So M4A is a vote loser. What about Obamacare?

[wellst0nev0ter]

Didn't that factor into the Dems losing the House in 2010, then the Senate in 2012?

But we passed that legislation because it was the right thing to do. Now let's keep doing the right thing until everyone living in this country has (not "has access to" ) high quality healthcare that is NOT overpriced.

[George II]

1. The Affordable Care Act (aka the right wing "Obamacare") is nothing like "Medicare for All".

[Gothmog]

88. The affordable care act was a winning issue in the 2018 midterms

Link to tweet

[emmaverybo]

2. We can not afford to lose to Trump over a healthcare plan that most likely will never become

policy and if it does, years down the road. Yes, Obamacare cost politically. Candidates without a mandate might think twice about costing us the election. Shore up what we have, address other urgent issues, and get in power. First.

[George II]

3. It's as simple as that. Thanks!

[Thekaspervote]

7. Yes... it is as simple as that! Not sure why some are so unwilling to admit this

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. Like I said before

We lost to trump by defending the status quo, at least on health care.

It's time to actually take a stand on things.

[dflprincess]

64. Thank you.

The problem with the ACA is that it only gave improved access to health insurance but did not guarantee access to healthcare.

[treestar]

95. If you have access to paying for healthcare, how is that different

from access to healthcare?

[dflprincess]

98. Insurance does not equal care

especially if the insurance has a high deductible that you have to come up with before your "coverage" covers anything.

[treestar]

106. It is a way to pay for it

Obviously a high deductible makes it only for a huge emergency/very bad illness.

I have ACA and I have a lot of preventative type care and it's only $10 to go the doctor and the medications are under $10 each. Maybe I'd like it less for a real hospitalization, but I think the deductible is 1K, and it was 5k before the ACA and I had to pay the full price of every doctor visits/test/medication.

[dsc]

96. that is a flat out lie

Millions of people got access to health care through that act. Many through Medicaid expansion (and about as many were denied that by GOP states not the ACA), others got it through eliminating pre existing conditions and life time caps, and still others got it via insurance bought on the market place. It is nothing short of a bald faced lie to say that people weren't given access to health care by that act.

[dflprincess]

97. And millions got access to insurance policies with deductibles that are so high they still can't

afford to access care.

In 2019 the "bronze" plans have an average deductible of $5,900 for a single and the average max out of pocket is $7,000. The premiums might be affordable, but that's nearly $6,000 the individual has to pay before insurance puts in a dime.

[AlexSFCA]

102. that's only the case in state with no medicaid expansion

The law needs to be improved to mandate those on a federal level and adding public option to control costs. MFA may ultimately be the final destination but we are a decade aways from it or so. ACA was incredible in expanding access, pre-existing conditions and keeping kids under parents plan till 26 were game changers that only genius of Obama could pass. MFA DESTROYS ACA! It goes against the single most significant democratic legislative achievement in decades and obliterates it.
We will now be facing rw judicial system for a long time before we ever reach SC that’s also far right. GOP firewalled themselves from democratic policies regardless who wins the WH or even senate. It’s OK to dream but it’s better to focus on winning instead of dreaming.

[George II]

74. That's not why at all, and most people here know it.

[Demsrule86]

84. That is completely untrue...we lost because some on the left refused to vote for Hillary and

voted for Stein (Greens and others) for Trump (how could they?) or stayed home. some who say their on our side helped give Trump the election...still waiting for Sarandon's revolution.

[Demsrule86]

104. That is untrue... the fact is we can't get elected running on this...and we won't pass it even we

get elected...our chances are between probably never and never. My youngest daughter would be dead today without the ACA...my oldest daughter would not have had her ankle operated on and would either be in a wheelchair or walk with a limp for the rest of her life. The ACA did some good...gave insurance to those who didn't have it...the only reason everyone isn't covered is that GOP states refused to expand medicaid...and have screwed with medicaid too..that can be fixed with a public option...and we won't lose 20...People like the ACA...it is the reason we won in red states this year and last year, why we have the legislature in Virginia. And I think we can do better than a nearly one hundred year old plan...it seems to me this is of the past....let's make a plan for the 21st century.

[wellst0nev0ter]

108. Democrats didn't get elected on the ACA at first

Because back then, they didn't know how to defend a bill that you said "did some good."

