The False Argument Against Medicare For All

[berni_mccoy]

I noticed something that was forced on the candidates last night, and it was instigated by Lester Holt. The question was would you abolish all private insurance for a Medicare For All program. This question is not valid and I wish all of the candidates who support Medicare for All would have spoken up on this point. Medicare allows for supplemental private insurance. Most of the proposals for Medicare For All simply relieve the age restriction, so saying you are going to eliminate private insurance by going with Medicare For All is a completely false argument.

I suspect it will come up again tonight, and I know Sanders is prepared to answer this way as I've heard him answer this same false question before.

[bluewater]

1. K&R

[DrToast]

2. Sanders wants to get rid of private insurance

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, late Tuesday reiterated his call for the elimination of private health insurance companies and moving to a single-payer, "Medicare for all" system of health care.

"You're damn right," Sanders wrote in a tweet in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) Research tweet pointing out that he called for eliminating private health insurance during an interview earlier in the day.

In that MSNBC interview, Sanders said the "current system is incredibly dysfunctional and wasteful" and said universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies."

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-damn-right-health-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated

[berni_mccoy]

3. As primary providers yes. He's said before that private insurance exists

as supplemental, even in other countries with Universal Health Care systems.

[DrToast]

8. Private insurance does exist in Medicare and it does exist in other Universal Health Care Systems

But it's not a requirement of Medicare. And, yes, there are several candidates that want to eliminate all private insurers.

It's perfectly valid to ask the candidates if they support doing that.

[lapfog_1]

4. We don't know

the vast majority of private insurance comes from employers... most people (myself included) who have gone with private insurance not from an employer can't really afford much (even if it is supplemental insurance). So the real issue is... once we provide "Medicare for All", what will employers do to subsidize supplemental insurance for those that want it?

We don't know the answer to that.

Some companies will do it to keep top talent... but for the vast majority of employees... probably not.

And that greatly reduces the pool of workers that get this additional insurance... likely driving the cost up dramatically.

All of which leads me to believe that for most large employers, such insurance will only be offered to executives... but I could be wrong... unions may continue to offer their own additional insurance, for example.

But the real answer is "we just don't know what will happen"

[berni_mccoy]

5. Whatever employers would do to subsidize supplemental plans

would be a hell of a lot less expensive for both employers and employees.

[lapfog_1]

10. an assertion made with no evidence

would companies even offer "replaceable" workers any supplemental insurance?

What would the insurance cover? Would it cover (for example) doctors and hospitals that don't accept any Medicare patients at all? Private rooms if you are hospitalized?

I would see it at the beginning as covering "gold plated" medical care, and thus, it would be very expensive and only offered to executives.

There might be a less expensive plan for workers that covers quicker access to see a doctor (a priority line at the doctors office) relegating Medicare only patients to much longer wait times.

All depends on how companies feel about attracting workers with these sorts of plans... in a tight labor market, maybe they would... but I think most companies would welcome dumping their employees into Medicare only. Saving them tons of money and trouble administrating those plans.

[question everything]

6. No. The fallacy is that it is presented as healthcare for all

In the line of the ACA.

Medicare is insurance program and, yes, it allows for supplemental private insurance but if one does not, one is faced with limited choices. Many health care providers do not accept Medicare patients and, yes, I think it was Delaney who reported that hospitals will not be able to function if private insurance is abolished.

I think that it follows Warren strong anti corporation stand.

As I have stated before: corporations are an important part of the economy. The provide jobs the provide servces.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. Corporations are necessary, yes.

But there’s absolutely no reason for there to be a profit motive in health coverage. It’s just plain wrong, in my opinion. Too many people go bankrupt or have to choose between food or medicine and that’s unacceptable.

There’s a lot of ethical ways to make plenty of money. Profiting off people’s illnesses shouldn’t be one of them.

[Yavin4]

7. Just like College for All won't eliminate private universities like Harvard or Stanford

If folks want to pay for premium, then so be it.

[NewDayOranges]

11. I agree! None of the candidates nor anyone in the Dem party has proposed eliminating private

insurance to my memory.

Point blank: Any Medicare-for-all plan that is properly regulated and tweeked as it is implemented, any Medicare-for-all plan that is crafted without lobbyist/republican interference will greatly reduce the need for private insurance... And THAT is why private insurers are scared shitless of the very idea of Medicare-for-all.

Healthcare providers and others in the healthcare industry see Medicare-for-all as a method of price/cost control and therefore will work with the private insurance industry to UNDERMINE any Medicare-for-all proposals...

