How's that workplace health insurance working out now?

[wellst0nev0ter]

The main argument against M4A is that it won't get through a goop Congress. What the detractors won't explain is how the goops will accept the public option. Through the power of persuasion?

It seems like it was years, not mere months ago that former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden dumped on Medicare-for-all. He claimed that “160 million people like their private insurance” and that he didn’t want union members to be forced to give up the health insurance they bargained hard to receive. “You should be entitled to keep it, and no plan should take it away from you.”

Ten million — and counting — unemployed Americans later, we’re learning the limits of all that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/03/hows-that-workplace-health-insurance-working-out-us-now/

[rainin]

2. +1000 No candidate should get away with advocating workplace insurance

This ends NOW

[Locrian]

3. I don't want to hear anyone with medicare talk about how it's not an option...

And I don't want to hear we can't afford it after bailing out (again) stockholders and corporations.

>>“160 million people like their private insurance”
And that is not accurate. They like their doctors, etc - NOT the insurance companies.

We're going to have MILLIONS more unemployed (I'm likely one even though I have a high paying job and insurance) - a devastated economy, continued threat with pandemics, and that doesn't begin to even discuss the already 60,000+ that die of other causes related to HC each year.

[Squinch]

4. That's like asking, "How's that lack of a cure for cancer working out now?" MFA is, currently,

un-passable.

Ridiculing people in general because MFA is not the law of the land is like ridiculing people in general because cancer has not yet been cured.

Also it's like saying, "How's that lack of a chemotherapy cure for all cancers working out now?" There are many different ways we might reach universal health insurance. The quote that is meant to be a gotcha on Joe Biden in no way denies the possibility of reaching universal health insurance. It probably represents a more politically expedient way to reach universal health insurance.

So all in all, the title question is a stupid one, designed to be divisive, and none of us should be giving it air.

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. Bidens plan is also "unpassable"

This is basically the overarching message from your camp:

[W_HAMILTON]

14. Wrong. Educate yourself.

A public option, broadly supported by most Democrats, most certainly can be passed through reconciliation in a Democratic-controlled Senate, which would require as few as 50 Democratic votes + a tiebreaker cast from a Democratic vice president.

That is very achievable, in contrast to Medicare for All, which isn't even currently supported by most Democrats. It has no chance of passing as things are now, even if Democrats were to win the presidency and the Senate.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. That was the same thing with same sex marriage

Even Obama was a squish on that issue.

But people did what was right for once, and look where we are.

No more defeatism.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. I am sure that Medicare for All will come up during potential healthcare reform discussions.

But it will probably be shot down regardless.

So, they probably will try, and they probably will fail.

And then we can move on to achieving the achievable.

[Cha]

109. How's that insulting President Obama working out for you?

Obama Leaves A Monumental Legacy On LGBTQ Rights

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-lgbtq-legacy_n_584eea35e4b04c8e2bb0cee2

[thesquanderer]

26. re: "It has no chance of passing as things are now, even if Dems win the presidency and Senate."

"As things are now" is in a state of flux. Ask again in 2021.

[W_HAMILTON]

28. They will.

There are enough Democrats that support Medicare for All that it will surely be brought up in any potential healthcare reform discussion.

Having said that, it's still unlikely to pass.

[thesquanderer]

30. I agree, it's unlikely, But that's different from saying "no chance." n/t

[Squinch]

16. Lol. Yes, I understand that this is what you would like to believe. And I also

understand that you will believe this in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

So...

bye.

[Thekaspervote]

48. Not helpful!

[Aquaria]

86. Um, yeah, it did pass.

It's called the ACA, and it's still out there. Unlike the bullshit plan that BS is peddling to nowhere as long as a Senate repuke can hang in there to maintain a majority.

Try again.

[The Magistrate]

5. It Is a Sound Point, Sir

The present system may well break under the strain, and popular support for it collapse.

