Why would anyone want to be tied to their employer in order to get health care?

[Uncle Joe]

What if you get fired, laid off, the company closes or changes insurance providers to something less generous?

Medicare for All gives free agency and releases the people from that uncertainty.

I could understand people liking their doctor, nurse or hospital but for profit "health" insurance, what is the draw?

That industry is a parasite which not only contributes nothing to actual health care but takes away from it.

[guillaumeb]

1. Because people know the concept of employer provided health care?

And most Americans might have no experience of any other system.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Everybody gains experience when they turn 65 virtually everyone turns to Medicare

and Medicare for All is superior to Medicare.

[guillaumeb]

3. There is that.

But many insist that somehow, for some reason, what actually works in nearly every other industrialized democracy cannot possibly work here.

The inverse of American exceptionalism.

[marylandblue]

7. I'm insisting that what works in Switzerland and Germany will work here.

Some people seems to think those nations are irrelevant examples.

[guillaumeb]

8. And what works in Canada will work here.

Some obviously feel that the US is somehow different.

[marylandblue]

11. The German model is a better model for America because they faced the same debate..

They started in the 1890s, but private insurance was already available. People who had didn't want to give it up, so they allowed them to stay on their plans.

My insurance isn't broke, so please don't fix it. I'm happy to pay more taxes to give others healthcare. But don't take away mine and promise me a pony too.

[brooklynite]

23. The Swiss use private insurance and a purchase mandate...

[guillaumeb]

30. In Canada, each province sets spending levels.

And both systems work better.


But in the US, health is treated as a commodity.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Pride; it's that American exceptional-ism and "every man for them self" mentality.

The corporate media conglomerates have done a real number on us as nation over the decades and they're still doing it.

[MichMan]

62. Doesn't Canada fund it with a 15% GST ?

Haven't heard of anyone proposing a VAT here

[guillaumeb]

136. No, it is funded by income taxes on personal and corporate income. eom

[Hortensis]

114. Beto's MEDICARE FOR AMERICA allows people to keep

their employment-linked insurance if they want OR change to Medicare.

Given that many tens of millions who have insurance through work (70% of all Americans) currently want to keep it -- HUGE issue for them!, this path to universal healthcare is a winning one because it is responsive to both voter needs and demands to keep their choices open.

It is expected, of course, that most would eventually migrate to Medicare.

Medicare for America, Beto O’Rourke’s favorite health care plan, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/18/18270857/medicare-for-all-beto-orourke-2020-policies-voxcare

[marylandblue]

132. Seems like this will be the defining issue between moderated and progressives in this race

My money is on the moderates.

[Hortensis]

134. :) Mine too. I'm a strong liberal devoted to democracy

AND universal healthcare. I don't regard myself as moderate but rather in my old age as understanding, and appreciating, that in a democracy the wishes of most people must be served, and rights of minorities protected. And in democracies, one hole to ram all human pegs into is totally unacceptable, literally inimical.

[CrispyQ]

129. The excuse I've heard is that the US is so much bigger than those countries,

that's why it won't work here. But we have way more resources, too. And we think we're the most exceptional nation on the planet, so what does that say about us that we can't provide health care for all of our citizens?

[Demsrule86]

4. Do you know how many elderly people can't afford Medicare ?

That simply is untrue.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Medicare's approval ratings

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system works for them varies by the type of insurance they have. Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, and is lower among those with employer-paid and self-paid insurance. Americans with no health insurance are least satisfied of all.



(snip)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx

and Medicare for All is superior to Medicare.

[Demsrule86]

12. I know people who can't afford care. Hubs and I paid the 20% for my sister in law

And the deductibles before a surgeon would operate on her broken hip. I like Medicare but it isn't perfect. You force folks off of workplace insurance kiss our majority goodbye.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Again Medicare for All covers it all 100% and is superior to Medicare.

[Demsrule86]

56. Not including the huge taxes required. But it wont ever pass. And if we try, than out we go.

We have the house due to 31 members who are moderate. MFA will not ever become law. But we can reach universal care in a different way.

[dawg day]

60. An public option-- that's what I'd like as a transition-

We can buy into Medicare... that would be good.
The infrastructure is already there, along with the hundreds of contracts and regulations.

It doesn't have to be "for all" yet. It doesn't have to be mandatory. It can be optional... and watch how many people opt in (many), and watch the employers start asking if they can enroll their employees. It'll take a decade or so, but I bet by 2030, most everyone who wants to be will be on Medicare.

[Hortensis]

116. Uncle Joe, NOTHING will ever cover it all 100%.

Don't be fooled by unicorn promises. We can get far closer to it, but please note that once again Sanders' plan STILL doesn't explain credibly how he would fund all this.

That's should be a huge WTF to you also -- he's had years to create a workable plan and is still failing to. We need real healthcare 24/7/365, not campaign promises he couldn't come through on.

But DemsRule's larger point is the one that should be noted:

"You force folks off of workplace insurance, kiss our majority goodbye."

Many millions of people are DETERMINED to keep their workplace insurance. Sanders' totalitarian plan would prohibit workplace insurance. One choice does not fit all and imposing one on everyone would be downright un-American.

[Uncle Joe]

118. As proposed Medicare for All covers 100% that's what we're fighting for.

Medicare in its' current state has a higher approval rating than employer based (which we subsidize with our taxes) "health" insurance.

Under Medicare for All, most employers would save money, most employees would save money and have free agency to boot.

[Hortensis]

124. NO. A totalitarian system we can't pay for is NOT

what we intend to have.

You should be afraid to realize you would have NO choice of healthcare coverage except what the current government decided it would/could pay for and allow you.

GET it? The fact that he can't explain how it would be paid for is almost the least of it; we'd ultimately get at very least most or all of what the ACA provides now. I assume that'd be the worst case.

