I want Medicare for All, but for this election prefer Biden's plan

[Goodheart]

The way is very clear to me: make a Public Option so attractive that employers will start to drop out of providing healthcare insurance as an employee benefit.... and employees won't really care.

[LonePirate]

1. What exactly is the difference between a public option and Medicare for All? The name?

[Tiggeroshii]

4. Medicare for all is not an option.

"Medicare for all who want it" is. Point being that a public option is optional and Medicare for all is not.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. This right here.

The fact is, of those who are covered in America, nearly 70% like their coverage. That's a significant number and going with a Medicare for All approach would mean that you would have to convince millions of Americans to give up their policies.

I have employer-based health insurance and I actually like it. It's really good coverage and reasonably priced for me.

The public option acts as a bridge between the two. But Medicare For All is a dead-end.

[samnsara]

16. but even with my medicare it only covers partially and i STILL have to rely

..on another source to pick up the gap. Thank gawd i have hubbys employer insurance to pick that up , but..take my parents..they had Medicare AND they purchased AARP supplement. Between those two they had almost all their health care expenses paid. So if we have Medicare for all, isnt that just a basic plan and we STILL have the option of purchasing insurance to cover the rest. Also..unless you're 65 you don't get medicare. Hubby wants to retire..hes 63..but cant because he needs insurance. If we had Medicare for all, retirement could come earlier.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. Sorry to disagree. Any public option would be almost as expensive as all private insurance

Unless it was universally applied and the funds used towards that insurance. Just look at the expected costs of premiums in Washington for the nation's first public option.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. I am confused as to what you're disagreeing with.

I never said it would be less expensive. But you're not going to convince Americans to give up their insurance to buy-into Medicare. It just isn't going to happen. We need to have a viable debate about healthcare and those pushing Medicare for All are not being serious.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. The reason why a public option wont work is that you have to convince people to buy into it

Medicare for all will replace their plans with healthcare that they wont lose given unforseen consequences like losing their job that they depend on for health insurance.

[qazplm135]

34. and medicare for all won't work

because not enough people will end up voting for it.

So....?

[Tiggeroshii]

39. Medicare for all can pass the house right now, most likely.

If we gain the Senate, they too will likely vote for it. And if we have a president who will sign the bill, it will be enacted to law. This will all happen if we have a Democratic candidate willing to run on the issue in the first place, as it is a winning issue.

[qazplm135]

42. really?

So those moderates in the 20 or so seats that were red to blue will vote for it?
I don't think that's remotely locked in.

We aren't on track to gain the senate, but Manchin is going to vote for it? Tester?

I think there are plenty of hurdles that you are way underestimating.

[Tiggeroshii]

43. It is because the voters in those states support it.

They are among the 70%

[qazplm135]

56. 70% support the general idea

when told they would have to give up insurance they like, the level of tax increases required, and after plenty of attacks from the right, that support is not going to be over 50.

We know 70% is also the number of folks who say they are happy with their private insurance.

[Demsrule86]

55. No it can't. There are not enough votes for it...and even with the Senate...we won't have 60 votes..

MFA would be a huge undertaking...not doable right now.

[Tiggeroshii]

58. Only the house.

The Senate doesn't need 60 votes. It will only need a majority now that Mitch changed the rules.

[Demsrule86]

89. That is a bill that will spend huge amounts of money and it can not be done in reconciliation.

This is not ordinary policy and there are not enough votes in the House...moderates ran on the ACA...we should use the ACA to get to universal coverage...starting over is madness...it will never happen...and in case you have not checked...pretty dire in the Senate for 20 and sadly beyond.

[sprinkleeninow]

81. It has been said/formulated that it's too much too soon, a huge undertaking, not

doable right now, where's the actual funding coming from?

I lost my husband's coverage several months ago and gotta get on Part B then supplemental.

Employees that are covered by their employer's plan and are happy with its performance aren't likely anytime soon to give it up.

Just my thoughts.

[Demsrule86]

90. I agree completely. I like our insurance and Medicare would cost us a fortune and we would still be

dealing with insurance companies and paying higher taxes...all Democrats would be tossed out the first midterm and God knows if any health care would survive.