If this occurs, it will alter the political calculations regarding the feasibility of getting some public option through the Congress, on the assumption Mr. Biden carries the White House in November, and Mr. Schumer leads a majority in the Senate. Obstacles would still be formidable, no one should be under any illusion concerning that.

None of this means what emerges would be 'Medicare for All', which is really little more than a marketing slogan and not a thought through policy. Nor does it provide the slightest reason for claiming 'Bernie' should be the nominee for President this year of the Democratic Party.






"From Bernie’s perspective, dropping out of a race once you have no chance of winning is peculiar behavior that can only be explained by the work of a hidden hand. For most politicians, though, it is actually standard operating procedure. Only Sanders seems to think the normal thing to do once voters have made clear they don’t want to nominate you is to continue campaigning anyway."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[wellst0nev0ter]

8. How would the public option work

If you don't have a job?

[thesquanderer]

19. ACA coverage does not require that you have a job. Public option is a way to enhance ACA. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. So the jobless has to wait for Medicaid?

[thesquanderer]

29. What does Medicaid have to do with it?

You don't have to have a job to qualify for the ACA. During open enrollment, everyone qualifies for it, whether employed or not.

If you lose your job, you automatically qualify for ACA plans, whether or not it is within the open enrollment time period.

Currently, ACA includes plans from for-profit private sector health insurance companies. What Biden and many others are talking about is adding a non-profit public option to the ACA.

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. Apparently you missed

The "access vs affordability" part of the healthcare debate.

I don't have time to fill you in.

[thesquanderer]

36. I'm talking about public option. That has nothing to do with medicaid.

Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2020, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Your question was "How would the public option work If you don't have a job?" That's the question I was answering, and Medicaid has nothing to do with it. Putting it as simply as possible:

1. Public option is a proposed enhancement to ACA.

2. ACA is available whether or not you have a job.

[TexasTowelie]

66. It's difficult to take you seriously

when you get confused between Medicare and Medicaid as you have done with this statement.

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. Hokay, let's unpack this, step by single step

1.) The public option is a government-run health insurance plan, which like other health insurance, you will have to pay for it with your own money

2.) If you are jobless, you have no money to spend on health insurance.

3.) So people who are jobless will have to wait until they are poor enough to apply to Medicaid

Did that clear things up for you?

[TexasTowelie]

74. Guess what?

You don't automatically get Medicaid when you are poor or jobless. I meet both of those criteria, but I'm not eligible for Medicaid in Texas. And yes, I did apply for Medicaid.

Does that clear things up for you?

I am amused by the number of people who think that they should get something without paying anything for it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

75. Ah, so people do fall through the cracks under the system

Also "How are you going to pay for it" is a republican talking point. Stop it.

[TexasTowelie]

77. How you are going to pay for it is pragmatic and it is not a Republican talking point.

Don't you ask yourself how you are going to pay for a good or service whenever you purchase anything at the store?

There is no constitutional right to free health care. Stop it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

80. We've explained it countless times

And people like you keep repeating the same rightwing tropes

Link to tweet

?lang=en

[TexasTowelie]

89. Medicare for All is not going to occur.

I know that is difficult to grasp, but the sooner that you accept responsibility for providing for yourself rather than have the government provide everything for you for free the better off you will be. Government is not your savior.

[brush]

104. It might work. Don't need the distraction torch juggling though. The thing is though...

We have to win the WH and the Senate, plus keep the House.

And M4A is not necessarily the best universal care option. You do know as presently constituted, Medicare only pays for 80% of medical costs.

A more comprehensive system is more desirable IMO. And it you know anything about this country, there will have to be a transition period to universal care as even some Dems will be reluctant to upturn everything, not to mention all the jobs in the insurance, medical and pharma industries that would be lost. The public option would be that transition period.

Not rocket science. We have to have the WH, Senate and House to just get to a public option first.
The public option would be a component to the ACA, which doesn't, by the way, require one to have a job (and joblessness doesn't last forever for anyone with a bit of drive). And FYI, even in countries with universal care, there are costs for services, nowhere near what we pay here but nothing is entirely free.