But Sanders' plan is both extremist AND un-Democratic. It's not only the right who would refuse to vote for that. I find what Sanders' absolutism suggests about him and those who support it appalling.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an

1. relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
synonyms: authoritarian, autocratic, autarchic, dictatorial, tyrannical, oppressive, repressive, one-party, monocratic, absolute, absolutist, undemocratic, antidemocratic, illiberal, despotic, fascist, fascistic, Nazi, neo-Nazi, Stalinist; dystopian
"a totalitarian state"

How would this government program not be centralized, dictatorial, and require what amounted to "complete subservience" by outlawing other options, especially forcing millions to give up private workplace insurance they want to keep? Of course, those wealthy enough to pay out of pocket would not lose their freedom to choose. What do you want to bet the elite taxpayer-paid insurance senators now get would still be available to them also?

[Autumn]

158. Medicare for all is a totalitarian system we can't pay for? Yet we can subsidize insurance

companies under the ACA. Other civilized nations can do it so can we. I hear talk about government heath care like that every time it's brought up by Republicans . I don't consider my Medicare that I pay for and my supplemental plan that I chose and purchase from an insurance company, a private insurance company, to be dictatorial. VA is a government healthcare plan and my husband is quite fond of that, his Medicare and his supplemental . Millions are on Medicaid and I doubt you will find one fucking person who considers those 3 government healthcare programs to be centralized, dictatorial and amounting to "complete subservience". A lot of Democrats are on board for Medicare for all and support it. Are they all appalling?

How would it be paid for. NO choice of healthcare coverage. Heard those and more when Obama and the Dems started talking about the ACA , which worked out well till the Republicans found ways to fuck it up.

[Uncle Joe]

167. As a former Marine, I'm covered by the VA, it's my family, friends and fellow Americans

that I grieve for under the current blood money system.

I never for once thought of the VA as totalitarian.

[marylandblue]

170. VA is not totalitarian because you could always go elsewhere.

But here you are talking about banning private insurance all together and forcing doctors to take Medicare. How is that not dictatorial. And where else does that happen? In the UK, they have private insurance too.

[marylandblue]

169. That's not what people on this thread are proposing.

I am not certain if it's Sanders himself or just posters on DU, but they are saying that private insurance will be illegal and all doctors and hospitals will be forced to take Medicare. That's dictatorial and probably unconstitutional.

[Autumn]

172. I haven't seen that said. Even with MFA there will still be plans to buy from private insurance.

Just like the ACA was, things will have to be debated and tweaked with MFA. To call Medicare for all a totalitarian system we can't pay for is straight up Republican bullshit. IMO all Dr's and hospitals should have to take Medicare and Medicare should pay more.

[marylandblue]

173. Can't find where people said it on DU now, but here is news report on it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.amp.html

[Autumn]

174. Kind of premature since the whole MFA thing hasn't been written yet. Or did I miss it?

[marylandblue]

175. You did miss something because Sanders introduced a bill to Congress

I didn't read the actual bill, but here is a summary. Please pay attention. This is what people are talking about. Not some other bill to be determined.

Or should I assume that Sanders introduces bills that he doesn't actually support, and if he's President he'll do something totally different?


https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

[Autumn]

176. He introduced a bill. A single-payer proposal.

"Sanders’s single-payer proposal would create a universal Medicare program that covers all American residents in one government-run health plan." Like other proposals and bills introduced there will be changes before it becomes law.

Should we assume that the 14 cosponsors of his MFA including presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren,Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand sponsor bills that none of them support or that will not help with Americas health care problems?

[marylandblue]

177. I assume he and his cosponsors like the bill as written.

I don't see why I should be happy with the bill as written because maybe they don't actually like it anyway and will change to the exact thing I wanted all along, but people said I'm idiot for wanting. Yeah, that will get my vote. Not.

I'm not voting for Sanders or any of his cosponsors, except maybe Harris. But that's only because I think Harris is enough of an opportunist to back a bill she doesn't like. So she's not real high on my list anyway.

I don't think Sanders is an opportunist or a liar. I think he is a True Believer. True Believers don't compromise well, so I don't seem allowing much change if he were President

[Indygram]

145. Who is the "we" you speak of? Not everyone wants Medicare for All.

I certainly don't. Healthcare is far too important to allow the government to have a full monopoly over. If the government underpays medical professionals then how many will be motivated to study for years when they can only go so far in doing so? What about the millions of people employed in jobs that would disappear? Medicare for All won't pay their rent/mortgage, feed their kids or put clothes on their backs.

If you want to get Medicare...fine...I'm all for you being able to get it if you want to...but your right to have Medicare stops at my right to have another choice.

Most people are fine with All people being able to have Medicare, but if you ask people if they want ONLY Medicare most will be against that.

[forthemiddle]

168. Today, Medicare doesn't cover OB or pediatric care.

They don’t have to. Yet those two expenditures are the most expensive chunk of insurance and Medicaid coverage. Not to mention dental or vision.
How does Medicare take on those charges and still promise 100% coverage with no premiums or copays?
I just don’t see it feasible. Our taxes will be unbelievable, and I bet a hell of a lot more than what I pay for my comprehensive, employer supplied plan.

[SoCalNative]

123. What if workplaces

decide to no longer offer insurance should MFA be available? Do you REALLY think that they will continue to pay out money for something that they don't have to?

[marylandblue]

130. Many will continue to offer it and will have incentive to make it better than Medicare

Or offer it as a supplement.

[SoCalNative]

131. I wouldn't be so sure of that

one less cost to them and more money for their CEOs and shareholders by dropping it all together.

[marylandblue]

133. If they don't offer healthcare, they will have to pay a payroll tax.

So they are paying either way.

[marylandblue]

16. In other words, most people are satisfied with their current plan, if they have one.

If I'm satisfied, why would I want to trade that for something else that has a few more satisfied customers, but I might not like at all.

[Uncle Joe]

19. 30 million uninsured and millions more under-insured why would anyone want to trade for better?