[sprinkleeninow]

105. The dismantling of ACA is depressing, but what can you expect from

destroyers.

We didn't have the need to go the ACA route while husband had employment, but at least it was 'something' as a back-up.

No magic wand can be waved and quickly produce health coverage for every person living in the US. It's complex. I don't think the contenders want to mention the Affordable Cate Act and build on it. It has a sticky wicket connotation.

[Demsrule86]

113. The other candidates are making a rookie mistake in my view...

[sprinkleeninow]

115. It'll all 'pan out'....

[wiley]

82. No, it can't

That's just ridiculous.

[Tiggeroshii]

84. What's ridiculous is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results

More private insurance policies arent going to fix the mess that private insurance created. 70% of people support Medicare for all. Those include states represented by current house members. It is an overwhelmingly popular program and denying that it can succeed as a universal program based on that fact, is a whole new level of ridiculousness.

[wiley]

117. Like Bernie running for President? That's actually the definition of insanity

Nevertheless as Bernie goes down in flames people will realize that Medicare for All might sound good but will be impossible to institute without causing massive harm. You obviously know nothing about the current deficiencies in Medicare, do you? I think Biden's proposed plan is actually more achievable, and will eventually lead to a form of single payor health care that. doesn't disallow private insurance or choice of clinicians through the ACA.

[Tiggeroshii]

118. Classy post...NOT

Also Bernie ran once and won 23 primaries. Some candidates, like Biden,ran twice and won no primaries. Who exactly is it that should not be running?

[wiley]

121. Obama and Biden ran twice and won

I said nothing about whether Biden should or should not run, just that Bernie will definitely lose every primary and possibly every caucus he runs in. Bernie couldn't even win a race outside of Vermont for any elected office. If winning primaries meant anything Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, etc. would have been elected.

[Tiggeroshii]

122. Biden is really good at running for Vice President

Not so much President... He has already lost more than a hundred primaries. Bernie has won 23.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. You just explained why Medicare for All won't work...

Now let's start having a serious debate about healthcare instead of pushing plans that are not going to happen.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. Somehow the US is the only modern industrialized nation that doesnt have a single payer option

Medicare is one of the most popular programs in the US. When people realize that the taxes they will be paying is less than what they are already paying in premiums and fees for private insurance, they will also support it. This will happen when Democrats campaign for it.

[Drunken Irishman]

109. When people realize ... how are you going to get them to realize this?

[Tiggeroshii]

112. By telling them?

The same way we are telling them taxes will increase under m4a

[TexasTowelie]

119. Maybe because the public doesn't believe it

or maybe the public believes that with the lower price comes lower quality of service. If everyone is on M4A, then it means that there re more people in the waiting room and shorter appointments when they actually see the doctor. That point isn't unbelievable when you consider that some people are willing to pay more for personal services such as hair appointments. People want to coddled and also have time to ask their physicians questions instead of being rushed through the drive-through lane.

And for those that suggest we can hire more physicians to tend to patients there is the problem that it takes years for students to go through med school and they are also less likely to enroll in med school if their potential to earn a high income is decreased which is almost a certainty with M4A instead of private insurance. One of my friends who obtained his medical degree wasn't making as much as he expected so he returned to school to become a lawyer because he realized the higher potential income (and he was correct). He also works less hours, has more flexibility in his schedule, lower liability insurance premiums, and less administrative overhead.

[Demsrule86]

57. There are folks who's states did not expand medicaid...we shouldn't do a buy in to

Medicare but a buy in to Medicaid...this helps with low income folks.

[Tiggeroshii]

59. If we are stuck with a buy in, then you are probably right

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2019, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

But eliminating private insurance altogether would get rid of the need for a buy in.

[Voltaire2]

87. It's worse than that.

You would have to convince your employer to buy into it. Most of us have zero choice about our health insurance, it is just whatever our employer offers.

The “public option” is empty rhetoric. It is window dressing around the corrupt effort to retain the private health insurance system and the billions in profits that it generates.

[Politicub]

69. You can disagree, but you would be wrong. The overhead for Medicare is two percent if memory serves.

The overhead for private insurance is much more because fat cat CEOs get obscenely high bonuses.