Now the same thing is being repeated with ACA, except people are still repeating the same false talking points. You don't get to keep your private insurance? How about you get to keep your hospital, and EVERY hospital that's outside your BS network?

Also, you get to save money that you'd otherwise give to greedy private insurers who line their pockets.

This concept is not complicated, except for those with a vested interest in making the issue complicated.

[Gore1FL]

5. We can't afford to lose to him by not standing with our values, either.

in 2007 at this time it was too risky to have a black Candidate.

It was more recently it was too dangerous to support LGBTQ rights.

Just two months ago, impeachment was too dangerous to support.

[The Valley Below]

13. Having a Public Option added to the ACA reflects this liberal Democrat's values perfectly

It is a better path forward IMO and one that we can run on and win.

For what it's worth I was an early supporter of Barak Obama as well.

I'm voting my values in 2020 (as always)!

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. We lost to Trump after promising to maintain the status quo

Learned helplessness is NOT a winning strategy.

[emmaverybo]

29. The election was stolen. Had nothing to do with so-called status quo. Hilary Clinton was more

qualified for the presidency than either progressive candidates currently running. Furthermore, her plans were popular. Thus she won the popular vote.

[wellst0nev0ter]

34. If the popular vote meant anything, Hillary would be in office

Acknowledge the fact that defending the status quo lost us the last election.

[emmaverybo]

44. I don't know what status quo you refer to. Hilary Clinton offered many sound and progressive

plans. Status quo did not attack our elections.

[sheshe2]

114. What status quo?

Please explain. Otherwise it is just a buzz word.

[George II]

75. I've asked dozens of times of those who decry the "status quo" - what IS the "status quo"? No reply.

[NurseJackie]

81. No surprises there.

[Hav]

32. Trump won because of an undemocratic election system

Millions more voted for the Dem despite all the other shit going on against Hillary. And sure, Hillary's platform was "Nothing new. Just maintain the status quo".

[wellst0nev0ter]

35. Yep, that should tell you that the status quo is broken

including a health care system where an insulin worth $2 in production cost is sold for $400.

[emmaverybo]

57. Other candidates want to bring down drug costs. Doing that is not dependent upon M4All.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. I don't understand why every "Democrat" doesn't think like this.

[Blue_true]

4. Recent election results show that the ACA is a winner.

We need to taylor our political messaging around that reality.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. If we pass policy based on what is an election winner

We would never pass ACA in the first place.

[Blue_true]

23. To pass any policy at all, we have to win.

If we don't win, we get nothing. The ACA and improving it proved to be a winner in 2018 and last week, we need to keep pushing that, get into office and then look higher.

[blm]

77. 2018 issues included Med4All, gun control, income inequality

Even when Obama campaigned for 2018 candidates he touted those as good Dem ideas.

They are winning issues, and don’t let current wave of fear tell you they are losers.

[Blue_true]

78. MFA was not part of the 2018/2019 democratic candidates' message in the states.

Improving and expanding healthcare coverage was. To conflate those two as being the same is somewhat disengenuous, as is implying that President Obama campaigned in favor of a scheme like MFA. He did campaign for expansion of the ACA, a path which Biden and all except two of the democratic presidential candidates are campaigning on.

[Gothmog]

89. The midterm elections were, to an important extent, a referendum on the Affordable Care Act

Link to tweet

[ritapria]

6. WE have to push for MFA immediately

She wants to wait until Year 3 to do that ……………...The Republicans are going to gain seats in the 2022 midterms ...

[George II]

8. Pssst....2020 isn't the "midterms"!

[NurseJackie]

82. That's all I need to know.

[ehrnst]

100. IKR?

[Cha]

9. ACA is a WINNER NOW.. Haven't you heard?!

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. ACA was a loser then, remember?

If we took your advice, it would never be passed.

[Cha]

14. We're talking about NOW.

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. We're talking about kicking a can down the road

because you're afraid of trumpanzees.

[George II]

76. If Americans took your advice and voted against the "status quo", Obama wouldn't have been reelected

[The Valley Below]

15. Not true, since most of us supported the ACA. And still do BTW.

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. Remember the public option?

Moderates didn't like it then, now apparently they do. What changed?

[The Valley Below]

20. Moderates? Who's that?

Liberal Democrats like Barack Obama (and myself) favored the Public Option then. He could not get the votes to get the ACA passed with it.