Medicare for All is superior to whatever your for profit "health" insurance plan is, bar none.

[marylandblue]

27. I read the Vox article.

It's by far the most generous plan in the world and vague unrealistic plans to pay for it. It's a unicorn and people will see that pretty quickly.

[Uncle Joe]

32. There is nothing vague about these options to pay for it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2020-presidential-candidate-sen-bernie-sanders-relaunches-medicare/story?id=62297738

If the people stand together and demand it most or all of these options can and will be adopted.

[marylandblue]

36. From the article

"His plan offers few concrete deals on how to pay for the expanded federal system."

[Uncle Joe]

47. My mistake I posted the wrong link, here is the correct one.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

Do these options sound logical to you?

[marylandblue]

50. No, because I can't check the figures and match it up

with the actual costs. The CBO will do that and it won't look pretty.

[Uncle Joe]

52. In regards to health care reform, the CBO has major shortcomings.

(snip)

The CBO doesn’t follow the simple logic of only considering something part of the federal budget if it is directly paid for by the federal government. Nor does the CBO follow the basic logic of considering private activity part of the federal budget if it is required by federal law, like via an individual/employer mandate. Instead, the CBO considers health care reform an “essentially government program” if it crosses some arbitrary line of too much regulation.

According to a 2009 CBO paper on the topic, “insurance purchased through exchanges or in the private market—should be classified as federal revenues if there is an individual mandate and tight government control of the insurance market,” but not part of the federal budget if “there is an individual mandate and an active, loosely restricted private market, and if premiums are paid through nongovernmental exchanges or directly to insurers.”

In effect the CBO believes the government forcing you to pay premiums to insurance companies doesn’t make those premiums effectively a tax. But if the government also requires that private health insurance to actually be good, then it would be.

(snip)

CBO’s weird decision about what is or is not too much regulation was extremely detrimental to the ACA and is responsible for one of the changes made to the law during drafting. Senators initially wanted to require that 90 percent of premium dollars had to be spent on actual care — a medical loss ratio, which again, is well below international norms. The CBO wrote them a letter warning them that this regulation would push the ACA over their imaginary line. The CBO would have considered the entire insurance market part of the federal budget if that regulation was included. Thus legislators decided they would only use a medical loss ratio of 80-85 percent — a move that ended up actually costing the government significantly more.

(snip)


http://healthoverprofit.org/2019/01/09/cbo-will-score-all-health-reform-plans-as-nationalization/

[marylandblue]

65. Others will look at it too, so we will see.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. We. Pay. For. It. Already

We pay over inflated “insurance” premiums due to over inflated hospital bills to cover uninsured people, over inflated government subsidies to pay for uninsured people, all of the above for avoidable hospital visits due to lack of preventive care.

And last but not least ... 40,000 plus dead every year for lack of healthcare.




This is not normal in a wealthy civilized society




WE PAY AND PAY AND PAY

[marylandblue]

48. Yes I know we pay a lot, but you know what else,

The money is going all over the place and nobody has a clear accounting of where the fat is. I'm sure there are people who know, but they are not telling because the money is going in their pocket. And nobody seems to really ask.

[Uncle Joe]

54. That because the U.S. is number 1, we like paying more for less,

I mean we must because we keep doing it.

[YOHABLO]

68. When Medicare starts providing vision, eye, and dental care, then it will be superior.

[Hekate]

86. I have a 74 yo friend who lives in poverty, & Medicare is not the panacea we all hope for...

My husband and are also in our 70s but he still works in tech and has employer provided health insurance, which also has its headaches -- though one of the headaches is not making us choose between paying for insurance and having a bit of meat for dinner.

[Uncle Joe]

98. Medicare for All is superior to Medicare.

No premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, it also covers dental and vision.

[comradebillyboy]

110. Except M4A dosen't actually exist.

[Hekate]

121. +1

[Autumn]

163. Of course M4A doesn't exist. Yet. The ACA didn't exist. Until the Dems passed it.

[LanternWaste]

113. Bumper stickers are personally satisfying

Bumper stickers are personally satisfying, but offer no substantial points.

Simply repeating "Medicare for All is superior to Medicare" is little more than saying "nu-uh..."

But I get it... we go with what works best for our own mind. Maybe that would read well on the back of the t-shirt.

Slogans and bullet points. PT Barnum was prescient.

[Uncle Joe]

115. Medicare for All offers 100% coverage, no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays it

also covers vision, dental and long term care.

[Hekate]

120. +1

[tymorial]

89. Everyone turns to Medicare but they need supplementary coverage

To pay for what Medicare doesnt. Medicare for all is a stupid descriptor for nationalized healthcare

[treestar]

140. Exactly, it is crazy

jobs are no longer permanent; companies have no loyalty to you. There is no reason to tie it to a particular job.

[guillaumeb]

152. And it ties the employee to the job.

It is another way that employers can exert control over employees.

[treestar]

154. I remember in past times

people stuck in a job due to the health insurance or a pre-existing condition. Or people afraid to go out on their own due to the fact they'd have to pay for health insurance on their own and knew it was super expensive.

The best thing about the ACA is self employed people can use it and since it is subsidized, you have be insured in the lean years.

[guillaumeb]

155. Agreed.

And it was the very recent past.

[marylandblue]

5. sometimes the devil you know is preferable, especially if you have a good, stable job.

And if you lose your job, a public option would still be there as a backup.

And Medicare has problems too. They don't have any customer service, so if there is a mistake, there is nobody to talk to. Some doctors don't take Medicare, but some insurance companies cover out of network.

And I'm skeptical of the promise of no premiums and no copays for less in taxes than I pay now. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[Uncle Joe]

18. A lot of people with great jobs lost their jobs.

Medicare for All is superior to Medicare and if we had M4A every doctor would take it except for elective cosmetic surgery which isn't covered.

The promise is what we're fighting for.

I believe in the case of M4A "sounding too good to be true" is because we as a nation have grown used to settling for less and too many Americans are suffering and dying for it each and every day.