Using that calculus alone makes it clear that it would be less expensive.

[Tiggeroshii]

75. Creating an option doesnt disconnect that insurance option from the private medical industry

Which keeps costs high. Therefore it needs to be eliminated altogether if we wantto see a substantial decrease in those costs.

[HerbChestnut]

18. Here's the problem with that argument.

70% like their coverage compared to what? Other terrible insurance plans? So many people are distracted by the scare tactics and misinformation surrounding M4A that they don't even know what it would offer.

Single payer (Medicare for all in this case) covers everything except things like unnecessary cosmetic surgery and will likely cost less than what you're paying now, which includes money being taken out of your paycheck by your employer to pay for those benefits. In terms of employer-based health insurance, M4A has two distinct advantages:

1. Not paying for private health insurance frees up money for the employer to pay their employees a higher salary.
2. People won't be glued to their jobs just for the healthcare benefits.

God forbid something were to happen to your employer and you were let go of your job, what then? With M4A you still have health insurance. With employer-based insurance you'd be out of luck.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Here's the problem with your argument...

There's nothing to compare it to and therefore it's inherently going to be more difficult to convince those Americans to get on board with the idea.

It's easy to say Americans just need to be educated on what they could cover but in practice? It's not going to sell. So, you either start small and work up to it or you don't do anything at all because Medicare For All isn't going to happen. It's like me dreaming about what I'd do if I won Publishers Clearing House. So, what's their realistic plan to improve healthcare?

But you just kinda proved why the public option IS the most viable option - it allows for Americans to ease into a public plan without forcing them to do it.

[HerbChestnut]

24. M4A is just single payer healthcare, which is widely used around the world.

So there's plenty to compare it to. For instance, compared to countries that use some type of national healthcare system, the U.S. spends almost twice as much money per capita on healthcare than most of those countries. Meanwhile, the ACA has done nothing to reel in the cost of healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad so many more people have been able to get health insurance even if the plans are garbage (high premiums, copayments, etc), but a proven healthcare system already exists that lowers the cost of healthcare while insuring everybody: Single Payer.

There's two big problems in getting it passed. First, lies and misinformation spread by opponents of single payer. Second, people who, despite understanding what single payer is and generally agreeing it is the best healthcare system, refuse to fight for it, which is letting the lies and misinformation win.

So, if you believe single payer is the best healthcare system out there, do you fight for it or do you roll over to insurance companies and Republicans?

[ooky]

26. You fight for it, but you fight one battle at a time

in a smart way. Right now the battle in front of us is getting Trump out and winning back the Senate and House. If you scare people who already have health care they like with this MFA talk you run an enormous risk of losing the battleground states and the war. We can't afford to lose in 2020 over this issue when we have so many more issues we should be able to run successfully on.

[HerbChestnut]

28. The same arguments were used during the last election before Trump was in office.

If you keep kicking the can down the road nothing will ever get done.

[ooky]

30. We will be able to do more if we control the executive and legislative branches

than if we lose them by campaigning on a change that scares people about their health care.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. If 70% support medicare for all, how would they be afraid of it?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

[ooky]

36. It all depends on how the question is phrased.

My own research tells me that many Americans like it as a concept but are more skeptical
when presented with details and/or lack of details. And, there is an abundance of information available on the internet showing how support for MFA drops very significantly when responders are told it means getting rid of their private, employee based health insurance. I'm not trying to sell you, but I do suggest that people do thorough research on this instead of putting their trust in one side of the debate. There is just too much at stake.

[Tiggeroshii]

37. Right if you push poll people, they dont approve of it as much

But if you ask the question in a straightforward way, ie "do you support medicare for all?" They say yes.

[ooky]

44. But in this case the push poll reveals a lot to be concerned over

because they didn't understand what they were missing in "the straightforward way".

[Tiggeroshii]

47. And having information selectively fed to them also leaves them

A lot not to understand. Like if they support it even though they knew the taxes they were paying were less than the the total premiums and fees they are paying now for higher quality care, it might be different. But only mentioning higher taxes is an egregiously dishonest way to frame the question.