Sometimes changes come in stages. The ACA has earned the backing of the American people. Now we take the next logical step.

See how real change happens?

[wellst0nev0ter]

24. The ACA was and is still an imperfect policy

And everyone will agree on that point, and everyone will agree that it needs to be strengthened.

We tried the stepwise tactic before. It got us Trump.

[The Valley Below]

28. We all know what got us Trump.

[emmaverybo]

30. I did not hear any proposals from M4All supporters to strengthen Obamacare, protect and expand

Medicare and Medicaid. Biden asked what people were to do until M4All could be implemented—silence.

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. Didn't Warren already address that?

Unfortunately, her detractors said she was "backing down."

[Cha]

18. I know right.. big Difference.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. You only support it now because it's now popular

Back then, it was an actual election loser. But it was passed anyway because people thought it was the right thing to do, damn the polls.

Maybe we should keep doing what's right and keep demonstrating that these kinds of policies are good for people, instead of capitulating to trumpanzees.

[Cha]

25. Don't tell me what I do.. you have no idea what you're talking about.

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. You calculate based on whatever polls better

That is already established.

[Cha]

39. No it is NOT "well established".. you really don't know what

you're talking about.

[wellst0nev0ter]

45. This is you literally two days ago

Agreeing that M4A is a loser based on how candidates performed in an election.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287346107#post26

If you were around in 2010, I would bet my house you would be making the exact same argument versus Obamacare.

[Cha]

54. It was a LOSER.. so WHAT? It's still a LOSER.. I want to WIN.. I want Biden's plan shoring up

ACA.. and say goodbye to your house.

[wellst0nev0ter]

58. So you are on record saying Obamacare was a loser?

Yet you support it now, with flair?

Thanks for playing.

[Cha]

60. You need to figure out your own problems

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. What's stopping you from opposing M4A now

Then supporting it 10 years down the road, but stronger?

Why not do it now and get it over with, instead of wasting more money on a failed system?

[The Valley Below]

26. LOL. Why are you gaslighting people who know what they believe in far better than you do?

Gimme a break!

[Cha]

40. Thank You! Good question.. Why the hell why?

[wellst0nev0ter]

51. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Nobody has to answer loaded questions, friend.

[Cha]

56. You're just being ridiculous with that question.

the poster asked a good question.

[wellst0nev0ter]

59. A hostile, invidious question

is not a good question.

[Cha]

61. It was dead on.

[wellst0nev0ter]

63. So everytime people throw out "gaslighting"

The question is "dead on"?

Gotcha.

[emmaverybo]

31. Damn the polls is our election slogan for 2020? How reckless.

[wellst0nev0ter]

38. You move the polls, not follow them.

[JoeOtterbein]

19. K n R

Thanks for posting!

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. It had to be said

[The Valley Below]

27. It really didn't. You are just insulting liberal Democrats loyalists.

Needlessly.

[wellst0nev0ter]

42. Nope, just pushing back against defeatist rhetoric against M4A

[The Valley Below]

43. Not "defeatist" in any measure. I strongly support a different path forward.

87% of Americans are against making private insurance illegal.

You seem like the one embracing defeatism.

I'm embracing progress. That what liberal progressives do.

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. You've just embraced a scare tactic

You say Americans don't want to lose private insurance, yet you ignore how private insurance is behind most of our problems.

Though I'm willing to compromise and have private insurance be a Cadillac supplement to M4A. How's that?

[The Valley Below]

52. More gaslighting? Get off it!

I think the ACA with a Public Option is a MUCH BETTER PLAN!

Got it?

Nothing scary about it.

Running on a bad plan like the MFA would be political suicide in my estimation, and I'm in no mood to lose, you?

[wellst0nev0ter]

55. You're the one making excuses

The same excuses we've heard during the Obamacare fight.

People don't like it, it polls badly, it's an election loser. It's this, it's that.

Really wish we would argue on the merits instead of how pollsters view it.

[The Valley Below]

65. No excuses. What is your problem. Like the vast majority I prefer a Public Option.

Got it?

You are backing a plan the majority of people don't like.

I wanted a Public Option under Obama (and so did he). I still want one.

You aren't arguing "merits," but are instead casting aspersions on Democratic loyalists. Seriously uncool.