[marylandblue]

40. I know for a fact that some of the doctors I see won't take it.

They don't deal with any insurance co., and that's that.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Should Medicare for All become law, virtually every doctor will take it

except for elective cosmetic surgery which isn't covered.

[marylandblue]

66. Not in certain cases, and I'm not the only one who has that issue, which is why

I need a plan that will cover out of network, and I have that now.

[BlueFlorida]

78. The best doctors won't take it

So you'll force people to choose the doctors who can't make a go of their practice ... or pay out of pocket to see the good ones.

[Uncle Joe]

96. Only if those doctors are paid by cash, as no insurance will be allowed to cover

what Medicare for All covers.

[BlueFlorida]

106. lol

So this is about "forcing" people to accept less money for their services so that Bernie is happy?

There are doctors who don't accept Medicare now and are still thriving.

[WeekiWater]

55. Medicare for All doesn't sound too good to be true.

It is the wrong path and continues the tradition of haves and have nots. There are better ways but some are following a person, not a path.

[Uncle Joe]

91. How does Medicare for all help the "haves?"

It covers every American regardless of income.

[WeekiWater]

92. Please read and understand the phrase.

"continues the tradition of haves and have nots"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

151. Damn right... and think of the lives that will be saved!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MichMan]

70. I'm not surprised people are skeptical.

Not defending the current system, but they were also told multiple times that the ACA would save each family $2500 per year. Doesn't matter why that didn't happen, but maybe that's why some think it sounds too good to be true.

[Nanjeanne]

6. It's bizarre to me as well. Companies after the war offered healthcare as a perk to

entice people to work for them. But many people after WWII didn’t have insurance so it seemed like a bonus. But as a system, it fell apart as insurance companies became bigger and more greedy and healthcare costs soared. I remember when I first started working, paying a very reasonable monthly cost as my share and having no deductible or copay. Then we were forced into HMOs which were a nightmare and finally before I retired, employer offered healthcare had a much larger cost share for me, came with a bigger and bigger deductible, had copays, and not all the doctors I wanted to see where part of my plan

I never knew why companies weren’t pushing for Medicare For All because it makes no sense for them to pay even the lesser part of the cost share. It just eats at their bottom line and makes them less competitive with other companies in countries where healthcare isn’t part of the employer based package.

[Lazy Daisy]

9. Some don't even get employer provided healthcare

My current job and my last job didn't provide insurance. Or the one before that one come to think of it.

[marylandblue]

13. Then you should have a public option at affordable rates.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Why allow an industry that siphons away billions of dollars away from actual health care?

What is the point?

[marylandblue]

24. Please answer the question and don't change the subject.

If you have a public option and I like what I have, let us both be happy.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I just did why would you turn down superior coverage in order to keep an industry alive

that contributes nothing to the nation's health care?

M4A beats the snot out of any public option and eliminates a major national medical care dysfunction.

A public option would allow the cancer to survive and if you don't eradicate it, the industry will come back.

[marylandblue]

34. The math doesn't work it, it's like the wall Mexico is paying for.

[Uncle Joe]

39. If you want to have a serious debate about this subject, here are Bernie's options to pay for it.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[marylandblue]

46. Like I said, vague.

No matching up cost of the plan with the revenue raised. Nothing showing how he came up with the numbers. Using different figures, a lot of people and businesses will pay much more than they do now. They just aren't going to do it.

And he's offering by far the most generous healthcare on earth, with benefits no country in the world currently pays for.

If HE is going to talk seriously about this he needs real budget numbers, which he doesn't have. The CBO will tear this to shreds.

[Uncle Joe]

49. In regards to any progressive health care reform the CBO has major shortcomings.

(snip)

The CBO doesn’t follow the simple logic of only considering something part of the federal budget if it is directly paid for by the federal government. Nor does the CBO follow the basic logic of considering private activity part of the federal budget if it is required by federal law, like via an individual/employer mandate. Instead, the CBO considers health care reform an “essentially government program” if it crosses some arbitrary line of too much regulation.

According to a 2009 CBO paper on the topic, “insurance purchased through exchanges or in the private market—should be classified as federal revenues if there is an individual mandate and tight government control of the insurance market,” but not part of the federal budget if “there is an individual mandate and an active, loosely restricted private market, and if premiums are paid through nongovernmental exchanges or directly to insurers.”

In effect the CBO believes the government forcing you to pay premiums to insurance companies doesn’t make those premiums effectively a tax. But if the government also requires that private health insurance to actually be good, then it would be.

(snip)

CBO’s weird decision about what is or is not too much regulation was extremely detrimental to the ACA and is responsible for one of the changes made to the law during drafting. Senators initially wanted to require that 90 percent of premium dollars had to be spent on actual care — a medical loss ratio, which again, is well below international norms. The CBO wrote them a letter warning them that this regulation would push the ACA over their imaginary line. The CBO would have considered the entire insurance market part of the federal budget if that regulation was included. Thus legislators decided they would only use a medical loss ratio of 80-85 percent — a move that ended up actually costing the government significantly more.

(snip)


http://healthoverprofit.org/2019/01/09/cbo-will-score-all-health-reform-plans-as-nationalization/

[BlueFlorida]

79. Because they have created an enterprise

that has invested in creating a network of doctors and hospitals with great utilization management?

Medicare can be easily duped. Google "Scooter Store" where millions got free scooters that they didn't need - all paid for by Medicare.

[Uncle Joe]

97. So because an institution was created to thrive on blood money, it should be allowed

to exist?

If scooter purchasing has been abused then that should be what you address if that is indeed a major abuse.

Google "for profit insurance abuse" and see what you get, I would wager it has a much greater adverse impact on the American Nation, literally killing Americans.

[BlueFlorida]

102. There are efficiencies in business structures

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2019, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

This is why corporations acquire other businesses rather than starting from scratch.