[ooky]

74. Its not tax misinformation I think bothers the voters. Its the fear of losing something they

think they understand for something they don't, and that they are going to be forced off of something that is already working for them personally without being allowed to choose for themselves. They don't trust it. If they had confidence that they were getting a truthful assessment that the increased taxes would be much better than their current cost most of them should be smart enough to compare the difference. But they have been lied to so much they prefer the "bird in the hand approach". That's why only 13% polled only support Medicare for All when they were told it would get rid of employer based insurance plans.

[Tiggeroshii]

77. Tax misinformation creates a fear based on that false information

[Tiggeroshii]

67. People support something that they think is better

50 years of Medicare shows that is likely better and is a trusted program. When presented with selective information, they will be misled. The full story would be to do a poll saying "would you support this even though you would pay higher taxes, but still less than the overall premiums and fees you pay through your current insurance company?" I would like to see the results of that push pull. Obviously both sides would have at it in a campaign for Medicare for all, but I Imagine Medicare for all will win out in a full debate.

[Demsrule86]

63. Only 15 % support it if work place/private insurance goes away. The GOP are already running

commercial on this.

[HerbChestnut]

33. That was part of Hillary's message in 2016. Didn't work out well.

[Tiggeroshii]

29. 70% support medicare for all

I imagine it isnt that scary to those people...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

[Drunken Irishman]

40. I believe in pushing realistic options

Medicare For All is not a serious option. Anyone pushing it obviously isn't interested in truly resolving the healthcare problem.

[Tiggeroshii]

48. It is the most realistic option we have

The unrealistic option is continuing to allow insurance companies to have enormous power over medication costs, premiums, and basic healthcare and somehow assume things will improve (they wont).

[Drunken Irishman]

108. No it's not.

If it's Medicare For All or Bust then we'll go bust because there's no hope of it passing the House.

[Demsrule86]

60. Not true...most countries have a hybrid system. Single payer is the exception not the rule.

[HerbChestnut]

64. Here's a link showing healthcare systems around the world by country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems_by_country

Single payer is very popular.

[Demsrule86]

91. There are other options...it makes no sense to attempt to redo health care...we may end up

with government health insurance or some hybrid system..doesn't matter if is affordable and universal. We are not going to have system like the UK...it just won't happen.

[HerbChestnut]

94. It makes a whole lot of sense to "redo" healthcare.

Our healthcare system is a mess. People who visit the U.S. from countries with some form of national healthcare are dumbfounded by our system. The UK has completely nationalized their healthcare system, which means the government owns and operates hospitals and healthcare providers are government employees. Nobody is advocating for that here. M4A only nationalizes health insurance, which means instead of your premium going to a private company it goes into a public pool instead. That's it. Not hard.

[Demsrule86]

97. It would be far easier to fix it than to start over...do you have any idea how long it took Canada

to get their system in place? It will never happen. We don't have the votes...and won't. Fixing the ACA is our only option.

[HerbChestnut]

98. Yeah that's just a load of crap.

[Demsrule86]

99. It is true actually...but MFA is a losing issue politically...it isn't going to happen.

[HerbChestnut]

100. Remember how Hillary ran on expanding the ACA?

Remember how millions of people stayed home instead of voting for her in the general? You want to talk about a losing political issue, running on "nothing will fundamentally change" is the biggest loser I have heard in a long time.

[Demsrule86]

114. Trump promised to make it better...different election with Trump trying to destroy it...but that was

not the issue...no one thought Trump really would destroy it...it was manufacturing in three states WI, MI and PA. you are trying to equate 16 and now...very different...the only thing that is the same is the states we need to win in...and we need a moderate for that and taking away folks health care even if you plan to replace it with something you believe is better is not a moderate position nor a popular one. Health care is the issue...and already the GOP are using MFA for negative campaigning against Democrats.

[ooky]

5. For one, Medicare for All is not an option.

Medicare for All ends private employer based insurance plans.

[HerbChestnut]

9. Which is great for a couple of reasons.

1. That frees up money for the employer to pay their employees a higher salary.
2. People won't be glued to their jobs just for the healthcare benefits.

[ooky]

15. Agree those could be good reasons, but

MFA really hasn't moved past the concept stage at this point. So people don't know what to expect.