[betsuni]

33. A form of the ACA had already been successfully established in Massachusetts.

It was popular and it worked. It was only a few Senators who refused to vote for the ACA with a public option. M4A has never been successful in a state. The attempt in Vermont failed. Different. Republicans did all they could to lie and frighten people into freaking out about the ACA. Over the eight years of Obama's term, they made sure polarization, partisanship and racism increased a great deal.

But the ACA has shown people that government involvement in health care isn't scary, no death panels. Because of its success, people are much more open to the next step, public option. When they see that isn't scary they'll be ready for the next step after that. It's like anything else. A few states legalize same sex marriage or marijuana or the $15 minimum wage and everybody sees that the world didn't end, it was fine.

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. Look at all the other countries with single payer

So don't tell me it doesn't work. Of course single payer didn't work in Vermont because it still had to deal with a system that charges $400 for insulin. The taxpayer funds to cover the atrocious, indefensible prices were a dealbreaker.

Single-purchase power changes the whole equilibrium.

[betsuni]

46. I said in Vermont it didn't work.

How to get the right plan to make universal health care work in the U.S. is the goal. This plan doesn't exist yet, but it will in future.

[wellst0nev0ter]

47. And I told you why it didn't work in Vermont

Vermont is a single state, you are comparing an apple to oranges.

[betsuni]

48. But didn't Romneycare have to also deal with $400 insulin and high prices?

Yet it was and is successful.

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. Once again, apples to oranges

And there were still hundreds of thousands of uninsured and underinsured people in Massachusetts. I'm not debating this with you.

[Recursion]

94. There are almost none. Really just Canada

Pretty much everybody else uses a multipayer public-private system.

[Celerity]

115. there are other nations that have single payer, and also ones with devolved single payer models

Taiwan and South Korea have national single payer systems

then there are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare

Regions with 'Beveridge Model' systems

Nordic countries

The Nordic countries are sometimes considered to have single-payer health care services, as opposed to single-payer national health care insurance like Taiwan or Canada. This is a form of the 'Beveridge Model' of health care systems that features public health providers in addition to public health insurance.

The term 'Scandinavian model' or 'Nordic model' of health care systems has a few common features: largely public providers, limited private health coverage, and regionally-run, devolved systems with limited involvement from the central government. Due to this third characteristic, they can also be argued to be single-payer only on a regional level, or to be multi-payer systems, as opposed to the nationally run health coverage found in Taiwan and South Korea.¨


United Kingdom

As in Scandinavia, healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, meaning England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales each has its own system of private and publicly funded healthcare, generally referred to as the National Health Service (NHS). With largely public or government owned providers, this also fits into the 'Beveridge Model' of health care systems, sometimes considered to be single-payer, although unlike Scandinavia, there is a more significant role for both private coverage and providers. Each country's having different policies and priorities has resulted in a variety of differences existing between the systems.[30][31] That said, each country provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of use, being paid for from general taxation.

In addition, each also has a private sector which is considerably smaller than its public equivalent, with provision of private healthcare acquired by means of private health insurance, funded as part of an employer funded healthcare scheme or paid directly by the customer, though provision can be restricted for those with conditions such as AIDS/HIV.[32][33]

The individual systems are:

England: National Health Service
Northern Ireland: Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland (HSCNI)
Scotland: NHS Scotland
Wales: NHS Wales

In England, funding from general taxation is channeled through NHS England, which is responsible for commissioning mainly specialist services and primary care, and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which manage 60% of the budget and are responsible for commissioning health services for their local populations. These commissioning bodies do not provide services themselves directly, but procure these from NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts, as well as private, voluntary, and social enterprise sector providers.


Regions with hybrid single-payer/private insurance systems

Australia

Healthcare in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. Medicare is the publicly funded universal health care venture in Australia. It was instituted in 1984 and coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 2% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance.

As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications. The Minister for Health administers national health policy, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states.

Spain

Building upon less structured foundations, in 1963 the existence of a single-payer healthcare system in Spain was established by the Spanish government. The system was sustained by contributions from workers, and covered them and their dependants.

The universality of the system was established later in 1986. At the same time, management of public healthcare was delegated to the different autonomous communities in the country. While previously this was not the case, in 1997 it was established that public authorities can delegate management of publicly funded healthcare to private companies.