[pattyloutwo]

107. That was awesome!

Thanks for not giving up!

[thesquanderer]

91. re: "If you are jobless, you have no money to spend on health insurance."

That's not necessarily true. As evidenced by the existence of COBRA, for example. Also by the fact that the ACA permits you sign up for a plan without waiting for the open enrollment period IF you lose your job.

Not everyone who loses their job is instantly broke... but if they got insurance through their job, they ARE instantly uninsured.

COBRA is an expensive solution, but maintains the same coverage they had. ACA can be much cheaper (especially since the government subsidizes it if your income is low), but you'll have to pick a new plan. The plans you have to choose from do not currently include a public option, but that's what PO advocates hope to change.

[wellst0nev0ter]

92. Cobra?

Please, don't get me started on that

[thesquanderer]

98. I'm not endorsing COBRA, but there are people who have used it. Obviously, since ACA passed...

...ACA would be the better choice for most people in that situation.

[The Magistrate]

25. Do You Imagine Medicare Is Free, Sir?

People pay a premium for the basic plan, it is deducted from monthly Social Security payments. Some people choose to purchase extra coverage into the bargain, if they can afford it, or feel they need it.

Understand, it would not trouble me in the slightest to see provision of health care paid for from a common fund, for which taxes are collected by some general levy. But aside from provision for outright charity, it is hard to see anything shorter that might provide health care for persons without funds. Establishing such a system would go against the grain of a great many people and interests, including many persons who might benefit greatly from such a system, who simply would not consider it 'right'....






"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[wellst0nev0ter]

81. Here's how it will be paid

Read it. Learn it. Live it.

Link to tweet

?lang=en

[The Magistrate]

87. Some People, Sir

Recommend reading posts one replies to before responding to them.

The question is whether the total tax levied would be less than total premiums paid under the present system.

The fellow seems a decent enough juggler, but it does not impress me. I am personally in favor of replacing the present system, and have been for some time. I regard insurance executives as no more than bookies in sharp suits, and bookies with a well-earned reputation for welshing when they have to pay off a lost wager into the bargain.

But people today pay premiums not just for Medicare but for Medicaid as well, and if the government is to pay all medical bills from a common fund, people will pay premiums into it, whatever they are called.

[wellst0nev0ter]

88. Other people

Will recommend you watch the video and pay attention.

Did the juggling state senator say anything about non-wealthy Americans paying a higher tax?

Answer honestly and show your work.

[The Magistrate]

97. Doesn't Matter, Sir

Taxes will be collected, bills will be paid with the proceeds.

We really have nothing to argue about, unless you are of such a pugnacious nature as to insist on having an argument whenever anyone exchanges words with you.

The nearest thing available to a genuine disagreement concerns the political feasibility of enacting some such program. Odds favoring success have certainly increased owing to the present crisis, which is stripping many of insurance at a time when claims presented to insurance companies are increasing. Intensive care is expensive.

However there remain political obstacles, and one of these is a quirk in our national character, for lack of a better word, which inculcates a devotion to 'self-reliance', by which a goodly number of people honestly believe they shouldn't get anything for free, that they have not earned, and neither should anybody else. Such people do not like accepting assistance from society, whether in the form of a government program or some private charity. Along with the vested money interests behind the insurance industry, and the medical people who suspect any government program will wind up cutting costs at their expense, these people will provide a sizable bloc of voting support for politicians who rise in defense of insurers, and of providers' fees.






"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[Hermit-The-Prog]

113. See highways, bridges, schools, police and fire departments.

[hangaleft]

7. Unions and their fought for health insurance

Think about it. How often do we denigrate Republicans for their “I got mine” mentality?

How is the unions’ attitude about their health insurance any different?

(I am strongly pro union. I’m just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy.)