[Demsrule86]

12. The question was about keeping workplace insurance. I am against MFA...ACA with price

controls and a public option is better. MFA will not help us win 2020...we may lose because of it.

[frazzled]

13. I think the question is meant to suggest

doing away with comprehensive employer-based insurance that is contracted with private companies. More than half of all Americans have that (158 million), and some of it is very good, and some of it is pretty stinky. Others have private insurance on their own (usually too expensive and/or too restrictive) or through the ACA (which has gotten more expensive and limited because of Republican machinations.)

Look, here's the deal: there's a thousand stories out there in the big city (or should I say, country). Some people love their insurance, some hate it. I can only speak about my story. We have been insured through my husband's employer (we pay about $400 a month through paycheck deductions, they pay the rest). It's with one of the giant insurers, Cigna. We opted after the first few years to switch from the PPO to the HMO version: it was less expensive and covered more; we could keep all the same doctors, just had to get referrals for specialists, etc. from the primary physician. We'd always been quite healthy and never used the insurance for anything big, but you know, we were getting older. Tests and stuff started to pop up on a small scale, and we didn't want to pay the deductibles that came with the PPO (the HMO has none, and covers 100% of hospitalization and tests).

And then, for the first time ever, the big one hit: sudden onset of a very aggressive advanced stage lymphoma for my husband. It was a full year of super-expensive medical care: hospitalizations, multiple biopsies, extended chemo and expensive drugs, CAT and PET scans, major surgery. The insurance paid every single penny without a whimper, and we didn't even have to look at bills. Our only costs were for 20 or so visits to the various specialists ($60 copays) and parking ($11 a crack). Only once, late in the game, did they contact us to ask if we'd be willing to use a cheaper CAT-scan facility than the hospital's. We said we'd prefer to have the consistency of the machines and analysts at the hospital, and they said fine.

We now both qualify for Medicare, and both of us have signed up--but for Part A only. We'd like to defer the Part B until retirement, because that's how much we like the employer-based insurance and its 100% coverage. I doubt we'd come out much cheaper, either, with buying Part B and Drug Coverage and probably a supplemental policy. It might be more. We'll be happy to do it when retirement comes.

Not everyone is so lucky to have a good plan. But there's probably a lot of people of that 158 million who do have plans they're pretty satisfied with and don't want to give up. And, on the opposite end, it's also true that for people who have shitty employer insurance or privately purchased insurance, having the option of buying into Medicare or some public option system would be a great improvement.

Bottom line: not everybody hates their insurance; not everybody loves it. Comparisons with other countries' systems are specious ("false" ), as you might say: neither Canada nor England nor other European countries had a system of employer-based private insurance, or large-scale private insurance at all, when their health-care systems were initiated back in the day. It's not so easy to flip the switch in one fell swoop.

My own feeling is that, if about half of the people currently enrolled in employer-based plans (added to the number of privately insured people) opt to buy into Medicare, that's a damned good start. If it's popular, then maybe even more will choose it. And eventually (in not that long), employer insurance would become too expensive because there wouldn't be enough people enrolled, and it would disappear. Medicare for All would grow naturally, not by a mandate that upends a lot of people's lives.

[Martin Eden]

16. Good Post

I think a good transition plan towards Medicare For ALL (MFA) would be to let people keep their employer-based health insurance if they really wanted it, but everyone would also be offered MFA. Currently, both employer & employee pay for the private health insurance plan. Opting for MFA would entail switching those payments to MFA at slightly discounted price which factors in the lower overhead costs of Medicare (lower administrative costs and no profit margin for shareholders).

[Hoyt]

14. I don't think that is the point. It's whether we can convince people to give up

the commercial insurance their employer provides. Most people, who have employer based insurance, are relatively happy with it, even though their cost sharing goes up annually.

Warren and Sanders, and a few others, are for legislation that will eliminate commercial insurance coverage that most people are satisfied with.

I think people and society will be better off with M4A, but a lot of people don't feel that way.

That's why a Public Option -- where doubters can stay on their current plan until they are convinced, and others can sign up for Medicare -- seems a quicker way to Medicare-for-All/Most if Medicare-for-Anyone-Who-Wants-It proves as good as we think.

[underpants]

15. I did not know that

Thanks

[Honeycombe8]

17. But the Medicare supplemental ins. works WITHIN the Medicare system.

It's not truly independent private insurance. That's why the question "Would you do away with private insurance?" One or two actually said "Yes." I don't recall who. DeBlasio? Warren?