Sanders: 'Medicare for All' proposal coming after ObamaCare debate

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 07/02/17 09:43 AM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday said he will introduce his "Medicare for All" proposal after the Senate completes its debate on ObamaCare.

“We are going to introduce it literally as soon as we’re through with this debate. I don’t want to confuse the two issues,” Sanders told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Sanders’s statement comes as the GOP works on its legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Sanders has long argued in favor of a Medicare for All plan, which was included in his platform during his 2016 run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sanders said lawmakers in the short term should lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/340419-sanders-medicare-for-all-proposal-coming-after-obamacare-debate

[OKNancy]

1. Lowering to 55 good first move - Medicare is not Free!!

Poor people can't afford Medicare either.
In order to get "free" services, I pay $267.00 per month for A,B,D and a supplemental.
I do have the "Cadillac" supplement i.e., pay more but no co-pays or other charges.

FWIW, Although it is a good dream to have, as with all his proposals, they will never happen in this environment.
I realize a lot of people here hate pragmatism, but slow and steady wins the race.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. This is a part of "slow and steady" though

Ideas deemed "radical" by whatever powers that be at any given time only begin the migration toward becoming accepted "common sense" when leading voices start to take up and promote them. It has always been that way. The early calls mostly go unheeded, that is the norm, but they break the blockade of silence defined and imposed by pragmatic collective wisdom. The race is never won before it is started.

[femmedem]

80. Exactly! I thougth the Fight for $15 was pie in the sky until more people started talking it up.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that my liberal but not radical parents say that they support it.

[ehrnst]

82. Yeah, "common sense" never gets us anywhere. It's just corrupt!! All of it!

[turbinetree]

5. I agree whole heartly

I am also on Medicare and I love it, because all those years I paid into the system. My Part D, I pay $33.00 for my health insurance prescription coverage and $130.00 a month. I do not have supplemental health insurance to cover my health care needs on Medicare, I will not give any money to a for profit plan, but I do with Part D, which I think is wrong, at one time it was covered in Medicare at 100%.

I personally think that it should go down to 45 years of age, and then have a Medicare for all in ten years after this were to pass

[OKNancy]

6. FWIW, my supplement is with USAA which is non-profit

instead of paying stockholders, any profits are divided amongst the members.

[turbinetree]

9. Wado-------------Thank you

[pangaia]

8. I also have a "supplemental' plan that covers most of that 20%

not covered by Medicare. BUT, it is with Excellus-BlueCross/BlueShield of Western NY which is a not-for-profit company .
We also have the option of another non-profit MVP.. Pretty lucky.

But, may I recommend, or suggest you reconsider the idea of not wanting to pay a for-profit company, with which I can sympathize. If/when something really serious happens, you MAY regret not having the extra coverage.

It saved my a gazillion 5 years ago when I had lymphoma..
Of course you need to do what you feel is best.

[turbinetree]

10. Wado-------------Thank you

[sweetapogee]

18. I agree

For 25 years I paid monthly premium payments for a commercial disability insurance policy. There were times when my partner and I could not go out for dinner or see a show because we had spent money on an insurance policy.

Then one day I was injured and unable to work for months and quickly found out that state disability will not cover you totally if you have mortgage expenses and other liabilities. So yes people made money off my premium payments but I still own my house and car because I made those payments.

I guess it all comes down to priorities. Unless we decide as a nation to fully fund our health care at taxpayer expense instead of the workers expense as currently configured then there will always be some who place other priorities above a possible health care crisis that may or may not happen. The beauty of single payer is that unless you are totally dependent on some entity, your health care "insurance" is pre-paid, like it or not.

So as unpalatable as it seems supplemental insurance through for profit providers can at times be beneficial. I have a whole life insurance policy that is fully paid and has cash value if I decide to cash it in. But I understand that others might see things differently and I'm not trying to sell anything.

[pangaia]

19. Well said.

I have friends all over the world and I think every single country they live in has some sort of 'universal/single payer' insurance. Each with its strengths and weaknesses of course. Not sure about Romania, I forget.

Many of them complain about 'high taxes', and not just for health insurance.

BUT, what they get for it is worth every penny...none of them I know would ever trade their health insurance systems for ours.