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. The Culinary Workers Union

Whose brass backed Biden because they looooove their private health insurance, now says the insurance will dry up by August

[DEbluedude]

18. Really?

That's a weak argument. The exact mentality that got us here in the first place. Unions have been trying to organize workers for years to fight for stronger benefits. Where we succeed, it is undisputed that our health plans are by far, better than most. The opposition's narrative regarding health insurance is the classis Us vs. Them. If Medicare is good enough for us, it should be good enough for them. Fuck that! Our attitude is definitely not one of "I got mine". Our attitude is that if everyone stuck together and FOUGHT FOR WORKERS RIGHTS, all workers would have employee sponsored affordable health care plans. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Major corporations can afford it. It's all about the money - profit - and where it goes.

[hangaleft]

39. Not everyone is a "worker"

Where I’m coming from is very simple — the provision of health care should not be a profit making enterprise.

We should have a single payer plan. Private health insurance should be outlawed.

[DEbluedude]

95. I agree wholeheartededly. But until something of that nature happens...

...I'll keep my hard fought for health insurance.

[Hoyt]

9. Public Option is a choice, MFA is cramming it down people's throats. Within 5 years of a PO, most

people will have selected the PO with significant subsidies. 5 years after you somehow manage to get mandatory MFA -- whether you want it or not -- enacted, people will still be griping about it, filing lawsuits, electing candidates promising to revoke it, etc.

Ain't gonna happen, although CV19 will likely lead to expanded Medicaid as originally envisioned in ACA.


BTW -- I'm for MFA, but not mandated if 40% or more don't want it until they have a chance to try it out.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. Public option doesn't work if you're jobless

[Squinch]

21. That statement is just absurd.

[Thekaspervote]

49. Seems most of them absurd!

[Hoyt]

27. Do you know what the term "subsidies" means, not to mention expanded Medicaid?

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. Yes, more bandaid provisions

That doesn't solve the real problem. Get everyone on medicare and simplify the system. How hard is that?

[Hoyt]

35. Do you understand, "Within 5 years of a PO, most people will have selected the PO . . . . ."

At that point, you have MFA and didn't have to stuff it down peoples' throats who are too stupid to realize it's a good thing.

Mandatory MFA -- take it whether you want it -- will not get a Democrat elected.

[wellst0nev0ter]

45. What you are pushing is Rube Goldberg malarkey

Hoping for an outcome is not the same as enforcing one.

Enough with playing footies and remove the private insurance middlemen.

[Hoyt]

46. Fine, go your way, and we'll be sitting here 10, 15 years from now arguing the same stuff, with

no progress at all. 90 year old Bernie Sanders will be telling us what a great thing MFA is.

[Thekaspervote]

50. Ouch!

[wellst0nev0ter]

71. FYI, I supported Elizabeth Warren

Her plan was simple, straightforward, pays for itself, and is entirely implementable.

You and people like you settled for fearmongering and rightwing talking points about higher taxes.

Link to tweet

?lang=en

[Hoyt]

99. Not sure about paid for itself. But, it was pretty much MFA, however she framed it.

[TwilightZone]

96. Public option has nothing to do with employment status.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. A public option has the broad support of Democrats and can be passed through reconciliation...

...in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

Medicare for All does not and therefore cannot.

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. So the lesson here is

[W_HAMILTON]

15. Stop with the bad Russian troll farm-like memes.

Use your words.

[Thekaspervote]

51. Doesn't have any..that work

[ehrnst]

114. What is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome?

[Sloumeau]

17. So your argument is that the public option won't get

through Congress, but Medicare for All will? Seriously?

[wellst0nev0ter]

24. Apparently Democrats are too rightwing for M4A

This is a real argument I'm seeing right now.

[Thekaspervote]

52. Imagine what a dotard would be doing right now with a total government run health care

No thanks!

[wellst0nev0ter]

68. "Imagine what the dotard will be doing with Medicare now that he runs it"

This is a false argument, and you know it.

