STANV said:
Speaker Pelosi, in an interview on 60 minutes said the problem with Medicare for All is that Medicare doesn't cover a lot of things and that the ACA actually covers more. I do not know if this is accurate.

Neither do I. I suspect she's wrong.

I do know people on ACA who were not happy with lack of coverage such as dental or vision. They were really unhappy with the very high deductibles, paying in thousands in premiums and then getting squat when a claim comes up. Something which does not occur with Medicare.

The problem with Pelosi is she is  a bought and paid for corporate, like many politicians. If ACA is done right, right for private insurance firms that is, it can be extremely profitable. What's not to like? Premiums paid to private firms from both government and individuals with IRS penalties for those turn down this "great opportunity."

Ever wonder on the coincidence of Trump suddenly again trying to get rid of ACA, just when the M4A bandwagon is getting on a roll? 

It was Mulvaney, destroyer of the CFPB who came up with this. Suddenly the focus is on saving the ACA, with the media and public getting being focused on that instead of focusing on replacing all with M4A. In the end, if marketed right, the public will be convinced to be happy with the ACA that they think they helped to save and with the belief that M4A is really not needed.

The Health Care and Insurance Industries need not worry about M4A replacing all. Their work is being done by using ACA as their foil:

Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’

STANV said:
I happen to be on Medicare. I have found it pretty good. But there is much it does not cover.
Do the advocates want to expand it to cover everything?

 Bernie's proposal covers everything except plastic surgery.

STANV said:
Speaker Pelosi, in an interview on 60 minutes said the problem with Medicare for All is that Medicare doesn't cover a lot of things and that the ACA actually covers more. I do not know if this is accurate.
As for private insurance people are afraid of change. So even those who have lousy insurance might be afraid of getting something worse. I think that's why the "Public Option" is a good idea. If it actually offers something superior to peoples' private insurance they will gradually switch over time.

 That was a stupid comment by Pelosi. She's good when she has to wield power in the House, but she gets kind of sucky when it comes to policy.

M4A will cover whatever the final legislation ends up covering. It has nothing to do with what Medicare covers now. Obviously.

nan said:
 Bernie's proposal covers everything except plastic surgery.

 How does he define plastic surgery. I asked the question about coverage in part because last week my Dermatologist advised that the removal of  an annoying skin tag I asked him to do was not covered by Medicare because it was considered "cosmetic".  

STANV said:
 How does he define plastic surgery. I asked the question about coverage in part because last week my Dermatologist advised that the removal of  an annoying skin tag I asked him to do was not covered by Medicare because it was considered "cosmetic".  

I doubt it will cover that, but insurance does not cover that now.  I wish it did because I have similar concerns and I'm trying to figure out how to finance. The fact that Sanders is going to expand to include vision, dental, and hearing is huge though, and also--I forgot to mention the biggest one of all--long term care.  If we could get covered for those things, we could have Go Fund Mes for skin tags, mole removal and nose jobs.  It would be a big improvement.

Nan,

Maybe these are older people's questions but I would hope Dental Implants are covered. 

STANV said:
Nan,
Maybe these are older people's questions but I would hope Dental Implants are covered. 

 That would be fabulous.  

nan said:
 That would be fabulous.  

Yes!

If the proposals being floated cover more than current Medicare covers, then the term "Medicare for all" is misleading.  As it stands now, Medicare is great, but it does have its limits and many seniors have private supplemental coverage of various sorts to complement it.  As long as the politicians push it as "Medicare for all", then it could turn out to have many gaps and banning private insurance that could fill those gaps could leave many people worse off.  

There are MANY ways to achieve universal healthcare (almost as many as the number of countries that have some form of it ... which is most others besides the USA.) It would behoove us to become more informed about all of them as we try to reform our broken system.

sac said:
If the proposals being floated cover more than current Medicare covers, then the term "Medicare for all" is misleading.  As it stands now, Medicare is great, but it does have its limits and many seniors have private supplemental coverage of various sorts to complement it.  As long as the politicians push it as "Medicare for all", then it could turn out to have many gaps and banning private insurance that could fill those gaps could leave many people worse off.  
There are MANY ways to achieve universal healthcare (almost as many as the number of countries that have some form of it ... which is most others besides the USA.) It would behoove us to become more informed about all of them as we try to reform our broken system.

 The new Medicare for All proposal expands Medicare to cover dental, vision, hearing and long-term care.  What else would you be looking for?

