negotiate lower prices for other commercial plans as well, with the overall goal of preventing premiums from shooting up for consumers. But while we know that rising health care costs directly result in higher premiums, there’s no guarantee Colorado’s price caps would mean people would benefit. Other states that have implemented state-regulated rates, like Maryland, haven’t necessarily seen those savings translate back to consumers.

Why would I bother watching a video by a group called Status Coup?

Doesn't that sort of set off alarm bells in your head or anything?

drummerboy said:

Why would I bother watching a video by a group called Status Coup?

Doesn't that sort of set off alarm bells in your head or anything?

 No, it's Jordan Chariton and a very few others.  He's a well-respected investigative reporter.  I don't care for the name either and think it is too cutesy.  He seems to be doing well with it--and they have been steadily growing in members. 

Isn't Jordan the guy I eviscerated for his stupid video about Flint?

Pretty sure that was him.

drummerboy said:

Isn't Jordan the guy I eviscerated for his stupid video about Flint?

Pretty sure that was him.

 Same guy, but his reporting on Flint was stupendous.  You totally bought the government statements and did not even listen to Chariton's videos.  

He is well respected for that reporting and that is why he is able to get his new venture off and running.  He also did great reporting at Standing Rock and the 2016 election and in general digs deeper into stories than most. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

Isn't Jordan the guy I eviscerated for his stupid video about Flint?

Pretty sure that was him.

 Same guy, but his reporting on Flint was stupendous.  You totally bought the government statements and did not even listen to Chariton's videos.  

He is well respected for that reporting and that is why he is able to get his new venture off and running.  He also did great reporting at Standing Rock and the 2016 election and in general digs deeper into stories than most. 

I watched that entire Flint video. I realize there are a lot more, but on the basis of the one I watched, I had no interest in wasting my time with him. It was laughable how weak the case he was presenting was.

You, frankly, appear to have no clue about what makes a good journalist.

p.s.You have about zero clue about what my opinions are about Flint or how I got to them, so don't talk about them as if you do.

drummerboy said:

I watched that entire Flint video. I realize there are a lot more, but on the basis of the one I watched, I had no interest in wasting my time with him. It was laughable how weak the case he was presenting was.

You, frankly, appear to have no clue about what makes a good journalist.

p.s.You have about zero clue about what my opinions are about Flint or how I got to them, so don't talk about them as if you do.

 I remember you saying you got all your news from CNN and that was fine because you were smart enough to know when they were distorting things.  Is that still true?

You said you believed the government ruling that the water was safe, while Chariton was demonstrating it was not and that people were being told to run the water before doing the testing.   He went door to door in Flint and talked to the residents--many times.  He was on the ground in Flint.  You were at home only watching part of one of his many, many videos.  You based your judgment on cursory knowledge.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

I watched that entire Flint video. I realize there are a lot more, but on the basis of the one I watched, I had no interest in wasting my time with him. It was laughable how weak the case he was presenting was.

You, frankly, appear to have no clue about what makes a good journalist.

p.s.You have about zero clue about what my opinions are about Flint or how I got to them, so don't talk about them as if you do.

 I remember you saying you got all your news from CNN ...

 I said no such thing, as I've explained to you before. Your inability to retain this simple bit of information is indicative of your relative inability to accurately comprehend that which occurs around you, causing you to be wrong about stuff so much of the time.

After weeks of criticism, Warren says she will release a plan to pay for Medicare-for-all

Let's see how well she can sell this.

PVW said:

After weeks of criticism, Warren says she will release a plan to pay for Medicare-for-all

Let's see how well she can sell this.

 Yup.  She did not do well on that question at the debate.

nan said:

PVW said:

After weeks of criticism, Warren says she will release a plan to pay for Medicare-for-all

Let's see how well she can sell this.

 Yup.  She did not do well on that question at the debate.

 I'll expand this a bit, in a way that you'll like and in a way you won't.

She's going to have to be more transparent on how she plans to pay for this -- something Sanders beats her on. M4A as a concept, though, is something the broader electorate isn't quite buying yet, and its advocates (Warren, Sanders) will need to find a better pitch than they have so far.

nan said:

PVW said:

After weeks of criticism, Warren says she will release a plan to pay for Medicare-for-all

Let's see how well she can sell this.

 Yup.  She did not do well on that question at the debate.

What did you expect her to say? The question that was asked is stupid and simplistic and is just a gotcha. There's not nearly enough time in the debate format to explain the economics.

What I hope is that she'll say that employers that already pay for health insurance will simply pay those premiums to the government as a tax. (as part of the funding mechanism anyway)

One thing that I wish Warren or some other candidate would do was draw attention to all of the "hidden" taxes that we pay. For some reason* it's ok to pay thousands of dollars to a private health insurer, or to go into debt for college tuition, or pay exorbitant drug prices, expenditures that we really have no choice about, but if all of a sudden those costs became taxes, with a net affect of lowering your total cost, that's some sort of sin.

* Well, I know what the reason is, but that's for another thread.