[HerbChestnut]

19. M4A has been introduced as legislation in Congress

It is way past the concept stage.

[ooky]

21. I'm well aware of that but that doesn't mean its past the concept stage.

That bill has lots of unknowns.

[Tiggeroshii]

49. Continuing private insurance has far more unknowns.

Mostly in the realm of individual treatments and whether patients can afford it. That is the real wild card.

[Demsrule86]

70. And has zero chance of passing...total waste of time and politically foolish.

[HerbChestnut]

71. If Trump or Biden get elected, you're right, it has no chance of passing.

[Demsrule86]

93. It won't happen no matter who gets elected...and running on MFA will get Trump reelected.

Already,they are running commercials on this..we could lose the house too.

[HerbChestnut]

95. Good, I'm glad they're running commercials.

It means they know M4A is a threat and they have to lie about it. Hillary ran on "improving" the ACA after saying M4A could never happen. How did that work out?

[Demsrule86]

96. No it means they know it is a losing issue for us...

They are panting for us to run on it...but Biden won't. This one issue will probably help him win the primary and the general.

[Wellstone ruled]

20. Ah nice idea,but

it will never happen. To many years of sitting through Contract Negotiation's to think those Insurance savings will hit the Shop Floor. If it is a Public Company,those dollars will come back as Stock Buy Backs and Bonus's. If it is a Private Company,well,the Family will just buy another Lake home .

And Medicare for all will still cost 136 dollars per person per month with a 20% out of pocket hit for care provided. If this is addressed,then and only then will it fly.

[HerbChestnut]

7. The difference is the number of people enrolled in the program, which is massively important.

Single payer healthcare (aka Medicare for All in this case) means that everyone in a given population is enrolled in the same public insurance pool. This reduces healthcare costs in a number of ways but mostly through economics of scale. More people paying into a pool reduces the overall cost of healthcare for everybody.

The public option is literally a competitor to private health insurance. While its similar to M4A in that people's money is put into a public pool, it won't have close to the same number of people enrolled, which will increase the cost of healthcare relative to actual single payer for those enrolled in the plan.

[Hoyt]

73. More people in an already large risk pool does not necessarily mean lower cost. And, those new

people going into the "Medicare pool" are going to have to pay their actuarily determined costs, plus a bit extra for risk, either through premiums or taxes.

If we ignore roughly 20 million people who do not have insurance now and another 20 million or so too poor to use what the have because of large copays and deductibles, single payer should cost somewhat less than what we have now. I question how much. Go back and look at what Medicare was predicted to cost when first proposed.

But, when you throw in those 40 million uninsured and poor insured and the promises candidates are making that there will be no co-insurance or deductibles like current Medicare, and there would be dental and vision care, it is going to be more expensive than what we have now. And as soon as providers say, no we are not going to take cuts to rates from the already relatively low Medicare rates, it gets worse. Then, how do you think people are going to feel about a mandated program that is subject to political whims?

That said, to get everyone covered, it might be worth all that. But, I feel relatively sure when what people making $50K to $80K a year are going to have to pay for this care is provided, trump will win in a landslide, OR if that comes out early enough, a Democrat who is not pushing mandatory M4A is going to win the nomination and maybe have a chance to beat trump.

I do not believe enough people are ready to give up their employer insurance -- where they pay very little in most cases -- when someone finally has the guts to say exactly what the average Joe/Jane is going to have to pay for M4A in premiums or taxes. It may be the same as being paid in the aggregate now, but most people don't see what the employer pays.

I'm on Medicare and would have loved to have been on it all these years, but I don't think most people see it that way. Heck, lately I have been surprised at the number of people indicating they are concerned that M4A is going to negatively impact their Medicare. I don't really share that concern, especially when Democrats are in office, but I understand why some are concerned.

[HerbChestnut]

79. You also have to consider consolodating all private insurance pools into one public pool.

As for cost, most conservative estimates put the price tag at around $3.2trillion per year, which is less than the $4trillion+ our current healthcare system costs.