Additionally, in parallel to the single-payer healthcare system there are private insurers, which provide coverage for some private doctors and hospitals. Employers will sometimes offer private health insurance as a benefit, with 14.8% of the Spanish population being covered under private health insurance in 2013. In 2000, the Spanish healthcare system was rated by the World Health Organization as the 7th best in the world.

snip

[Recursion]

117. Why does that map show healthcare in France as being "free"? It isn't.

Public insurance covers 70% of costs and the rest people pay out of pocket or through private insurance. But France does have a single transparent charge master for all medical treatments, which is what we need in the US more than anything else.

It's also ludicrous to call the Netherlands', Switzerland's, and Germany's systems "free". And that's just four Western European countries I happen to have lived in. But in all four countries it requires money to get treatment, and people do delay or forego treatments for financial reasons (just nowhere near as often as in the US).

[OnDoutside]

66. Taking away someone's private healthcare plan will see Donald Trump

Back into office for the next four years, but at least you'll sleep easy at night knowing you took the gamble ?

Fixing Obamacare, adding a public option and lower prescription drugs would be a great vote winner, without handing Trump everyone's future as a Democratic nation.

[JCMach1]

67. Only if they fix the loopholes so people don't have to take

Crappy employer sponsored plans

[Algernon Moncrieff]

68. NFIB types didn't like the ACA mandate, and a lot of people were hacked off they actually had to pay

I met several that thought the whole thing would come out of existing taxes. I met others that wanted their cheapo $150 a month "insurance" that really didn't cover much back.

M4A will have similar issues because lots of people don't understand that Medicare is complex; will likely have coverage gaps; and will likely see many of us buying the equivalent of Part B supplement plans. But, anything that provides baseline coverage for all is a plus, and my opinion is that Medicare buy-in for adults 50+ is a no-brainer.

[loyalsister]

79. And

Some people find that the fine is more affordable. I heard a couple of guys who worked in a restaurant talking about it at the bus stop recently. Between child support, health care, and working just under full time they were really struggling. It occurred to me that the money they spend on healthcare might be better spent on child support or the time spent working to pay for it might be better spent on quality time with the kid if they wanted. Families deserve better.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

105. ..and and

ACA v. M4A v. Something Else is one debate, and we need to have it. But the increasingly bigger debate over how to cover affordable LTC.

How do we get long term care for mom and dad - at home? In a facility?? What if they have ALZ? How do we get these folks the supportive care they need and not break banks or bankrupt a generation?

[loyalsister]

107. No kidding

States like mine that did not expand Mediciad are seeing rural hospitals close. The deep flaws of the cautious approach have been disastrous to some. I had high hopes for the ACA, and I tend to think we surrendered the debate and went for the moderate policy way too early in the process.

[still_one]

69. This is for those who seem NOT to understand about how the ACA passed, and and the FACT that we

DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS A PUBLIC OPTION OR MEDICARE FOR ALL, but instead prefer to setup their strawman arguments

In 2008 and 2009 we didn't have the votes to pass a public option or Medicare for All
There was Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, Evan Bayh in Indiana, and I believe Mark Pryor.

Contrary to what some like to project, we didn't have the votes, and there was NOT ONE republican who was willing to vote for any healthcare package with the Democrats, let alone one with a public option or Medicare for all

Here are the facts:

"Here is how much control we had in 2008-2009:

"Obama had control of the House from 2009-2011, but guess what, legislation does NOT become law without the Senate

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Total control of the Senate requires 60 votes.

In January 2009, Democrats had 57 seats, with Sanders and Liberman caucusing with the Democrats for 59 votes.

That 59 included both Kennedy and Franken. Franken was not officially seated until July 2009, and Kennedy had a seizure in January 2009, and never returned to the Senate to vote, so the actual number was 55 plus two independents which makes 57.

It was during that time that President Obama was able to pass a stimulus package, but only because 3 republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage

In April 2009, Specter became a Democrat, Kennedy was still at home too ill, and Franken was still not seated in April. In May 2009, Byrd got sick, and didn't return to the Senate until July 2, 2009, and Democrats still had only 59 votes Kennedy's seat was temporarily filled by Kirk, but not until Sept, 2009


It was then that Democrats had at least potentially 60 votes in the Senate, and it lasted all of 4 months, from Sept 24, 2009 through Feb. 4, 2010, at which point Scott Brown, a republican was sworn in to replace Kennedy

The only thing the Democrats had control of for two years was the House, and for only 4 months did we have total control of congress, and it was during that small time frame that the ACA was passed"

vhttps://www.ohio.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

Within that four month time frame could President Obama have included a public option in the ACA, or Medicare for ALL?

