Medicare for All Loses Momentum Among Democrats

[comradebillyboy]

https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/01/medicare-for-all-loses-momentum-among-democrats/

Wall Street Journal: “Now, enthusiasm for the proposal is waning as supporters face pointed questions over how it would work—and how it would be paid for. As a result, more candidates are backing intermediate measures, including optional buy-ins to government-run coverage that are likely more attainable in the short term.”

“Net support for a single-payer health system among all registered voters … fell from about 30% in November 2018 to 12% in February.”

[brooklynite]

1. Campaigning on a mandate is bad strategy

A Medicare buy-in option is a far better next step

[Vinca]

2. The concept needs to be described. Would you rather pay a $5,000 increase in your taxes or

$10,000 for insurance premiums and another $5,000 for deductibles and co-pays?

[stopbush]

5. Medicare patients currently pay a monthly premium of $135.

A Medicare opt-in for a family of four would cost them $540 a month ($6480 a year) in premiums at the current rate. That’s for basic Medicare, which does NOT include coverage for prescription drugs, etc. Many Medicare patients purchase additional insurance through private insurers to have more-comprehensive coverage than Medicare now supplies. The same would be true for a family of four.

As far as any increase in taxes, the current payroll deduction paid by 100% of employees raises enough $ to support the 19% of Americans - mostly seniors - currently on Medicare. If, say, 50% of Americans opted in to Medicare, payroll taxes would need to rise at least 250% for 100% of workers to cover the expenses of the program based on current levels. One imagines that would not sit well with people who elected not to opt in.

[forthemiddle]

18. That also does not include hospitalization

People forget that $135.00 per person, per month is Part B outpatient coverage only. Who knows what Part A will cost. At this time it also does not include ANY pregnancy, childbirth, or pediatric care.

[still_one]

27. and it doesn't include supplemental

[Hoyt]

32. And that $135 is only 30% of the projected cost for Part B services. I think people underestimate

what the premium would be with a buyin to Medicare. It should be better than private insurer premiums and, over longterm, lead to a better system. But it will not be nearly as cheap as people want.

[MichMan]

20. They also pre paid for 40 years before retiring

To think people from day 1 would be covered for the same $135 per month is not realistic.

[Nanjeanne]

3. I call BS on that. The American people haven't lost momentum for it.

[lagomorph777]

7. +1 Story wants to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nice try, Big Insurance.

[gratuitous]

8. Yeah, I'm not sure the Wall Street Journal is my go-to for liberal proposals

Affordable health care is a very popular idea.

[uponit7771]

12. +1, it said "net support" meaning it still has net support ... more details more better

[JackInGreen]

4. HorseHockey

No momentum has been lost, theres simply a full government to take care of too. Jeez, have a hearing and 'whoop, guess you went serious'...

[DontBooVote]

6. I'll see your horse hockey and raise you a "Bull Hockey!" I agree with you...

No momentum has been lost. Indeed, Democrats have unveiled several proposals in response to this and healthcare and insurance companies are taking it very seriously as they ramp up their anti-Medicare For All campaign and lobbying efforts. And momentum is only growing amongst The People for this popular idea.

[Hoyt]

9. When Sherrod Brown says it won't work now, it probably won't work now.

[redstatebluegirl]

10. I think it is going to take some education.

Any healthcare policy is so complicated most American's can't understand it and it can't be reduced to a 30 second commercial except where the GOP calls it "Socialism" to scare the hell out of the uneducated electorate. We have such a short attention span these days it will be hard to show the uneducated and short attention span voter the benefits of this type of policy.

We have to do it at some point or people are going to be dying in larger numbers than they are now for lack of healthcare. Bankruptcy will be rampant, even more than it is now and it is already pretty bad.

I don't know what the answer is when the GOP uses social and religious issues to divert attention from the things that really matter to most Americans.

[BluegrassDem]

11. We could barely get Obamacare through, how do we expect to sell Medicare for All?

Americans are conservative about health care changes. Clinton lost the House in 1994 and Obama lost it in 2010 because of it. And Republicans lost the House in 2018.

Health care laws should be done incrementally. You can't pass a bill stating that everyone who has insurance through their job will lose it and will go to a government system. Even though I wouldn't mind it, most people will flip out. And the attack ads and commercials will be relentless. The Medicare buy in is more practical and unlikely to cause a big blowback. I don't know why our Dems are falling over themselves to endorse such a radical change. History should be a guide.

[uponit7771]

13. This is a good point, we should push for MFA and if we get the Pub Op we're still good.

[Doremus]

15. Interesting reply. What are the differences between a Medicare buy in and MFA?

Genuinely curious.

[Blue_true]

30. Age.

Medicare buyin let people over a certain age, say 55 years old buy into Medicare as they would buy health insurance. It also allows people with no Social Security or Medicare credits to buy in if they are over that age (55).