[brewens]

31. People "loved" the part of their pay the health insurance represents, almost never the medical

plan. Our candidates that are for single payer, never made it clear how those people wouldn't lose out somehow. People were led to believe they would lose their employer plan and they would make up the difference with higher income taxes.

No one would ever have even written up a plan the just let employers off the hook for medical and just pocket all that. Even if cutting out the middle man would save a lot of wasted expense, the higher taxes needed to make up for that would be like a huge pay cut. Next time, they need to make things more clear just how it would be a great deal.

[wellst0nev0ter]

34. It has been repeatedly demonstrated

That average Americans will pay a healthcare tax that is way lower than their current premiums.

Yet people continue to spew Republican talking points about higher taxes to derail the debate, and here we are.

[brewens]

37. The health care tax may be way lower than their current premiums, but employers pay most

of that now and the employee contribution is usually pretty small. If the healthcare tax means they have to pay more, they don't like it. Now force employers to raise pay by the amount they previously paid for medical and we might be onto something. If you got a $700 a month raise, even if healthcare taxes took half of that, maybe even more, it would sound like a great deal.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Nobody ever seems to ask "how do other countries pay for healthcare?"

In Canada, there is no employer tax; healthcare is paid for out of income taxes, and in some Provinces, an additional monthly premium ($0 for low income) which was about $100USD per family/mo in BC until this year, when the socialist-lite NDP government eliminated monthly premiums for everyone. Extended benefits (dental, vision, prescriptions, etc) are still covered by employers or private pay (as a retiree, I pay about $100USD for my wife and I, and prescriptions are way cheaper in Canada than in the US).

How do other countries do it? Well, they don’t have bloated military budgets for starters, and fewer subsidies for corporations, farmers, etc (milk costs a lot more in Canada than the US).

Oh, and minimum wage is Generally higher than most states too.

[Thekaspervote]

55. Sweden weighed in on a sanders style plan said it all but bankrupt the country

Closer to home ask Mr. Sanders about the abysmal failure of his universal health care plan in VT.
If you can get an answer, kudos to you....seems no else can get him to answer

https://americashealthcarefuture.org/sanders-refuses-to-answer-for-failed-state-level-medicare-for-all-in-vermont/

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. I think it is more useful to get info on successful universal healthcare systems

Rather than beating a dead horse from Vermont.

[wellst0nev0ter]

79. Partnership for America's Health Care Future

An alliance of American hospital, health insurance, and pharmaceutical lobbyists committed to preventing legislation that would lead to single payer healthcare, expanding Medicare, or creating Medicare for All.

Parroting the insurance lobby's talking points. This is beyond parody.

PS, Vermont never implemented single payer, so it technically it didn't fail.

[Demsrule86]

112. That is nonsense...no one will get a raise...and the taxes for individuals will be higher...you

are talking about putting the entire country on M4A...and the job losses in the insurance industry under the Sander's plan would be very bad...it will never happen. The ACA is what we have and what we can use to get universal health care...start with a public option which can be passed through reconciliation and be available almost immediately.

[jalan48]

38. Perhaps if Covid 19 bankrupts the health insurance industry (unless the taxpayers are forced to

bail them out, too big to fail you know), they won't have enough money to buy off politicians and maintain their privileged place in our society.

[pattyloutwo]

40. Good editorial

Thanks for posting. This crisis is a good time to make the switch. Hopefully our incoming democratic president and Congress will have no choice, and this will finally happen in our country. My friends in the ressptaurant biz have no job and no health insurance.

[beastie boy]

42. I don't get the reasons for this rant.

To begin with, M4A vs public option will not get as many congresspeople elected in the first place. Virtually all the polls suggest this as an outcome. With more public option proponents vs M4A proponents elected in Congress, guess what happens to the chances of the former being passed vs the latter? That's right, they go up. Furthermore, there are goops who would go apeshit over an M4A legislation and at the same time find public option quite acceptable. All ofhis is not a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of likelihoods. Is public option guaranteed to pass? No. Does it have a good chance to pass? Yes. Does M4A have a snowflake's chance in hell to pass? No.