Studies show that getting rid of the insurance companies gives the most bank for the buck.

What about chiropractic care?  Are Dreamers covered?  Who determines what procedures cost?

jamie said:
What about chiropractic care?  Are Dreamers covered?  Who determines what procedures cost?

 These are details -- what do you care anyway--you have already declared yourself totally opposed.  These are the questions you find if you google anti-M4A talking points.  

I’m just trying to figure out how much more I’ll have to spend.

Sorry if that isn’t a legitimate concern.

jamie said:
I’m just trying to figure out how much more I’ll have to spend.
Sorry if that isn’t a legitimate concern.

 You will spend less with Medicare for All.

These are pretty basic questions, actually. Sanders M4A bill claims it will cover all Americans, but what does that mean? Will it cover only US Citizens, or will it include legal permanent residents? What about people here legally on visas? Undocumented people?

These aren’t just “details”, these are fundamentals which there should be answers to if someone is going to convince me to vote for that system.

Here the Bern has a new podcast published today called  Busting Trump's Healthcare Myths"

https://berniesanders.com/podcast/

Ok, so at Bernie's FOX townhall the hosts called for people who had private health insurance to raise their hands.  Then they asked how many of those people would trade it in for Medicare for All.  To their surprise  almost everyone kept their hand up. The clip of this happening made the social media rounds and no surprise the health care companies, afraid to lose their gravy train, put out anti-Medicare for All articles today.  Right on cue.  The article is accompanied by a video smearing Bernie for being a millionaire and falsely stating that he did not release his taxes during the 2016 election and then it goes on to talk about his income in a way no other candidate would be presented. 

Biggest U.S. Health Insurer Wades Right Into ‘Medicare for All’ Fight

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-16/top-insurer-slams-medicare-for-all-plans-debated-by-democrats

STANV said:
I happen to be on Medicare. I have found it pretty good. But there is much it does not cover.
Do the advocates want to expand it to cover everything?

 Yes, Stan, that is it exactly - Medicare for All proposes to build on Medicare, but to cover more services:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/upshot/medicare-for-all-health-terms-sanders.html

"What is Medicare for all? 

This increasingly popular term was coined to describe a system in which all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the government’s Medicare system. 

Mr. Sanders, who prominently featured such a plan in his 2016 presidential platform and just announced he has joined the 2020 race, uses this term a lot. His plan would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and change the structure of the program, to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co-payments. So the Medicare everyone would be getting would differ in crucial ways from the Medicare older people get now."

Please. It is very easy to say, "It will cover everything, it will be great!"

Details! Specifics on costs.  Specifics on revenue sources. Specifics on the transition. Specifics on how the transition has been handled in other countries. Specifics on how doctors who are incentivized by the current system will still be motivated under the new system.

Is it really surprising that the attendees at a Bernie Town Hall kept their hands up?

I want everything to be covered at no cost with no waits to see only the best doctors for whatever I want, whenever I want it too! But what will the tax rates be to achieve that? How much money is available from what is currently paid to private insurance? Is the primary goal to cover everyone?  Is it to actually lower the overall costs?

All I hear is promises from the "Progressives," with no details. And don't tell me to watch a video, or read some think tank article. Sell it to me like a fiscal conservative would want to hear it, because that is what it will take for me to vote for one of the "Progressives."

jimmurphy said:
Please. It is very easy to say, "It will cover everything, it will be great!"
Details! Specifics on costs.  Specifics on revenue sources. Specifics on the transition. Specifics on how the transition has been handled in other countries. Specifics on how doctors who are incentivized by the current system will still be motivated under the new system.
Is it really surprising that the attendees at a Bernie Town Hall kept their hands up?
I want everything to be covered at no cost with no waits to see only the best doctors for whatever I want, whenever I want it too! But what will the tax rates be to achieve that? How much money is available from what is currently paid to private insurance? Is the primary goal to cover everyone?  Is it to actually lower the overall costs?
All I hear is promises from the "Progressives," with no details. And don't tell me to watch a video, or read some think tank article. Sell it to me like a fiscal conservative would want to hear it, because that is what it will take for me to vote for one of the "Progressives."

 You can start with this study at the University of Massachusetts:

In-Depth Analysis by Team of UMass Amherst Economists Shows Viability of Medicare For All

Comprehensive plan is estimated to reduce U.S. health consumption expenditures by nearly 10 percent, while providing decent health care coverage to all Americans

https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst

There was also this Koch Brothers funded study:

Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves Money and Cares for All of Us 

A study that was intended to make the case against Medicare for All reveals that the reform could save Americans trillions of dollars.