Google bought YouTube. Apple bought Beats. Facebook bought Instagram. Those companies have enough money to start something on their own - but they choose to acquire an existing structure. It is more efficient.

"Blood money" is an incendiary term. Does a doctor who buys a Porsche buy it with blood money or as fruits of his/her labor?

[LongtimeAZDem]

109. +1

[marylandblue]

28. Right, that's why we need a public option that's more affordable.

And I don't mind paying higher taxes to pay for it. But I'm not buying the free unicorn Sanders is proposing.

[dogman]

37. How is it a Unicorn?

The insurance industry is skimming at least 10% of health care dollars and limiting your healthcare. M4A is not insurance, it is healthcare. It really isn't a hard concept once you realize you do not want insurance for your dollar when that dollar can buy actual healthcare. If you remove this burden from employers you get a huge bonus.

[marylandblue]

74. Of course it's insurance. Doesn't matter if it's premiums or taxes.

However you pay in, the purpose is to spread the risk of getting sick among a large group of people. That's the definition of insurance. You pay into the system to guard against the risk of large medical bills.

I don't know how much the insurance companies are skimming, and I'm sure they don't want you to know. Hospitals are skimming too. And doctors. And drug companies. They all make big money. So just cutting out insurance cos. may not have as big of an effect as you think.

I understand the concept you are proposing, but I need to see real, hard numbers, not assumptions and guesses.

[Lazy Daisy]

45. I live in NC

So.......


We are trying to get it now though

[Demsrule86]

14. This is why we need an improved ACA with a public option.

This is attainable MFA is not.

[sheshe2]

64. Thank you Demsrule!

[Demsrule86]

101. Sen Sanders is stuck in the past . He doesn't see the opportunity the ACA presents to

Reach universal coverage quicklyl

[BlueFlorida]

77. Exactly this nt

[Demsrule86]

100. Thanks...MFA doesn't make sense at this moment politically.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Yeah, let the insurance companies continue to make obscene profits while millions go w/o healthcare.

Great idea!! No, sorry, Bernie has other plans supported by the vast majority of voters. Even Kamala is supporting Bernie's plan by co-sponsoring his proposed MFA bill. Good for her and Elizabeth and all the other SMART candidates who have also come out in support of Bernie's forward looking plan.

Like those intelligent, politically savvy Democratic candidates, I'm also PROUD to support Bernie and his MFA plan... not greedy insurance companies!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

122. No, we can reform the ACA much more easily than trying to put a huge program in place which

will anger many Americans and in my opinion will never pass. 17 % approve if it means losing workplace insurance.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. Sorry, like Bernie, I stand with the millions of uninsured Americans, not greedy insurance companies

who steal billions in corporate profit. Bernie is for the PEOPLE - what a concept!! - FUCK the corporations!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
President Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

127. But the plan doesn't insure the uninsured only. It forces those with workplace insurance to be

on it...doubt it could survive SCOTUS and it endangers the ACA for millions by possibly swaying Roberts in the current lawsuit against the ACA.

[ck4829]

88. Indeed

[samnsara]

17. i love that movie.. I saw it for the first time spending the night at my....

...grandparents. I slept with my sister on a sofa bed in the living room and one night that movie was on.

[Uncle Joe]

22. ...

I did as well samnsara, peace to you.

[MichMan]

20. One could also make a similar argument regarding retirement savings

I would hate to be stuck in a job I disliked or turn down a better opportunity because I felt forced to stay with a company to keep my pension benefits. One reason I liked having a 401k because it was portable regardless of how long I worked in a given job.


I think many people are leery of MFA until they understand what the premiums will be. While those with employer sponsored health insurance are ultimately paying for it in lieu of salary, since they don't ever see the costs directly dont comprehend what they are either.

[Uncle Joe]

26. There will be no premiums, no deductibles and no co-pays with 100% coverage.

M4A will save employees, employers (except perhaps the really big ones) money.

Here is breakdown of Bernie's proposed options to pay for it.

I wish I could copy and past from this but I can't


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[MichMan]

53. I'm not sure that zero co pays or deductables is feasible

Concerned that some consumers or providers will abuse or defraud the system. If my patient never pays a dime, why not keep them coming back for dozens follow up appointments. Will someone who just needs a ride to the doctor for a non emergency call an ambulance and go to the ER instead?

[marylandblue]

31. I have a had several jobs with pensions and it is far better than a 401K

You are never stuck. You can cash out when you leave and turn it into an IRA If you leave it in the pension, you still get what you put in when you retire, without the risks of a 401K.

[MichMan]

43. If you stay long enough to be vested

I bounced around for a dozen years in my 20's from job to job and lost an entire decade of retirement savings because I never stayed in one for long enough to accrue anything. I have been working for 4 decades and lost nearly 25% of my working years with zilch for retirement. I transferred my 401k from various jobs to an IRA as well, so unclear how cashing out a pension into an IRA has less risk.

I know the level of hatred for a 401k here in these forums, I was just trying to make the point that MFA has similar portability for health care as a 401k does for retirement savings. I am very pleased with the performance of mine over the years. People's preferences may likely depend on their own situations and experiences. One size does not always fit all.

[Uncle Joe]

41. P.S. I posted the wrong link on my previous and post and have corrected it since.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[redstateblues]

33. Most people that have insurance thru their employer

Like it and don’t want to give it up

[Uncle Joe]

42. Why?

Again from my OP, these are the questions I'm asking

Why would anyone want to be tied to their employer in order to get health care?
What if you get fired, laid off, the company closes or changes insurance providers to something less generous?

Medicare for All gives free agency and releases the people from that uncertainty.

I could understand people liking their doctor, nurse or hospital but for profit "health" insurance, what is the draw?

That industry is a parasite which not only contributes nothing to actual health care but takes away from it.