I mean, the trains work in Germany !!!!!!!!!
The ALLEGRO from Helsinki to St Petersburg gets you there very nicely.
Shinkansen!
Sunways and trains in South Korea...
Education systems.....

Roads in Norway are just first rate...(so is the salmon, BTW)

[sweetapogee]

24. it may be that

they wouldn't trade their health insurance system for ours but I'm sure they would love to have our health care system. But getting back to the topic at hand, I run volunteer Fire and EMS and I can tell you from many years of experience that even when insurance premiums are very low, as an example renters insurance, many don't give it a thought until we are using a halligan bar to open their door. It is on reflection, amazing how many times we respond to a dwelling fire where the homeowner has no mortgage and no insurance. It will not be any different for any expansion of medicare. Those on medicare are paying premiums to be on it and more if they want expanded coverage. I think we are in need of a way to make everyone, with few exceptions, a taxpayer.

[pangaia]

31. ".....but I'm sure they would love to have our health care system. "

You're sure about that, huh?

Other than that I am not sure of your point..
Universal healthcare/Single payer.. everybody pays and has insurance.

[sweetapogee]

33. ok

there are slight differences of opinions on some things but overall I think we are in the same basic camp. But still we are only going to get what we pay for more or less.

[greymattermom]

38. Look at life expectancy

and infant mortality rates to judge the healthcare system.

[Voltaire2]

51. Ah yes Pragmatic Democrats have lost the House

the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, 35 state legislatures. But wait, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel! We just need to stay the course.

[yurbud]

76. the size of your premium could be shrunk if we restructured the tax part.

[forgotmylogin]

2. Good strategy.

If this polls well against AHCA, it makes them look *hideously* stupid by choosing a less popular option.

[kristopher]

16. I'd love to see the CBO score it. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. When Medicare was pegged to a retirement age of 65

many working Americans were either enjoying their best earning years just before retirement, based on accumulated seniority and raises, or they had worker provided pensions about to kick in. They were given gold watches at 65, not pink slips at 52. Workers in their 50's were saving money and had employer provided health insurance. All of that has changed. People in their 50's now are most likely to get laid off and least likely to be newly hired. They have no pensions, they have no Social Security, and they have little if any savings. But Trumpcare will dramatically raise insurance premiums for this age group.

Offering Medicare at 55 is the least this country can do in the face of this demographic economic time bomb.

[crosinski]

7. If we lower the age to 55, then we must limit or eliminate Part C Advantage Plans

Because they're sold by private companies and they are NOT Medicare. They cherry pick healthy seniors, by offering zero addtional cost plans with very limited networks, and so throw the cost of covering more unhealthy seniors onto original Medicare. It's one of the ways that republicans have picked away at Medicare making it less workable, and siphoning off money from senior's Social Security money into their friend's greedy pockets at the same time. Advantage Plans have been a real win-win for Repugs.

[Kolesar]

25. They cherry pick healthy seniors, by offering zero additional cost plans with very limited networks

That had not occurred to me! If you need treatment close by, you have to stay in normal Medicare. If you are healthy, you never know that you might have to drive far to get tests or treatment.

My mother was told to go to a test two counties away. She does not even drive. She picked Medicare Advantage because US Steel dumped her supplemental plan after she paid into it for twenty years.

[crosinski]

30. Yes, it's outrageously confusing! The online sources are all set up to fool you, and they do.

We thought we were smart, but it turns out we're not. The only reason I ended up with regular Medicare is because I was too exhausted trying to figure it out before the deadline and just went with the easiest choice! It turned out to be the best decision. By the time it was my husband's turn, we truly did realize that regular Medicare is the best deal.

My husband did buy a Medigap policy that helps cover the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. Everyone is eligible to buy this coverage very inexpensively when they turn 65.

I know, I know, it's very confusing. Here's the short version:

Medicare Part A - Medicare Hospital Insurance
Medicare Part B - Medicare Medical Insurance

Medicare - Part C - Medicare Advantage Plans - Not Medicare - Private for profit insurance plans - They offer '0$ Payment' plans (Not counting what is already deducted from SS for Medicare) but you have to stay "in-network.' These networks are usually quite small.