And with public option, you have a choice. If, for any reason, unemployment included, you don't have private insurance, or if you just don't like it, you are free to sign up for a single payer option. This is what "option" in "public option" is all about.

[Thekaspervote]

56. Oh the voice of sanity!! Thank you

[wellst0nev0ter]

72. M4A would have a better chance of passing

If fellow dems stop peddling rightwing talking points about it ("Higher taxes!" "Howrya gonna pay for it?!&quot

It echoes the arguments against the public option 10 years ago. What changed now? Will it change for M4A in the next decade? Why wait?

[beastie boy]

84. You just illustrated why M4A has a snowflake's chance in hell of passing.

Only a tiny percentage of Americans think that higher taxes and paying for it are right wing talking points. And they don't elect representatives who think that paying for it is none of their concern.

What changed from 10 years ago? There is significantly greater support for the public option now than it was then, thanks in large part to the overwhelming success and acceptance of the center-right incrementalist Democratic establishment programs like Obamacare. That's what changed now. And if public option, like Obamacare, passes and succeeds, it will go a long way towards the majority of Americans accepting a single payer health care system like M4A. That's why wait.

[NNadir]

43. A successful President will show flexibility in his thinking in response to events. On the other...

...hand, a complete fool will hold to the same ideas he or she has held since 1969, calling attention to what his or her opponents might have said or did 30 or 40 years ago, as if nothing has changed in those periods.

We have two people who insist that they are candidates for the Presidency who have not changed in any of their ideas since the 1960's.

One is Trump. The other is the similarly intellectually limited Senator from Vermont, who has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and still insists on attacking the only alternative to Trump.

Now, it happens that in the 1960's these people were not far from being children, and as a result, their "ideas" - if they can be called "ideas" rather than chants - bear a distinct mark of petulant childishness.

Most credible thinkers have the ability to move their ideology with the times. I note that Senator Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008 on a platform in support of coal for example. He certainly didn't push coal in his presidency.

The attack on the presumptive nominee offered in the OP here is silly and exploitative. There is no evidence that a complete "revolutionary" attack on the healthcare system would work any better. Were such an attack now underway, the situation would be even worse. It is easy and frankly, lazy to remark on what one would destroy, very different to find a workable system to construct. As Theodore Roosevelt remarked, "It is not the critic who counts..."

That awful person Senator Sanders is a great critic. He has no record of actually working to construct a healthcare system that could pass, whereas former Vice President Biden has practical experience in constructing a healthcare system - against great opposition - that actually was enacted.

Shove it.

[emmaverybo]

57. +1000

[CTyankee]

44. I'm hitting a paywall. Can we get the article w/o subscribing to the WP?

[wellst0nev0ter]

70. Open in private window

Quickly press ctrl+A and Ctrl+C, then paste the article in Word or another word processor

[CTyankee]

78. Well, I'll try but I'm not technie at all...

[tirebiter]

47. This sounds like the discussions had in lifeboats after the Titanic sunk.

That the ship did not have to sink may have been to soon for them.

[AlexSFCA]

53. those who lost jobs are eligible for ACA

[zentrum]

54. Yup. This is the moment to

...double down on Single Payer.

It has more of a chance of wining the election, so to speak, than ever before.

Hope Biden will will see that and seize the moment soon.

[thucythucy]

82. Germany has "taken the profit out of the health care business?"

I don't think this is accurate.

Germany has a mix of options available to all residents. You can buy into the public option, or you can buy private insurance, or you can do a mix of both. There are numerous public and private plans to choose from, but everyone is mandated to have a certain minimum coverage. Private insurers are regulated and limits are set on profits, but profits are not forbidden.

Actually, the Biden plan of augmenting the ACA is closer to what Germany has than "Medicare for All."

And as I understand it, the German system evolved over many decades. Again, closer to what Biden is proposing than "Medicare for All."