Not likely. People seem to conveniently forget that there were blue dog Democrats
who made it very clear they would not vote for a public option or Medicare for All. They were Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, and I believe Mark Pryor. Contrary to what some like to project, we didn't have the votes, and there was NOT ONE republican who was willing to vote for any healthcare package with the Democrats, let alone one with a public option or Medicare for all

For those who think trashing the ACA, which was landmark legislation on healthcare, is good "political strategy", should perhaps put things in perspective

[Skidmore]

80. kicking because this is

important. Please make it an OP on its own and I will happily rec and kick it again. Too many false flags and strawmen now. ACA was a very heavy lift and voted on many, many times.

[Cha]

92. Thank you for the Big Reality Check, still_one! The OP Needs to READ

this!

[still_one]

93. and the votes for M4A won't be there in 2020 either. Also the OPs assertion that it was because of

the ACA was why we lost the midterms is nonsense.

The main reason is because there were two different types of voters between the presidential election and midterms. The voters in the presidential elections is also more diverse than midterms, and the turnout of Democrats not turning out to vote was the reason. The OP also has conveniently ignored the redistricting that occurred to the republican advantage

The midterms of 2018, and the special elections in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Louisiana indicates that past pattern is changing, where Democrats are turning out to vote in those off Presidential elections

That is the reason, not the ACA scapegoat the OP wants to use as an excuse

[wellst0nev0ter]

110. Judging by your logic

We still won't have the votes to pass the public option anyways since the Dems have no way to take a supermajority of the Senate in 2020.

So basically you are telling us to stick with the status quo because our politics are broken? Listen to yourself.

[still_one]

111. No that isn't what I am saying, but perhaps if those self-identified progressives who refused to

vote for the Democratic nominee in the 2016 GE instead of Jill Stein or not voting we would be much closer than we are now

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and thoseDemocrats were progressive by any standard

In those swing states the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%. In those states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote

47% of those eligible to vote in the 2016 GE didn’t bother to vote

Elections have consequences

[PhoenixDem]

70. I prefer to not waste electrons on unworkable fantasies

that will never see the POTUS's desk for a signature.

[BeyondGeography]

73. Like the public option?

That will be fought every bit as hard as M4A, don’t you know. The health care industrial complex hates all of our candidates' plans with a passion and they are geared up to smear as much FUD on the public option as on MFA:

CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans: Biden's healthcare plan is not much different from MFA

The CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans said a healthcare plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden is not much different than "Medicare for All," which the industry strongly opposes, according to The Hill.

In an interview with The Hill, AHIP CEO Matt Eyles spoke out against Mr. Biden's healthcare plan, which aims to strengthen the ACA while also introducing a public health insurance option. Mr. Eyles said the public option, which would be similar to Medicare, would lead to too much government involvement in the healthcare system.

"If you're creating a government-run option that essentially leverages price controls, and relies on a government-administered system, that doesn't create what would be a competitive playing field," Mr. Eyles told the publication. "We're viewing Medicare for All and all of these other … variations on it, as similarly bad."

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/ahip-comes-out-against-biden-s-healthcare-plan.html

AHIP is a member of Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, which has been running ads against Medicare for All and public option proposals from the leading Democratic presidential candidates. They want to keep things just as they are.

https://americashealthcarefuture.org/about-us/

[EmInColorado]

71. We MUST FIGHt for M4A!

Anything less is a no go.
Insurance companies don't need to exist and I am sick & tired of people fighting for the status quo when 10s of 1000s are die annually. It's completely a privilege & selfish take. There's so many right wing talking points being spread around about M4A and you can't help wonder why that is especially when people's given candidate choice generally have a loooooong and documented history of ties to both big pharma and big healthcare.

People need to read the replies to this tweet, and there are over 3,000 of them explaining why we need M4A. A public option will NOT fix the out of network boondoggle nor will it solve the high cost of rX and healthcare.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[myohmy2]

72. absolutely...