[Demsrule86]

50. It is a choice. You don't force anyone on it.

It insures those who need it ...it leads to universal coverage

[LonePirate]

53. It is only a choice in the short time frame.

A public option, if maintained, will out compete private insurance and eventually drive them out of business. The choice is only temporary and I say this as a supporter of MFA.

[zipplewrath]

2. So do the insurance companies

Apparently the insurance companies like his plan better too.

[mobeau69]

3. Pete's idea months ago.

Offer something like Medicare on the exchanges for those who want it. If he's right more and more people will eventually choose it over time.

[elleng]

6. Yes, sounds good.

John Delaney has similar concerns (and thoughts.)

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/11/18220118/2020-presidential-campaign-medicare-for-all-john-delaney

[highplainsdem]

11. And other Democrats' idea, too, before the 2008 election and while the ACA was being debated.

Lots of people have seen it as a necessary transition.

[SouthernProgressive]

8. Agree.

It's a very important step we have to take. Probably the last step before we fight for a universal program. That's only if it is strong enough out of the gate. We need to break the whole concept of health insurance as a part of your compensation package. It's toxic and has set us back. Under a solid public option a shift would occur.

Even calling it an "employee benefit" is so wrong.

[GulfCoast66]

45. Universal healthcare can and often does have an employer component

It does in France, often touted as the best healthcare system in the world and achievable by slowly expanding the ACA. In France the people and employers also choose an insurance company. All with tightly controlled coverage mandates. And all nonprofit!

Read about their system and how they got there. Also the problems facing all European health systems. There is no perfect system but there is a path toward a French like system through the ACA.

[SouthernProgressive]

46. Remove all connections from employment.

That is the direction we have to go.

A single payer system that brings about universal coverage should have nothing to do with employment.

It's unhealthy for employment to be attached to healthcare. We must break that connection.

[GulfCoast66]

52. I respectfully disagree.

Instead we should mandate that all employees have healthcare care. If that were the case part time employment would dry us as it is only done now to prevent payment of healthcare.

I understand you sentiment but I realize the electorate as it is, not as I wish. A majority of voters get their healthcare from their employer and are happy with it. They will not vote for a plan that eliminates that for something New! And Better! Which is why Medicare for all could not pass the House tomorrow. Or in the foreseeable future.

[SouthernProgressive]

76. I don't want them to vote for a plan that will eliminate it.

I want them to vote for a plan with a public option of some sort. That will give them the opportunity to shed it.

"A majority of voters get their healthcare from their employer and are happy with it."

Not one singe person in this country get their healthcare from their employer. It has become so ingrained that the sentence almost sounds accurate when it is a falsehood in every respect.

I agree with you about M4A. It's why you don't see me talk about it much. I even agree with this statement of yours. "Or in the foreseeable future." <- I've always thought foreseeable is one of the strangest looking words.

What I do think is that if we have some form of very healthy and robust public option that there will be a natural transition and changing of mindset. Increased compensation(specially for those on the lower income end), not scared to take a risk and start a possible new dream job, increases in efficiency.

The greatest increase in under-insured Americans over the last couple of years has been from those getting health insurance as compensation through their employer. The cost have companies pulling back on package coverage.

[Demsrule86]

68. I disagree...we need to get business to pay their fair share....breaking the connection would be

very difficult and is not necessary.

[SouthernProgressive]

72. Removing the corporate/health insurance connection is an extremely important part...

in the drive to get them to pay their fair share. It makes no sense to want it to be a part of a compensation package and then to claim it is some kind of "fair share" thing. It's nothing of the sort.

Breaking it won't be difficult at all. Specially if your mindset is actually correct. They will want to be done with it.

It is one hundred percent necessary.

[Demsrule86]

92. I disagree. And it politically a disaster for any party that attempts it.

[ooky]

10. Me too. It makes more sense in a lot of ways.

Most importantly, in terms of electability.

[moonscape]

13. I don't understand why they keep talking

about it. It will be a heavy lift to fix Obamacare much less public option with the Congress we'll have. Medicare for All is a fantasy and yeah, the only way to get there is ease in that direction.

Undo the damage to Obamacare and then work on fixes ... that is the most we can hope for at this point.