And BTW, to say that "profit considerations don't belong there (in health care) than they belongs in the defense department" is such a boner I'm not sure if I should take you seriously. You think defense contractors build ships and tanks and jet fighters out of the goodness of their hearts? Profit plays a HUGE role in defense spending. The federal government doesn't build aircraft carriers, it contracts the work out to for-profit corporations. Actually, Bernie would know all about that, since he fought so hard for Vermont based companies to get a piece of the fighter contract pie.

I think you might need to do a little more research, and some more thinking about this whole topic. "Medicare for All" is a nice slogan-but it obviously didn't play well with Democratic primary voters, so it's difficult to see how it would be a winner among the more conservative GE voters.

[ehrnst]

100. The nation would have to overwhelmingly support it - and we would need the Senate.

I don't think that M4A is comparable to major civil rights rulings by SCOTUS, especially considering that there are alternatives, as most of the rest of the world has shown.

We have the ACA, and fixing what the GOP did to it, and expanding it, as was the original intent would be far, far more possible.

[relayerbob]

59. Do you want Trump in charge of 100% of our health care?

[LongtimeAZDem]

61. +∞

[totodeinhere]

64. I think the idea is to get rid of Trump and put a Democrat in charge of health care. n/t

[relayerbob]

65. And then when the next Trump, Raygun or Dubya comes along

We’re supposed to just hope they don’t shutter the whole thing? It’s not like the gop has stopped trying to kill off these sorts of programs for 75 years. My Medicare monthly payment increased more than the cost of living increase, for a net reduction in income.

Ask a vet how well they are treated.

Thanks, I don’t trust the government enough to hand them 100% of health care.

Btw, I support a non profit ngo single payer, something no one has discussed... not enough money in it for corporations nor enough power in it for politicians.

[wellst0nev0ter]

69. I've seen this argument way too many times

Trump is already in charge of Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid. Is that an argument against enacting any of those programs?

No.

So enough of the malarkey.

[gulliver]

60. How would that M4A that would never be enacted be working out?

The Sanders plan would just postpone national health insurance another decade at least. It would be voted down, and Republicans would simply continue to try to strangle ObamaCare.

[totodeinhere]

63. Actually it's a mixed bag. Some workplace insurance policies continue to cover employees who have

been laid off. It varies from one policy to the next. But of course universal coverage would be much better for most people.

[George II]

73. Are we talking about John Dingell Sr's "Medicare for All", or John Dingell Jr's "Medicare for All"..

...or Debbie Dingell's "Medicare for All", or John Conyers' "Medicare for All", or any of the several others that have been proposed but not passed?

We have the ACA that, for those who are on it in states that embrace it, it works fine. What is the point of trashing that and implementing a whole new "system" that we don't know will work?

[wellst0nev0ter]

76. Because this is what is happening under ACA

If you think this is in any way okay, keep voting for the status quo:

By Monday, March 9, he reported to his doctor that he was feeling better but still had some cough and low-grade fever. Within minutes, he got a call from the heads of a hospital emergency room and infectious-disease department where he lives in upstate New York: He should come right away to the E.R. for newly available coronavirus testing. Though they offered to send an ambulance, he felt fine and drove the hour.

In an isolation room, the doctors put him on an IV drip, did a chest X-ray and took the swabs.

Now back at work remotely, he faces a mounting array of bills. His patient responsibility, according to his insurer, is now close to $2,000, and he fears there may be more bills to come.

“I was under the assumption that all that would be covered,” said Mr. Cencini, who makes $54,000 a year. “I could have chosen not to do all this, and put countless others at risk,” he added. “But I was trying to do the right thing.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/opinion/coronavirus-test-cost-bill.html

[thucythucy]

83. As has been pointed out numerous times before

this would also happen under "Medicare for All."

Medicare only pays 80% of medical bills. So if you run up a $100K hospital bill, under Medicare you would still owe $20K. This is why many people on Medicare also purchase private insurance to cover the difference.

Similarly, Medicare alone doesn't cover dental, hearing, or eye care. To get that kind of coverage you again have to purchase supplemental insurance.