...we hire our politicians to lift some heavy weight and to carry our water...politics is not some classroom academic game or some social club popularity contest...

...our politicians must be capable believers in our desires and future, willing to sell and work hard, or else they're wasting our time, money and energy...and capable politicians WILL be able thread the needle, get the job done, survive and prosper...

...the number one thing wrong with our healthcare system today is that it costs too damn much...by dabbling around with the ACA we do little or nothing to contain cost...

...until we can deny private insurers and healthcare providers access to the American people through payment, I don't see how we'll ever be able to solve or contain the cost problem...

...and I don't give a shit about some incapable cowardly career politician who only wants to keep their powder dry to cover their ass for a life-long gravy job...

...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...

[Demsrule86]

83. It caused us to lose the house in large part because of the sob sob...we didn't get a public option

folks in our own party...imagine if we had had Bill Clinton's back in 94 and Obama's back in 2010...we would live in a different world. Also the situation was different. Many people had no insurance, pre-existing conditions were discriminated against...and little to no well care even for those with insurance...that is not the case today. We have the ACA to build on so there is no reason to try and force an unpopular program through congress. We don't need to insure everyone...just those who need insurance and let's fix Medicare and the ACA while we area at...having dealt with Medicare for my sis in law (too young for it) shows me it is not that great and the boomers who are retiring without pensions will not be able to afford it.

[Kahuna7]

86. Yep. nt

[Kahuna7]

85. So we should risk losing seats, with someone like trump and his gop henchmen

in charge? I shudder.

[Gothmog]

87. Public Approval Of Obamacare Hits Record High Ahead Of 2018 Midterms

In the real world, the Affordable Care Act is popular https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/public-approval-of-obamacare-hits-record-high-ahead-of-2018-midterms

A new tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds the highest ever public approval rating for the Affordable Care Act since the organization began asking the question in 2010. According to the survey, 54 percent of the public view the embattled law favorably, while 42 percent hold an unfavorable view. The major shift in public approval for the ACA since Trump took office and set about chipping away at the law has mostly been driven by independents, 55 percent of whom currently approve of Obamacare.

[AncientGeezer]

90. 1 Major reason..ACA didn't threaten to boot 150m off their current plans

Many millions that like their plans.

[Fiendish Thingy]

101. As no votes have been cast yet, none have been lost

All we have now is people's fear and projection and...polls.

We will see what wins and loses votes, but not yet.

It is often not the issue itself that loses votes, but the propaganda on the issue that raises fear that loses votes.

We will soon see how courageous both our leaders and voters are.

[ehrnst]

103. Actually, the 2018 midterms were won on preserving and restoring the ACA.

So there's that.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18065500/midterm-elections-results-2018-house-democrats-health-care

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/05/obamacare-democrats-midterms-elections

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/us/politics/health-care-democrats-congress.html


You're welcome - especially considering that no one is required to answer a loaded question..

[wellst0nev0ter]

109. I was talking about 2010

And how people now against M4A would be against ACA because it loses elections.

Stick to the script, please?

[ehrnst]

113. 2018 election victories because of the ACA are more recent than 2010.

I suppose it piques you that I brought up the 2018 election mandate to preserve the ACA, because it refutes your claims that the ACA is an "election loser," for Democrats.

I'm drawing from facts and history, however inconvenient, not some 'script' you've developed to support your bias.

Does your 'script' also leave out the scene where Obama won re-election in 2012? It seems to have stopped completely at 2010.

[boomer_wv]

112. It took a supermajority

to pass ACA.

M4A isn't happening unless you can show me how to flip 13 seats.

[Celerity]

116. the same can be said for the Public Option

I do think that the filibuster rule MIGHT be tossed in regards to that IF we can retake the Senate in either 2020 or 2022. That remains to be seen, but to be honest, even if we have a majority, there are potentially enough Democratic Senators who might not even vote for the full Public Option to possibly kill it off.

Unless it is a less expansive version of what many people assume the Public Option will be, I would put forward Manchin, Sinema, Carper, Coons, Hickenlooper (assuming he wins), and Stabenow (she just wants to lower the Medicare buy-in age to 55 or 50), King, and maybe some of the other new ones as the main Senators who might present problems.

In the House there are many who will not support it either, how many is anyone's guess, but I would say it might be as high as 30, 40 or even 50, but we need to see how big our majority is post-2020.