[Celerity]

14. I agree, we truly risk losing if our nominee runs on eliminating private

insurance. I too would prefer a system of healthcare and tertiary education that is similar to the Nordic Model, but the electoral map is too skewed (artificially, via decades of RW gerrymandering, voter suppression, and hate media) to put either into play for a long, long time. Even the public option will be extraordinarily hard to pass, even if we win back the WH and the Senate, and hold the House.

[olegramps]

27. I had great insurance from my employer, much better than Medicare.

When I turned 65, however, the company forced the retirees to get Medicare. Since it wasn't covered by a contract, like some union jobs, they were able to do this. While Medicare is great for most, it isn't the best option for many. It is often not discussed but you are liable for 20% until you hit the so-called donut hole. My brother's cancer medicine, Tagresso cost $14,000 dollars a month and since it is a class I drug he is hit with a high copay. There would have to be some significant improvements in Medicare for All before it would be acceptable to everyone.

[highplainsdem]

35. Yes, and lots of doctors have stopped accepting new patients who are on Medicare, too, though

I don't think many of them have dropped patients they already had who are on Medicare.

[olegramps]

62. Talking to my long time doctor, he said more clinics are the only option.

[VarryOn]

110. In my town over the last three or four years...

We've seen a number of urgent care or walk-in clinics open up...five or six of them in a town of about 65,000 people. I've gone to one probably 7 or 8 times. They are open late and on weekends with no appointment required, and I can get in and out fairly quickly. Most times, I've been seen by a nurse practioner rather than a doctor. That's fine with me since I'd only go for sinus infections, allergies, stomach bug and other similar minor acute issues.

Politicians should look into ways to help create the environment where these types of healthcare providers could more easily open and operate. Maybe reduce regulations, create incentives through tax policy, and pass other laws specific to them that help lower their cost to operate. Since they deal with only minor healthcare needs and issues, I would think they could free up GPs and specialists to focus on chronic and more serious medical problems.

[VarryOn]

111. Couple weeks ago, I had to spend about 30 minutes in my GP's waiting room...

I overheard two calls to the receptionist where she told callers they werent currently accepting Medicare patients. I've seen signs in a couple other doctors offices saying they werent taking new ones either.

If we end up with some type of public option along with a private one, we'll could end up with two classes of patients. If the government plans always reimburse at lower rates, patients on private plans will get preference, no doubt. Politicans need to think hard before they go hard on saving costs by imposing reimbursement rates signicantly lower than private insurance companies.

[Demsrule86]

65. The same will happen to me...Medicare sucks unless you are poor enough to get Medicaid...and

the medicine /pharmacy sucks even worse.

[PatrickforO]

32. Yes, that seems to me the most feasible way forward as well,

but we must do more than just add a public option. The provisions the Republicans have weakened need to be fixed, states need to continue with the Medicaid expansions, and the government should be allowed to negotiate prices. In addition, the high deductible 'options' the Republicans have foisted back on us need to be reversed.

[oasis]

51. Symone Sanders from Biden's campaign laid out a beautiful

presentation of Joe's plan in an Al Velshi interview on MSNBC. She answered all of Velshi's questions about anything that would be of concern to subscribers to the plan. Without a moment's hesitation.

I can see nothing about Joe's plan that would be a hard sell to American voters.

[Cha]

86. Really Good to Know, oasis!

And, that Symone was on tv, too.. Thank You!

[oasis]

102. Symone is always prepared. Always.

You are welcome, Cha.

[Cha]

104. And yet, this person

is gleefully trying to smear her.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287202568

Mahalo, oasis!

[oasis]

106. Erin Burnett is one of CNN's shallow, half slick, "Gotcha Hosts".

Thanks for the link. I didn't see that particular interview, but the one I did see with Symone/Velshi, was a thing of beauty. Velshi's somewhat of an expert on economic issues, and his interview came off without a hitch. Burnett, on the other hand, is just a garden variety hack.

Thanks again for the link, Cha.

[Cha]

107. You're welcome, oasis..

Thank you for a more clear picture of what went on.

[Amimnoch]

54. Medicare for all WITH occupational buy in's.

To me the best of all worlds is going Medicare for all, but allowing companies to do employee buy in plans utilizing the same already existing model of plan finders could be a very palatable answer.