PVW said:

 I'll expand this a bit, in a way that you'll like and in a way you won't.

She's going to have to be more transparent on how she plans to pay for this -- something Sanders beats her on. M4A as a concept, though, is something the broader electorate isn't quite buying yet, and its advocates (Warren, Sanders) will need to find a better pitch than they have so far.

 I think Sanders explains it better than she can, and he explains it better than he used to, but he could do better.  It's hard for them because the MSM constantly distorts and spews insurance lobby talking points (and so does Joe Biden).  Also, they get very little time to explain.  That said, I agree they need to do it better.  

Jimmy Dore actually did a video on this where he proposed that Bernie go further in his rebuttal to Biden and say, "You act like you don't get this and that's because you are paid to not get this by the insurance lobby."   

I think that would help and also, they need to say how the public option plans don't lower costs and are going to fail.  Then they need to explain how M4A covers everything and is free from the point of service. 

Or some variation of that.  I think they are reviewing all the time and hopefully it will get clearer.

drummerboy said:

What did you expect her to say? The question that was asked is stupid and simplistic and is just a gotcha. There's not nearly enough time in the debate format to explain the economics.

What I hope is that she'll say that employers that already pay for health insurance will simply pay those premiums to the government as a tax. (as part of the funding mechanism anyway)

 I"m not disagreeing that it was a "gotcha" question--that's all the MSM will ever give out for M4A.  They are on the side of the insurance lobby.

Warren is not great at playing defense with off the wall questions.  She tells things in a roundabout, folksy way that just leaves me thinking, "Get to the point."   In this case, they all ganged up on her to just say "yes" or "no" on raising taxes.  She looked trapped and caught.  I'm sure she will be better prepared next time and now she is coming up with some funding plan, that I"m guessing uses some rich people's tax to fund or something.  Probably, they will want Bernie to be the only one admitting to raising taxes.  

Warren is never going to fight for M4A anyway.  

drummerboy said:

One thing that I wish Warren or some other candidate would do was draw attention to all of the "hidden" taxes that we pay. For some reason* it's ok to pay thousands of dollars to a private health insurer, or to go into debt for college tuition, or pay exorbitant drug prices, expenditures that we really have no choice about, but if all of a sudden those costs became taxes, with a net affect of lowering your total cost, that's some sort of sin.

* Well, I know what the reason is, but that's for another thread.

One difference* that your examples bring to light:

I pay for tuition and drugs directly. If my taxes go up to pay for them instead, those previous costs go right back into my pocket.

My employer and union pay for my health care. If my taxes go up to pay for it instead, there's no guarantee that my employer's share of that previous cost won't go right back into its own pocket.

* Is that the reason you had in mind?

DaveSchmidt said:

One difference* that your examples bring to light:

I pay for tuition and drugs directly. If my taxes go up to pay for them instead, those previous costs go right back into my pocket.

My employer and union pay for my health care. If my taxes go up to pay for it instead, there's no guarantee that my employer's share of that previous cost won't go right back into its own pocket.

* Is that the reason you had in mind?

 For your second point - what I'm saying is that your employer/union simply pay the premiums to the federal government instead of to the health insurer, instead of shifting the payment burden to you as a tax. Your taxes don't go up in this case.

* no

So this topic is going around on twitter and someone posted Bernie giving a good answer:

https://twitter.com/SimonNarode/status/1178362577182576642

and here's Bernie arguing for a public option only two years ago...

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/30/politics/bernie-sanders-health-care/index.html

While waiting for Warren to release her plan for financing M4A, the Washington Post reviews some possibilities:

Robert Pollin, a left-leaning economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who has worked with the Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) teams, said he believes two-thirds of the single-payer fund can be raised by redirecting existing public health-care spending from Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Pollin suggests that the remaining third be raised by a $600 billion annual “gross receipts” tax on businesses, which he says would be less than the $650 billion firms currently spend on health care; a 3.75 percent sales tax on “nonnecessities” that exempts low-income households, to raise an additional $200 billion; and a 0.38 percent tax on wealth above $1 million, which he says would raise the remaining $200 billion.

...

Robert C. Hockett, a Cornell University professor who has also advised Warren and Sanders, said he has urged Warren’s team to propose financing Medicare-for-all in part with a “public premium” that would function similarly to a tax. Under this idea, Warren would propose raising revenue for a Medicare-for-all fund from a premium charge that would go to the government rather than a private insurance company.

...

Warren’s team has also received recommendations to adopt a “progressive consumption tax” to help fund the proposal, according to a person with knowledge of the suggestion and spoke on the condition of anonymity. This plan would raise trillions of dollars for the new national health-care system by taxing consumption of goods and services, and could exempt those at the bottom of the income distribution to be less onerous on the working class than the “value-added tax” common in Europe.

...

A fourth idea that has been suggested is for Warren to sell her Medicare-for-all plan as a tax cut, by comparing how much families save by having their health-care costs lowered, according to another independent economic adviser to the Warren campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.