Medicare Supplement Plan or Medigap Insurance - Legitimate insurance - covers the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. You have once chance to buy it inexpensively when you turn 65. Shop around, you can find it for vastly different prices.

[Kolesar]

45. "once chance to buy Medigap inexpensively when you turn 65"

There are about ten different classifications of conforming Medigap policies.
I would buy the cheapest one at age 65, and then switch to more expensive ones if my health care required more therapy or doctor visits. I don't know if upgrading is permitted! I better look into it.

Great job on the summary. There is also Medicare Part D for Drugs. Bush got all the credit for "helping" seniors, but put did not fund it, so it came out of general reciepts. President Obama had the courage to actually establish a funding scheme for Medicare Part D in the ACA. The prickly critics of ACA look right past that accomplishment. The stupidest ones just say "we can repeal Obamacare". You knew that.

[Sunlei]

37. private for profit insurance Corp does that today-cherry pick healthy people off healthcare.gov.

They've done this for about past 4 years, blue cross, humana and the other 2 large ones.

The same insurance Corps who 'pulled off' the exchange to make it look like the exchange has no plans...offer insurance plans online in searches and TV ads.

Those same big 4 insurance Corps did the alpha and the beta set-up for the exchanges. Took them a year they were paid millions.

Remember the healthcare.gov and state exchanges were still a mess on roll out day and additional IT had to be hired to fix it.

[Kolesar]

44. I don't know if the people who buy a "nonexchange" policy can get the federal subsidy...

...that is a fully refundable tax credit when doing ones' taxes every spring.
Details, details

[Sunlei]

46. some of the search and TV ads say "you may qualify for the government subsidy" The sales person

probably creates a healthcare.gov account for them if the person qualifies by income for federal ACA subsidy.

All I do is go directly to my account on healthcare.gov because they'll help consumers pick a plan, I can pay the insurance corp. through the website. healthcare.gov sends me reminder when its time to re-enroll, they remind me when premium payment is due, they let me know Blue Cross has received my payment. All local Doctors and clinics are listed there and updated.

Healthcare.gov makes it very easy to create an account, enter expected yearly income and zipcode. Then shop plans without any insurance policy 'sales person' trying to sell a plan they get a bonus on.

Those 4? major insurance Corps should be REQUIRED to list any online search & TV ad insurance plans offered to 'general public' ON healthcare.gov

[Kolesar]

48. I played around on Healthcare.gov to figure what to do for my sister in law

Who was being forced off her job and getting a "workers comp" payout. I have some familiarity with it.
Thanks for the information.

[Sunlei]

49. I play around with different incomes & zip codes to see whats offered for different states. :P

You're very welcome. Good Journey to your sister.

[Demsrule86]

55. You can't...that would doom those who are 55 to having to pay 20%

of an entire bill...why even bother? Before my sis-in-law had surgery, we had to pay the full 20%, the doctor demanded it...hip replacement surgery...she is my husband's older sister and had broken her hip...she would have been left there with no surgery without us paying..it cost thousands.

[area51]

11. To the Greatest with you. n/t

[murielm99]

12. This is unrealistic.

First of all, it will not pass.

We need to work with the ACA, expand it and improve it. Look at how Canada developed their health care for a workable North American model. We should not throw out a beginning that has proven effective for many people.

This looks to me like a liberal version of repeal and replace. Sanders is grandstanding.

[NastyRiffraff]

14. Definitely grandstanding

He SAYS he doesn't want to confuse things, but that's exactly what he's doing. Single payer WILL NOT PASS now. Sure, I'd like single payer too, but I'd rather work for something that has a chance of actually passing. Work to improve the ACA and go from there.

[NurseJackie]

23. You're correct. It's not at all realistic, and it will not pass.

This type of grandstanding puts the ACA at risk.

[Kolesar]

27. Unfortunately, with Sanders' personality, this will go nowhere

It will turn into a punchline for late night TV or Hannity.

[NurseJackie]

34. +1

[Cha]

29. Of course he is.. Mahalo for your

workable approach, Muriel.

[brer cat]

32. I agree, muriel.

The main problem I have with his grandstanding is that many young people hang on every word and then their hopes are dashed, making them cynical about the entire system. If we take the framework that President Obama and the Democrats gave us with ACA, expand it and improve it we can make it work for everyone. One step at a time.