Sadly, many people don't realize that they don't HAVE to just take their Medicare as it's provided, but can opt in for coverage plans that most suit their particular needs.. at great savings. For the last 8 years, every November I've been helping my Mother, Mother-in-law, and grandmother each pick plans that best helps them.

My Mother is currently using a Medicare Humana HMO plan that restricts her choice in Doctors, but costs very little out of pocket and adds vision, prescription drugs, but not Dental to her plan.

My mother in law uses a Humana PPO plan that costs more, but allows her to see the Doctor that she really wants, and adds prescription drug plan and a vision plan, but not Dental.

My grandmother uses a Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO plan that costs more than my mothers, but less than my mother in laws, but gives her access to the cardiologist and Oncologist that she prefers. She has a prescription supplemental plan with one of the pharmacies in her area so her plan doesn't include the prescription, or vision or dental supplemental plans.

Anyway, there's no reason a Medicare for all can't expand these options for companies to pool in the money from these plans and get an even better company provided healthcare for their employees to keep that incentive edge!

For example if your company has 500 employees, and currently uses a Blue Cross/Blue Shield employee program where the company pays $600/employee with each employee paying in another $225, they can broker the same pool for $100 (maybe even less) per employee from the company, and $25 for employees and still maintain the same (or even much better) co-pays.

Will let everyone win and get what they want.. and those employed, if they do lose their employee benefit won't be cast out into the cold.

[brewens]

61. I heard Steyer say something close, like a public option working toward phasing out

private insurance.

The catch will be what happens to all the money employers contribute to medical insurance. I'd say make it so an employee can opt to apply that to the public option if they choose. Something like that.

[Politicub]

66. Biden's plan is great. I would be happy with it as a stepping stone to universal single payer.

More than happy, actually. It would keep the ACA strong and the generations-long project of universal healthcare in America moving toward completion.

[sprinkleeninow]

83. 👍

[musicblind]

78. I agree. Medicare for all is the dream.

Medicare for all is what we want and will someday have, but I think we need something like this, an incremental "proof of concept" approach to prove to more skeptical Americans that our ideas are the better ideas.

When people start signing up for the Public Option in mass AND loving it, that will prove our point. It will set a foundation for us to actually achieve the ultimate goal of Medicare For All.

Edit: That being said, I don't like the way Biden framed Medicare For All in the video rolling out his plan. I feel the video, and the party, would have benefitted from better wording. Just mho.

[Progressive83]

80. Agreed Medicare for All who wanted it is a much easier sell

I'd would love to put insurance companies out of business i think country ready to cross that bridge

[area51]

85. Some folks upthread

are concerned about current Medicare needing supplemental insurance; current bills give information that this is comprehensive/expanded Medicare. A bit more detail on M4A, and an article on why a public option won't get us coverage/lower prices.

[Cha]

88. Yes, Biden's plan is preferable.

Thank you!

[Downtown Hound]

101. I'm with you

I want Medicare for All too, but it's become apparent that it's going to be a gradual process. There's simply too much opposition and too many ignorant people in this country to do it all at once. Step by step is the way to make it happen.

[Gothmog]

103. I support Obamacare with Biden's changes

[Go Vols]

116. Obama calls 'Medicare for all' a 'good' idea

Former President Obama on Friday called "Medicare for all" a "good" idea during a speech in Illinois where he launched his midterm campaign efforts for Democrats.

"Democrats aren't just running on good, old ideas like a higher minimum wage. They're running on good, new ideas like Medicare for all," Obama said.

Obama and establishment Democrats rejected the premise of Medicare for all and single-payer health care during his eight years in the White House. But Obama previously supported single-payer when he was a senator from Illinois.

The idea has gained momentum in the party following the insurgent presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/405597-obama-calls-medicare-for-all-a-good-idea

[Hortensis]

120. WHICH MfA, Goodheart? One of the versions that preserves

your individual rights and freedoms or one of those that would give you literally no choice -- and also literally nowhere to turn if the Republicans slashed funding and coverage provisions into the bone? And we know they would whenever they got the power, while they worked to destroy it of course.