Medicare for All basically replaced health insurance for everyone, regardless of age with Medicare, allowing any adult to buy into Medicare.

An idea situation would be to get Medicare Buyin working and over time gravitate to Medicare for All as cost and savings and coverage synergies are realized.

[ooky]

22. Exactly. If we believe in health care as a right, we need to focus on the best way to get there and

specifically how. "Medicare for All" sounds flashy, but without details it scares a lot of voters, and raises unrealistic expectations in other voters. I don't see why we don't just focus first on our PLATFORM of "affordable health care for all" and then set our first priorities on those who currently don't have access to affordable health care, like the chronically ill who still can't afford their treatments and medications, and/or anyone who's medical expenses are exceeding a certain percentage of their overall income. Let those who need it now buy into it now, or approve them for Medicaid, or something. I think that would be a great first step. Those who have good health care on company plans don't need to be included right away and that might help hold down the costs, plus make people less uneasy about the changes that are coming. And using the word "choice" in all our proposals and speeches would be a big help in alleviating fear in voters.

[Doremus]

14. Once again the pukes create the narrative.

Support for (any progressive program) is down, WAAAAAY down.....

Yeah, they wish.

[theophilus]

16. Plans need to be solidified, especially for means of paying, That said I

believe that a "Medicare for those who want is" buy in should be arranged. This would put people in over time and incentives could be provided to encourage younger folks, etc. The fact that it would not be tied to jobs would be a winner for many as long as the benefits were anywhere near comparable. Go for it, Dems!

[theophilus]

17. WSJ?? Hmmmmmm? n/t

[Poiuyt]

19. If it is losing momentum, it's because Republicans are controlling the narrative

Why the hell are Democrats so bad at messaging? Medicare For All should be a no-brainer.

[stopbush]

23. How do you pay for MFA? It's a serious question that sits at the heart of the issue.

[Poiuyt]

24. You'd pay for it with the same money that you are currently using to pay for insurance

Everyone who has health insurance is paying for it either directly or indirectly in the form of lower take home pay. Put that money towards MFA and it should mean more spending money for the average American.

I'll have to admit, I haven't studied the details of the various plans. I'm guessing that smarter people than I have worked out these procedures. The important point to remember is that it should save the average American several thousand dollars a year. I'd sure like Congress to take a serious look at it before pushing it aside.

[MichMan]

25. Even those who are self employed ?

What says that other employers are going to raise wages by the same amount they were paying for health care?

[Poiuyt]

26. People who are self employed pay for their own insurance directly

As for companies no longer needing to provide a health care benefit, you're right. They could very well not pass on all the savings to the employee. But then your beef should be with the employer and not the MFA program.

[stopbush]

28. Lots of people have employer-provided insurance where the employer pays the entire premium.

I have had that myself, so if you were to have asked me at that time what I "currently pay for insurance," the answer would be nothing.

And, yes, smarter people have worked out the costs, and they are nothing to shake a stick at. The idea that the average family is going to save thousands of dollars a year is not born out in some non-partisan studies. More likely, the average American could well be paying close to 40% of their income in Medicare and FICA taxes were we to adopt MFA. We will be in line with what taxes are in Europe to support these programs. Let's be honest about that and make the case for it, rather than pretending we're all going to get covered for free.

Most people I hear touting MFA are not even aware that each Medicare patient pays a monthly premium of $135 for BASIC coverage - no prescription drug plan, no catastrophic coverage, etc. That all costs extra, right now. A family of four on MFA would pay $540 a month, or $6480 a year for MFS. And again, no coverage for prescription drugs, etc. That would be extra.

[MichMan]

31. The $135 per month is also taking into account people pre pay for 40 yrs

before they are eligible for any coverage

[Snotcicles]

33. Your coverage wasn't free those benefits were negotiated in lieu of wages just like life insurance

vacation time a pension or 401K.

[stopbush]

35. Whatever. A six-figure salary with free health insurance. I'll take the insurance in lieu of higher

pay.

[MichMan]

21. Until people know what premiums will be polls like this are useless

No one has any idea right now

[Snotcicles]

29. Funny how they never mention the residual cost savings with a single payer system. To mention just

a few off the top of my head. If we were all covered under a single payer system the double dipping for medical coverage would end. No need for medical liability coverage on our auto insurance policies because we would already be covered. No need for medical liability coverage on our home owner policies because we would already be covered. No need for medical liability coverage for businesses like slip and fall or workers comp because we would already be covered. And on and on. The savings on the whole would be astronomical. The greedy insurance industry will not give up this cash cow without an all out fight. If people realized just how many times we pay here and there for medical liability coverage for a single event that only one insurer will have to payout for, they would demand single payer. But most people aren't aware of where and when they are already paying for it.

[Liberal In Texas]

34. It's still early. n/t