[Sunlei]

36. Do both, ACA remains & medicaid "insurance" can be added to the policies offered.

People in their 50s can pay a premium for medicaid 'insurance' on a bell curve based on their income.

ACA must remain as base regulations for ALL insurance Corporations and medicaid 'insurance'.

[harun]

50. Being irrational is an important part of getting what you want.

Ask any boss, two year old, salesman or negotiator.

One will never get what they want being "realistic".

[Voltaire2]

52. "It will not pass" and "we need to improve the ACA"

you really ought to rethink your argument against Medicare for all if your alternative has exactly the same problem.

[Demsrule86]

56. completely useless.

[Honeycombe8]

13. It's a gamble, for future elections.

But might as well get the ball rolling. Could be that most of the country is ready to start seriously considering this, now that we've had years of a nightmare experience, both with the reform act and with Republicans repeatedly "repealing" it, then creating a replacement that takes away health care, ad nauseum.

I know that I would welcome a Medicare for all plan and be done with the mess. And hell, yes...raise taxes, on EVERYONE. Rich and poor alike.

[Demsrule86]

57. That ball won't be rolling for years and years. You would have to have a real 60 vote majority

as it would not work under reconciliation rules. The Health insurance companies would fight it tooth and nail...it is not going to happen. If Sen. Sanders wanted to do something useful both in term of policy and the mid-term elections, he would strengthen the ACA.

[Honeycombe8]

59. I don't see any taste for real fixes to the ACA.

There hasn't been an acknowledgement yet by the Democratic Party leaders of the problems with it. I've reported my big problems with it for years....not once has any Democratic person acknowledged these problems. In fact, I've been repeatedly accused of lying. I even had a post removed in DU for using Republican memes, when I reported by problems with it. Many just don't understand or believe the issues with it, despite millions of people reporting it.

So, it can't be fixed by the current crop of Dem politicians, I think. It has to start first with a simple acknowledgement of the problems. I could do a post right now delineating the problems, and my post would be removed.

Unless you actually have been buying insurance in the individual market and experiencing the myriad problems, like I have, it's hard to empathize or even grasp the extent of the problems. If I hadn't experienced them, I might not believe it, too. It's hard to believe.

[Demsrule86]

67. You have fix it...I don't care what Sen Sanders says. I have heard Sen.Schumer talk about it.

I have heard multiple Democrats discuss fixing the ACA. People's lives depend on fixing it and so does ever getting single payer so spare me the BS. It can and must be fixed... many have this idea that they will get single payer if the ACA fails...we will get nothing and the GOP is tricking some gullible Democrats.... thousands will die if the ACA goes down. I have bought insurance in the market place in Ohio...so I say baloney...and those are GOP talking points. I hate to see Democrats spouting such nonsense. Forget about single payer. It won't happen. I should add that I have employer insurance that I pay a fortune for and it has an 8000 deductible...doesn't pay anything until we reach 6000 and then another 2000. My daughter's policy was much better...through the ACA.

[Honeycombe8]

75. I've heard Schumer say something.

But nothing specific. He says, generally, "We need to fix the ACA." But he doesn't say what he thinks is broken or what needs fixing. It sounds more like he's just stating what the country now knows & what the Republicans won, at least partly, on. I hope he means it, though.

You may have had Obamacare, but most people have not, and most don't realize what's wrong with it...how bad it has gotten for some people. (I prefer to think they don't realize that, rather than they realize it, but just don't care.)

I mention this because this is NECESSARY to win in 2018 and 2020. Many people voted for Trump because of the "I'll repeal Obamacare on Day One." To underestimate that or to think it was only Repubs who fell for that is to stick head in sand.

Your daughter's policy was better, you say. Everyone knows someone who got something "better" through the ACA. Let me guess: She's YOUNG, so her premiums were INEXPENSIVE...and she didn't really care much about coverage because she's YOUNG. She also lived someplace where there were doctors that ACCEPTED her insurance plan. If so, she probably was able to afford a BETTER PLAN than most (I got the bottom plan....accepted by NO ONE that I could find in 2016).