[Demsrule86]

59. It is subsidized often by the employer.

[MichMan]

71. Do you think that employers will increase everyone's pay once MFA is in place?

since they are no longer paying people's premiums? I don't

[Demsrule86]

95. No... those with work place insurance will pay the entire freight in MFA THROUGH

taxes, deductibles etc. They won't go for it. Candidates who run on this lose.

[Uncle Joe]

94. And the government subsidizes those employers with our tax dollars.

(snip)

The value of these tax benefits is substantial. The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013.1 The new premium tax credits under the ACA were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to cost $45 billion in 2014, and increase to $146 billion in 2017, as more individuals enrolled in subsidized coverage.2 In addition, the federal tax deduction for health expenses (including premiums) exceeding 10% of the adjusted gross income is estimated to cost $12.4 billion in lost tax revenue in 2014.3

(snip)

https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/tax-subsidies-for-private-health-insurance/

[Demsrule86]

99. Yeah basically we pay for the subsidies.

I would rather a public option.

[Blues Heron]

38. Totally agree

For profit health insurance makes our health care more expensive. I hope we can get M4A at some point.

[Lazy Daisy]

58. people don't think about

the money that goes to the very expensive executive pay and shareholders.

[dawg day]

57. In my experience with "these people"

They think everyone can get employer-subsidized insurance-- "just need a job!" They truly don't believe that perhaps half of all jobs offer no insurance at all.
They think everyone who doesn't have a job is a deadbeat and is already on Medicaid anyway.

They also don't realize their own insurance is subsidized 75%, so they think insurance only costs $120/month, so they are appalled that ACA insurance for unsubsidized members costs what it does.
They think all insurance is as good as their insurance-- there are no scams, and pre-existing conditions have already been covered (because they are with employer group insurance).

They don't realize that if they quit or lose their job, or their employer decides to stop being so generous, that they will lose their insurance.
They really don't think there was ever a problem.

I lunch with a group of low-to-mid-level workers of a big bank (I'm low level myself, I don't mean to be insulting), and this is what they've told me. I've patiently gone through reality with them, about the many ways perfectly nice people (like me) could end up without insurance or with scam insurance, and how the ACA fixed most of that.
They simply laugh and don't believe me. It's so weird. If their own grown children had come of age before the ACA, they would all be uninsured. But they don't remember that time. They think grown kids were always allowed on the parents' policies. They think people who work at McDonalds always got subsidized insurance.

It's like the success of the ACA is exactly what makes them think it's not necessary.

You can't argue with stupid. I just don't know why they are so determined, however, to stay stupid.

[MichMan]

61. Your points are very valid, but people also don't know what the MFA premiums will cost either

Just because your retired parents each pay $138 per month for 80/20 coverage, doesn't mean MFA will cost everyone that amount. People currently over 65 pre paid into Medicare for over 40 years before they could use it.

With Sanders proposal offering zero co pays, zero deductibles, vision, hearing, dental and long term care, it is much more inclusive than the current system. Not surprised many are skeptical over the current employer provided system.

I am reminded about once a week George Carlin's quote "Think how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are stupider than that"

[BlueWI]

153. True.

The trend lines are pointing to even less frequent health coverage for millennials. This should be a major concern.

[brooklynite]

63. Why don't you ask them?

[Yavin4]

67. When the next recession hits and massive layoffs ensue

We'll see how people will love their wonderful employer based healthcare.

[Voltaire2]

69. Because they love huge premiums

high deductibles, copays, out of network costs, and if they get seriously ill, the realization that they have to keep working to keep their insurance? Or they have a major investment in health insurance companies?

[pnwmom]

72. The only thing they really care about is keeping their doctors.

And different insurers have different doctors in their systems.

Obviously, the plan that Bernie and others are pushing wouldn't have that problem.

[Hoyt]

73. I support a Public Option because it is the only thing that will pass in foreseeable future.

There are too many people — mostly ignorant fools — who are opposed to M4A. That’s just a fact. Vermont, Colorado, and California all considered single payer for their state, but it was scrapped when legislators realized how much taxes would have to be increased. People are too stupid to get the taxes would replace premiums and maybe other out-of-pocket costs.

If Medicare-for-More is really as good as we think, people will quickly gravitate to it. At some point, when say 80% of people choose the option, it will be easy to convert everyone.

It will not be as cheap as people think, but should be cheaper than the current system.

People will also have to lower their expectations of what Medicare-for-More entails in terms of utilization. I can see it now the first time the new system refuses to cover someone’s expensive prescription, because a substitute is almost as good, but a lot cheaper.

I’m not sure Sanders is helping Democrats with healthcare, probably a top two or three issue in 2020, but we’ll know soon enough if people believe what he’s selling. (If he’s nominated, I’ll support him.)

Sanders’ promise of coverage of dental and removing copays and deductibles — while insuring 40 million un/underinsured — is a promise that can’t be fulfilled at this time. Would be great for all of us, but it’s laughable, to be honest.

[BlueFlorida]

76. Bernie is not promoting a public option

he wants to ram the government mandated health care down your throat. It is either Berniecare or no care at all. No choice.

Americans don't go for no choice.

Bernie's proposal has less of a chance to fly than a lead balloon. It is just an election year stunt and it will actually cost him votes.

[Hoyt]

83. I agree completely, and it will hurt our chances in 2020. Sanders' supporters will say M4A should b

starting point for negotiations, but I don’t think it’ll get a seat at table anytime soon. I’m personally for it, but the political realities are fact. We’ll be sitting here 20 years from now with the same outdated system if we go all in for M4A.

[BlueFlorida]

75. lmao

[KPN]

84. Thanks so much for the valuable contribution.

[elleng]

80. "WANT?"

Pleased to be 'tied' to https://www.fepblue.org/gives-you-more? as these plans have been well planned and negotiated, and I'm sorry EVERYONE in the country hasn't been able to benefit from them.

Single payer/Medicare for ALL could/should emulate the Federal plans.