First paragraph - "decent coverage". Is that the goal  - "decent coverage"?

What if I prefer the "much better than decent" coverage I have now? Are you gonna ram "decent coverage" down my throat and take away the option to do better? You want to eliminate the other options.  Do I have to go out of pocket to get "better than decent?"

There is a very good reason that Obama made best efforts to allow people happy with their current coverage to keep it. 

Most people want to do better than decent. Will decent be better for those without? Of course. Will it enjoy broad support once it comes out that it is only "decent"? I don't think so.

jimmurphy said:
First paragraph - "decent coverage". Is that the goal  - "decent coverage"?
What if I prefer the "much better than decent" coverage I have now? Are you gonna ram "decent coverage" down my throat and take away the option to do better? You want to eliminate the other options.  Do I have to go out of pocket to get "better than decent?"
There is a very good reason that Obama made best efforts to allow people happy with their current coverage to keep it. 
Most people want to do better than decent. Will decent be better for those without? Of course. Will it enjoy broad support once it comes out that it is only "decent"? I don't think so.

 This is how they write studies.  Sander's latest proposal has much more than decent coverage.  You are not understanding that keeping what we have now will be trillions of dollars more.  Medicare for All saves us money.  Insurance backed plans are unsustainable.  If you get rid of the insurance companies there is a big savings. Here is an article that talks about the plan and what is covered.  It will be paid for through taxes and I think something else--anyway--he has explained how he will pay for it--and it will probably be cheaper than what you pay now with no deductibles or co-pays.

Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, explained

The Vermont senator’s plan has lots of details about what single-payer would cover. It has less information on how to pay for it.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

As Single-Payer Gains Traction, Industry Launches Attack Ads

https://truthout.org/articles/as-single-payer-gains-traction-industry-launches-attack-ads/

Discussion about the attacks on Medicare for All and includes discussion about costs and how it would affect availability of doctors.

Do you watch the videos you post?  Because I've been trying to get through to you this past week what the guy on the left in this video is saying. smh

dave said:
Do you watch the videos you post?  Because I've been trying to get through to you this past week what the guy on the left in this video is saying. smh

 The guy on the left was made a fool when he asked the audience if they wanted to switch from their private insurance to Medicare for All and they everyone raised their hands and cheered.  He did not expect that outcome.  

Turns out they did have at least one right-wing plant asking questions, but who ever was supposed to rig the audience fell down on the job. 

The Corporate Campaign to Kill Bernie’s Medicare for All Bill Is Here

Bernie Sanders has long warned that the wealthy would push back against his agenda. The massive health care company UnitedHealth is starting to do just that — by trying to destroy Medicare for All.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-unitedhealth?fbclid=IwAR2JsB3zqz0HnTu8Utu3Ji6Ji3n2kGDu_T5_82UQdh6g1Lei7JgAWSvuX18

The partnership is hammering the message that Medicare for All will cost too much, the government can’t be trusted to administer health care, and therefore we should shore up the ACA instead.

The Democratic establishment has embraced this as their vision for health care policy. Despite 85 percent of Democratic voters saying they support Medicare for All, the PAHC’s talking points in press releases and op-eds are now being parrotedby House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

After receiving a combined $43,740,947 in campaign donations from insurance and pharmaceutical industries, House Democrats have a vested interest in killing Medicare for All.

nan said:
 The guy on the left was made a fool when he asked the audience if they wanted to switch from their private insurance to Medicare for All and they everyone raised their hands and cheered.  He did not expect that outcome.  
Turns out they did have at least one right-wing plant asking questions, but who ever was supposed to rig the audience fell down on the job. 

 Dave’s talking about Ben Mankiewicz, co-founder of The Young Turks, not Brett Baier.

ridski said:

nan said:
 The guy on the left was made a fool when he asked the audience if they wanted to switch from their private insurance to Medicare for All and they everyone raised their hands and cheered.  He did not expect that outcome.  
Turns out they did have at least one right-wing plant asking questions, but who ever was supposed to rig the audience fell down on the job. 

 Dave’s talking about Ben Mankiewicz, co-founder of The Young Turks, not Brett Baier.

 Ya mean the Turner Classic Movies guy? I remember when he was on AirAmerica.