Your daughter also got FREE BIRTH CONTROL. I, OTOH, couldn't get my hormones covered. They were so expensive that I had to stop them altogether (I had a high deductible so would've had to pay 100% out of pocket for them.)

Your daughter also got a SUBSIDY, or she could easily afford the inexpensive premium? Did it cross your mind who was making up the difference in the inexpensive cost of her premium?

You see....it really takes people who know the ins and outs of Obamacare (the individual plans) to really know what it was and what the issues were. It was great for SOME people, but harmful to OTHER PEOPLE.

Many working class people had coverage, technically, but didn't really have it, because they couldn't afford the $6,000 deductible. So the ins. plans for those people turned out to be money giveaways to the insurance companies, since those people were covered by subsidies.

And so on and so forth. There were many issues besides these. I'd like to see some headway in fixing some of these issues. The GOP plan, despite what they say, does NOT do that.

It's complicated. It's hard for someone who's not intimately familiar with the individual market to understand how it worked in reality and what the issues are... for ALL people, and not just one person they know. I hope Schumer is serious that he'll study the plans and talk to people and try to fix some of these issues.

[George II]

15. It might have received more exposure if it was introduced BEFORE the republicans' plan.

This will either just get lost in the shuffle or be totally ignored in the Senate.

[LiberalLovinLug]

17. About eight years before

[Voltaire2]

61. Both the House and Senate versions are introduced every session of congress for the

last ten years or so.

[George II]

79. Not six months into the session and after the republican version is about to go to the Senate floor.

[andym]

20. Medicare to 55 was stopped by Lieberman when Democrats had 60 Senators

Chance of passage is nil. Perhaps it's to make people aware of the possibility.

[Kolesar]

26. Sherrod Brown pointed that out...eom

[Demsrule86]

58. Sure, and it gives the GOP something to run against.

[MineralMan]

21. Well, that would be a good token effort to encourage the conversation.

Of course, it would have no chance to be enacted. So, if Senator Sanders wants to introduce it, he's more than welcome to so do. We need to have that conversation.

[Bradical79]

22. Agreed

I think we could use some grandstanding on the issue.

[Not Ruth]

28. Run it through CBO

Let's get some solid numbers

[Sunlei]

35. This is what was proposed 8 years ago. Lower age to 50 & people pay premiums on an income

based bell curve.

Americans need NON-profit single payer 'insurance' and medicare & medicade are already working programs.

WE ALSO NEED TO USE ALL THE MILITARY BASES-POST OFFICES & BUILDINGS OUR GOVERNMENT CLOSING AS PUBLIC HOSPITALS/ MEDICAL CARE CLINICS.

Stop selling them to wealthy people for pennies on the dollar!

[haele]

39. Hope it includes dependents care or a "household" plan.

Or some way of covering a larger number of non-working dependents other than the traditional "spousal coverage" that is currently granted along with Social Security benefits for people with spouses that did not have the work experience for benefits on their own. I'm pretty sure SSDI with Medicare has a provision, but I don't know how Social Security and Medicare handle that.
There's also a lot of coverage gaps in Medicare that have to be closed up, unless part of the selling point will be the supplemental insurance for people who "want a bit more" beyond some form of basic Medicare for All that will be paid for through taxes.
Another concern in chronic health issues/disability.
Those situations can't be a "want a bit more" supplemental insurance situation without some form of household income/cost-bearing based subsidy, otherwise, we end up back to the days when the health insurance middleman still controls the life & bankruptcy or death in pain or neglect decisions for families who can't afford treatment for themselves or their loved ones.

As the sole breadwinner in my family - a going on 60 grandparent with guardianship of a 5 year old along with a disabled spouse and a dependent adult child still on my health care - it's something I have to be concerned about.
I'm somewhat lucky enough that in two years, I can get us all on Tricare (until the Kidlet turns 26 - but at least I can still cover my grand-daughter).
But as the sole breadwinner, if I lost my employer-provided health care and ability to get on Tricare, can I still afford to take care of my household with Medicare for all - will it include coverage for the two/three dependents who have no income to pay the taxes that fund their health care coverage?
That's a big strain on the system as it is currently set up, even if the taxes are doubled. And the Supplemental Insurance people can make mint if the Medigaps aren't properly addressed.