[MadDAsHell]

81. That's why the ACA made no sense. Instead of reforming, it doubled down on the old system.

As a party, in the span of about a year, we literally went from wanting to get rid of employer-based insurance to MANDATING employer-based insurance; how's that for ironic?

In that year we went from a possible healthcare revolution to creating and passing a bill that FURTHER ENTRENCHED the very system we said we wanted to replace.

For all its good parts the ACA likely set back true healthcare reform by decades.

[Demsrule86]

104. Well I for one have a kid who would be dead without the ACA. So I have a different opinion.

Healthcare is more about helping people or should be than ideology,

[NBachers]

82. *sigh*

[KPN]

85. *sigh*

[ck4829]

87. K&R. Good question.

[rownesheck]

90. Exactly!

And honestly, I would guess AT MOST, 5% of this country like their health insurance. It's a flipping racket! Tying it to your employer is F'd up on so many levels. I'm in a situation now where I really need to change jobs but can't at the moment because I'm gonna need insurance until at least July. Some employers require you to work a certain amount of time before being able to qualify for benefits.

F the insurance companies and their lobbyists. I say put them all out of business as punishment for the havoc they've reaped upon this nation.

[Demsrule86]

105. You would be wrong. Only 17 % support MFA when they learn workplace insqurance goes away.

And there are millions of jobs that would be lost.

[LongtimeAZDem]

135. The BCBS we had when my wife got cancer was phenominal; they took care of everything, top to bottom

[Hortensis]

93. This is a common position and doesn't belong in the primaries forum.

I know I was arguing this decades before any of our candidates for 2020 made it part of their platforms.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. BINGO!!! We hava a winner!!! Call out your scorecard...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[democrank]

108. Why? Excellent question

We must demand.... DEMAND....a change in our health care system, no excuses.

No- it’s too expensive
No- it’s too difficult.
No- it’s something different and nobody will want it

We should be outraged....OUTRAGED....at the cost of surgery, prescriptions, a doctor visit, etc.

It’s unacceptable to me to continue with the system we have, including the idea that employers should be responsible for providing health care coverage. Stop big money’s ability to influence the discussion and get on with designing a health care system for all, no exceptions.

Why on earth should we accept the system we have?

[brooklynite]

111. "We should be....."

Telling people what they SHOULD BE thinking is never a good political strategy.

[democrank]

139. Seriously?

This isn’t a “political strategy” for me, it’s a moral issue. Just like people SHOULD BE outraged that Trump has children in cages.

[marylandblue]

142. It's not a very convincing strategy either.

To use your analogy, it's one thing to argue that other people's children should not be in cages. It's quite another to argue that the only to fix it is to send everyone's children to group homes which are "guaranteed" to bigger, better, and cheaper than your own home.

[area51]

128. "Why on earth should we accept the system we have?"

Why indeed?

Link to a PNHP page on comprehensive Medicare for All.

[IronLionZion]

112. We don't hear the voices of people who don't have employer plans

There are plenty of folks out there who don't have as much political influence to share their dissatisfaction with being unable to afford any decent plan because they don't have the type of nice stable jobs that wealthier folks take for granted.

The ACA helps in many ways by providing a regulated marketplace to purchase individual plans, but we need single payer to have truly universal affordable coverage.

We hear a lot from the healthcare industrial complex who make profit from the current system and don't want to change. But if we look at other types of employers, they would prefer to avoid the costs and complexity of managing health plans for their employees. Single payer is the pro-jobs pro-business plan if you think about it from the employer perspective.

[George II]

117. "Tied to their employer"? Isn't that a bit extreme? I switched jobs about ten times....

....during my 45+ year working career. I never felt "tied" to any of them because of the health insurance (it's insurance, not "care" ), and each time I switched my new employer offered health insurance.

"Medicare for All" sounds good, but we know nothing about how it will be implemented or paid for. And what do we do with the three million people who are currently employed in the healthcare insurance industry?

Finally do you have any idea what the profit margin is for the "for profit" industry?

[Uncle Joe]

119. I have business to take care of George but I will be back later today to respond.

[LanternWaste]

137. Get some more bumper stickers while you're out...

A few new ones, maybe?

[treestar]

141. No preexisting conditions?

If you changed employers after you had a condition treated by the previous employer's insurance, was there no problem with the new employer insurance claiming it was a pre-existing condition?

[Liberal Veteran]

143. Somewhat the opposite for me.

I have held onto jobs long after I should have moved on because of health insurance.

On January 20, 2000...I got diagnosed with what they now call "Advanced HIV Disease".

With treatment things have gotten better, but consider this: I just did a rough calculation of how much money just my HIV medication cost in those 19 years (not including some VERY expensive experimental treatments I tried, or secondary medications such as prophylaxis, growth hormone, appetite stimulants periodically, quarterly lab work). That cost is very close to $700,000 USD.

So now I live pretty much a month to month existence with the hourglass being defined by the number of pills in that bottle. Under no circumstances can I allow that bottle of 30 pills to be empty. To do so, means I risk viral rebound and possible resistance to the medication that keeps me alive.

That sinister hourglass that ticks off time in one expensive tablet per day looms large in every major decision when it comes to work and thoughts of leaving for possible greener pastures. What if the next job doesn't offer decent health insurance? What if it takes three months to kick in? What if the new job doesn't work out? What if? What if? What if?


That's what being tied your employer because of health insurance is like.

I'll grant you the devil is in the details, but honestly, as happy as I am to be an American, there have been so many times I wish was born somewhere that had a healthcare system that was more progressive than the employer based system we have here.

[Uncle Joe]

144. Thanks for sharing Liberal Veteran.

Peace to you.

[Politicub]

126. Job lock is something we can solve. But, Bernie's approach isn't a way to do it.

A public option in a better choice to get there. Why? It builds on the ACA; it doesn't sweep it away. There are benefits of the ACA that Medicare does not have.

More explanation and my story are here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/128763778

Since our posts cover virtually the same thing, I didn't want to rehash my post in this thread.