Medicare also generally requires prior approval for most everything that isn't emergency care (and even then people sometimes get denied, and have to appeal).

So this example you point to could just as easily happen to someone who has Medicare. In fact, this sort of thing happens to seniors all the time.

[wellst0nev0ter]

90. Apparently Sander's plan would be better than the current Medicare

Plus it would eliminate the need to pay $600 for $2 worth of insulin. That and the other absurdities is why healthcare is so expensive.

[thucythucy]

110. "Apparently"?

He calls his plan "Medicare for All." But please tell me in detail how his plan is better than the actual Medicare he cites as the end all be all of health care reform.

[Aquaria]

85. Ours is working fine.

Thanks for asking.

But keep your head buried in the sand that the Senate repukes will ever pass M4A.

[wellst0nev0ter]

93. But the goops will pass Biden's plan

Really, my dude?

[brush]

101. Not rocket science. We have to win the WH and the Senate, plus keep the House.

And M4A is not necessarily the best universal care option. You do know as presently constituted, Medicare only pays for 80% of medical costs.

A more comprehensive system is more desirable IMO. And it you know anything about this country, there will have to be a transition period to universal care as even some Dems will be reluctant to upturn everything, not to mention all the jobs in the insurance, medical and pharma industries that would be lost. The public option would be that transition period.

[peggysue2]

102. Really? We're going to get into another pissing contest over this?

In a middle of a medical emergency, this sort of nonsense is completely inappropriate. We might as well be arguing about whether unicorns can fly.

Please, stop it already. Once we bury the dead, we can resume the normal catfighting.

Until then? This is downright sickening.

[pattyloutwo]

108. A medical emergency

Is a good time to have the conversation. Many of my workmates in the restaurant biz are out of a job, and they don’t have health insurance. Some hospitals are already at risk of going under due to no money coming in from elective surgeries. We need universal health care, and MFA is the simplest way to transition, from several complicated options, at this point. I think Biden is smart and sees this, and I think that’s why he might pick Warren for VP.

[Happy Hoosier]

103. A public option would fix this too.

M4A is one approach. Not the only one.

[ismnotwasm]

105. Universal Healthcare is the goal.

The reason why covid hotspots are becoming overwhelmed is because we literally do not have the infrastructure or personal in place for every single person in America.

Medicare for All, is a slogan. It doesn’t address infrastructure in any reasonable way, not does it address drug manufacturing and regulation, just drug costs, in the proposals I’ve read.

Medicare is notorious for hospital under-reimbursement.

The situation is complex. It needs a complex, multi-pronged approach. Not a slogan

[Hortensis]

106. Incredibly BETTER than the defunded, then repealed MfA.

To pretend that the Republicans don't exist, even as they're determined to dismantle and have declared unconstitutional ALL progressive government programs, is every bit as bizarre in its way as ANYTHING they say.

And FAR more potentially self destructive.

Are you aware that, thanks to the efforts of Sanders hostiles added to all the others, the Republicans, who all polls for two years should have lost huge in 2016, instead very strangely won both houses of congress and the presidency? And that we're in much more danger even than then, with two MORE archconservative political agents on SCOTUS?

And that trying to pass at least most of MfA and implement over 8 years or so, while dismantling the ACA, would be an extended period of extreme danger to BOTH?

But you can string a coherent sentence together, so my guess is that you actually do know all that perfectly well, AND that all the bad actors of 2016 are working very hard to repeat that disaster in 2020.

And here you are, seemingly totally unaware that we're not actually in the best possible position under the circumstances, all thanks to the Democratic Party and its voters, and no thanks -- in spite of -- all those who tried to sabotage the blessedly tough and excellent ACA, AND workplace insurance. Disappointment can be a bitch, and we intend to see they have a lifetime dose of it.

[DenverJared]

111. It is highly unethical to use a once in a lifetime world-wide crisis

to score political points. It is shameful.