Haele

[yurbud]

40. those three words would make the health insurance debate very brief & only have one outcome

which is why so few in Washington will say it out loud.

[Foamfollower]

41. It was a good idea the first time I heard it!

[Madam45for2923]

42. Yep!

[murielm99]

70. This can't be said enough.

This is Hillary's plan, Hillary's idea, no matter who tries to hijack it.

[nikibatts]

43. Wasn't that almost exactly what HRC proposed? Plus opening up the Fed Health Ins. to the public?

[Sunlei]

47. basically BOTH Clinton & Sanders want Americans to have quality insurance AND quality health care.

Totally different personalities- but they both have Americans best interests at heart

[Voltaire2]

53. Clinton proposed Medicare for all?

When was that?

[Demsrule86]

54. That is just...a waste of time in a GOP controlled congress and is sure to be described

as socialism and used against us in the mid-terms.

[Voltaire2]

62. no it isn't. It provides a clear alternative to the right wing agenda.

If we as a party are just going to run on "not as bad as the other guys" we are going to continue to lose.

[Demsrule86]

65. No it doesn't. People like the ACA...they understand it...the GOP can demonize single payer.

Also, you should not promise what you can't do...we have no prayer of passing single payer in the near future...a few fixes to the ACA would make more sense.

[Voltaire2]

66. I see. That must explain why we've only lost the House, the Senate, the Presidency, 35 legislatures.

I guess it would be far worse if we were proposing a simple to understand universal healthcare system based on an existing and overwhelmingly popular program.

People don't necessarily like the ACA, what they don't want is to have something worse replace it.

[Demsrule86]

69. Gerrymander and the failure of those who whine to vote in midterms...are the reasons we lost the

House and Senate. We should have the house right now. And your idea would lead to endless loses as in the 70's and 80's...country is center left not left. I say this with great sadness.

[Voltaire2]

73. amazing.

Defeat after defeat after defeat and rather than change the message, blame the voters.

[brooklynite]

60. A health care proposal that won't pass, followed by a health care proposal that won't pass...

If Sanders is serious AND is the "leader" his supporters claim he is, he should stop with symbolic legislation and actually build a coalition before-hand.

[Voltaire2]

63. He's doing both, and both are routinely attacked here. Coalition building requires a clear platform

to build a coalition around.

[R B Garr]

64. Unless there is a discussion of cost, it is just grandstanding.

That's what was done in California. The single payer plan submitted was really just a statement of values with no discussion of cost. It was left to the elected Democrat to bring up the cost factor, and then he was excoriated. That's more of a ploy than it is building a coalition. It just makes the Democratic official look bad, almost on purpose, which does not build coalitions.

[Voltaire2]

68. There was a lot of discussion of cost for the CA plan.

But this isn't about the CA bill.

The House and Senate progressive caucus plans for medicare for all have detailed plans for funding. This aspect has been extensively discussed and unless you are quite wealthy or have a very unusual employer based program or somehow think that we should ignore out of pocket and premium costs, your costs for health care will go down significantly. The options at the federal level are not dependent, as the CA bill was, on the future of the ACA or the good will of the executive branch.

[R B Garr]

71. You are basically describing Hillary Clinton's plan, which had a lot of

discussion.

California's single player funding proposals fell far short of the funding necessary. It was basically submitted as a values statement.

[Voltaire2]

72. No, Clinton still has not proposed a universal single payer "medicare for all" plan.

Sanders and the House Progressive Caucus have, and have been introducing detailed legislative proposals every session of congress for the last ten years or so.

[R B Garr]

74. You mean John Conyers' (Democrat-MI) bill....

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/cosponsors

[Arazi]

77. Good! Excellent news eom

[yurbud]

78. yep. And when pols say they are worried about the cost, they mean

it will cost them a cushy high-paying job as an insurance lobbyist if they vote for single payer.

[Casprings]

81. We should do UBI, not this...

Not to be a negative nelly, but UBI would be a better path forward. The ACA is fixable and it is easy to do. Up the tax for not having insurance, increase the subsidies to buy insurance, and create a medicaid buy in program for 55 to 64. Done.

However, if you go down the path of threatening what many in the middle and the upper middle class are happy with, employer provided health care, it will be the ACA fight all over again. Not worth it right now.