[MarvinGardens]

138. So would a system where I buy my health insurance like my car insurance.

[radical noodle]

146. Those in unions?

I had union health care for a number of years and the employer paid all for not only my health care, but also my husband, daughter and step-daughter. Later I worked for another employer who paid for our entire family policy. In neither place did I have a dime out of pocket for premiums and it was damn good insurance.

[Uncle Joe]

147. Well Bernie is staunchly in favor of strengthening unions as well but

when plants close or are moved out of the nation, what happens then?

[radical noodle]

148. I worked for

electrical, operators, laborers, etc. Jobs that are always in the country. I was in the offices, but got the insurance... and pensions, too... without paying dues.

[Uncle Joe]

149. Well I'm happy for you

you did well.

[radical noodle]

150. Construction of any kind

is a good field, whether it's in the office or doing the actual skilled labor. I wish more companies were union so more could benefit. Many construction unions have apprenticeship programs that allow them to learn while they work.

[artislife]

156. Indentured servitude

I am staying at a job now, because when I owned my own business, the costs for healthcare was rising and rising. I still pay $150 per month for medical, dental and vision while making less than $20 an hour. I live in the Switzerland state of Washington. Rents under $1200 are unheard of.

[MineralMan]

157. People resist the unknown when changes are in the works.

That includes Democratic voters. Right or wrong, they do not like going from a system that works for them to a system they don't actually understand and can't see as a better choice for them on a personal level.

On that level, the majority of voters is conservative. Change for change's sake is not seen as a positive thing. It's pretty simple, really. Medicare for All is a little hard to explain, actually, to someone whose employer is covering the bulk of their health insurance costs. It's frightening to think that might change in any way. They don't know what will replace it, how much it will cost, or whether it will truly be better for them and their families.

If you can convince them that it will be better for them personally and that it will not cut into their paycheck, they might get on board. So far, I've not seen that argument made clearly and simply. Neither have those worried voters.

Many Democrats, on a purely personal basis, fear changes. They will not vote for changes that frighten them. It's that simple.

[marylandblue]

164. Yeah that's true, and on top of that.

People on this thread think I'm stupid for not wanting to gamble with my family's health and my life savings.

For reference purposes, my daughter was born prematurely and the hospital bill was $400,000, almost all covered by insurance. I count myself lucky to have that insurance. I wish everyone had it.

So what's Bernie going do? Cut that bill to $200,000 without sacrificing quality, driving the hospital bankrupt or charging me more in taxes than I pay in premiums? And he's even going to throw in vision and dental insurance which I don't have or need.

I can't even be a WEE bit skeptical that it might not work out as planned? Apparently such concerns are only for stupid people who don't know that if Bernie promises you a free pony, Jeff Bezos will happily buy it for you.

[MineralMan]

165. I'm on Medicare. My wife is not of that age, though.

She will be in a couple of years. I like Medicare. I wish it were the system for everyone, with employers paying for the bulk of the cost, as they do now, but with a mandate for all companies over 50 employees, and maybe even fewer employees.

I'm not that clear, though, on how Bernie's Medicare for All gets funded. It's not clear to anyone else, either. The easiest way to sell Medicare for All would be to tell people that their employer will be paying for most of its cost, with the employee paying for a lesser part, just as it is now for most people with employer supplied insurance. That would be easy to understand.

Then, I'd talk about how much could be saved by having just one bureaucracy, instead of dozens of them. One set of claim procedures. One set of rules. One set of prescription co-pays with the government pressing the pharma companies to get their prices down to levels charged in other countries.

That could be explained and understood. Bernie's plan doesn't explain it in an understandable way, and it makes the majority of people worried. I don't know any Seniors who don't like Medicare, actually. It's simple, except for the supplement thing. Even that is simple with the Medicare Advantage system, although most are HMOs, which can cause some problems for some people.

For people near and below the poverty line, and for people who work for companies that don't pay for their part, Medicare will work like Medicaid. You get sick. You go to the doctor and it's taken care of. Simple. Self-employed? You pay the premium, just like you do now. Simple.

Medicare is simple. You need healthcare services? You go to your doctor. In most systems with supplements or Advantage plans, that's it. You might have a small co-pay, but that's it. Where I live, every healthcare system and clinic accepts Medicare patients. A few solo practice doctors don't, but that's all. All of the hospitals do. If you are on a plan with a network, you might have to go to that network's hospital, of course.

If everyone's on Medicare, everyone will take Medicare. It will be the only game in town.

[marylandblue]

166. Well that might work, but that's not what Sanders is proposing

It doesn't work the way Medicare works now, isn't funded the same way, doesn't have the same coverage, and doesn't offer the same alternatives and options. It covers things that no system in the world now covers. So whatever this thing is, calling it Medicare is false advertising and comparing it to European countries gives a false sense of security.

This isn't a matter of unclear explanations, it's an awful proposal, that makes me think awful things about Sanders and what a horror it would be for the country if he got elected. And that's the censored version of my thoughts. My real thoughts would get me banned from DU.

[Ace Rothstein]

159. I have it and don't really care for it.

My wife and I do pretty well but neither of us have ever had very good coverage through our jobs.

[UniteFightBack]

160. Not sure why that doesn't sink in with the masses. Studies show most folks get fired or laid off at

one point or another.

[Uncle Joe]

161. Cognitive dissonance and one sided corporate media conglomerate propaganda touting

the virtues of employer based coverage without citing the possible risks and downside.

I can't remember them bringing up the issue that employer based coverage is already supported by our tax dollars or that workers can lose their coverage in the examples that I posted in the OP.

[marylandblue]

162. I got laid off. I promise that it's not about thinking I can't get laid off.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

171. "Because that's how it's ALWAYS been!"

or some nonsense like that.

[loyalsister]

178. I think that is exactly how many young people see it

Workers who have been to filling the workforce in growing numbers change jobs more frequently than people have in the past.