Public option vs Medicare for All

Posted by: logtroll

Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/19/19 01:25 PM

I confess I hadn’t paid enough attention to catch the difference.

Public option = choice of government provided healthcare or private insurance

Medicare for All = no choice but government provided healthcare

I suppose the MFA strategy is that for it to work there needs to be the entire population paying into it. I expect that given enough time the public option would easily become preferred by enough to be viable.

The bugaboo would be in the transition.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 12:28 AM

Ultimately, I favor "Medicare for All" with the option of private purchase of supplemental insurance.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 12:33 AM

E pluribus unum = "Out of many, one"

Sounds like the principle behind the concept of insurance. The key to cheapest coverage is having the biggest possible risk pool.

It's also the motto of the U. S. of A.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 01:24 AM

I am a very strong proponent of "public option" for very obvious and philosophical reasons. I agree that eventually it will lead to "Medicare for All". The Public Option was part of the ACA at the outset. We all know that it was killed by Joe Lieberman. Had it been enacted, we would be discussing other issues today, and the ACA would have been a boon for millions more than it was.

The concept of the ACA was to allow people to have a choice of coverage. I strongly support that position. The removal of the public option essentially eliminated most of the choice and much of the benefits of the ACA. It was a poison-pill move by a faux Democrat (I thoroughly detest the man as a traitor to principle). But even more ironically, most consumers got more choice as a result of the ACA. I have heard endless whinging about how "Obama lied" about being able to keep your doctor, but in almost every such circumstance it had nothing directly to do with the ACA. People were losing their doctor choice, paying more deductibles and co-pays and getting lousier coverage long before the ACA - because the health-insurance industry and corporations were taking away coverage, moving to new "plans" and jacking up deductibles and co-pays at an alarming pace. It was just that after passage all of it was blamed on the ACA.

The public option will be the first choice of two starkly different populations around the United States - rural and inner-city denizens. These are the demographics that are least served by the "market". In less populated States, choice is an illusion.
Quote:
The average number of companies per state in 2018 was 3.5, ranging from one company in eight states (Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming) to more than 10 insurers in three states (Wisconsin, California, and New York). In 2018, 48% of enrollees (living in about 18% of counties) had a choice of three or more insurers. Despite concerns earlier in the year, there were no counties without at least one insurer in 2018.
Insurer Participation on ACA Marketplaces, 2014-2019 (Kaiser Family Foundation) [I would love to link the map which will illustrate the point perfectly.] In the inner-city, too many simply don't qualify for the support they need to get coverage. In those areas, the public option will take off like gangbusters.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 03:39 AM

I'm okay either way, but it seems to me that the easiest route is to re-package Obamacare as it was originally intended to work, states are now more inclined to expand Medicaid as per the original ACA.

At the same time I'd drop the enrollment age for Medicare from 65 to 55 which would improve the Medicare pool. Prices would be pegged to income or wealth, with everyone's out of pocket expenses generally lower than they are currently.

Then I'd just let it evolve. Wherever weaknesses appear in the system they get funded and fixed, prices might go up occasionally to cover shartfalls...er, shortfalls that is...they would also go down when the system is overfunded.

Business and government would work together. There's a huge amount of administrative work in insurance, a huge amount of paperwork and data processing. Private insurers have the infrastructure in place to handle it, why shut them down? It's not a super high moneymaker for insurance companies because healthcare is f***ing Expensive! They'd package slightly different policies for slightly different copays or services blah blah blah business would go on as usual but much more simplified and with a written in profit. I might meld Medicare and the VA then allocate funds to build many more facilities/Hospitals to handle geriatrics and veterans as well as serving as local emergency clinics. These hospitals would be spread out where hospital beds are most needed. As we boomers age there's gonna be a lot of geriatric beds needed and there are millions of veterans.

Anyway...if I was the King of the World that's what I'd do. Everybody would pitch in to the best of their ability to make this thing work and roll with the punches where it didn't.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm okay either way, but it seems to me that the easiest route is to re-package Obamacare as it was originally intended to work, states are now more inclined to expand Medicaid as per the original ACA.

At the same time I'd drop the enrollment age for Medicare from 65 to 55 which would improve the Medicare pool. Prices would be pegged to income or wealth, with everyone's out of pocket expenses generally lower than they are currently.

Then I'd just let it evolve.
Wherever weaknesses appear in the system they get funded and fixed, prices might go up occasionally to cover shartfalls...er, shortfalls that is...they would also go down when the system is overfunded.

Business and government would work together. There's a huge amount of administrative work in insurance, a huge amount of paperwork and data processing. Private insurers have the infrastructure in place to handle it, why shut them down? It's not a super high moneymaker for insurance companies because healthcare is f***ing Expensive! They'd package slightly different policies for slightly different copays or services blah blah blah business would go on as usual but much more simplified and with a written in profit. I might meld Medicare and the VA then allocate funds to build many more facilities/Hospitals to handle geriatrics and veterans as well as serving as local emergency clinics. These hospitals would be spread out where hospital beds are most needed. As we boomers age there's gonna be a lot of geriatric beds needed and there are millions of veterans.

Anyway...if I was the King of the World that's what I'd do. Everybody would pitch in to the best of their ability to make this thing work and roll with the punches where it didn't.


I have almost nothing to add, but I wanted to clap.
Very well put. I think that is how it will all pan out, even WITH a so called "far Left" administration like Warren's, or Bernie's.

Because a Bernie or a Warren STILL HAS to work with others.
That means they probably won't get 100% of their idea to sell to everyone else in Congress.

We will have to hammer out some kind of reasonable compromise, and this time without the nonsense that plagued the last attempt.
We are not trying to "unplug Grandma", okay?

And I think that even Warren or Bernie recognizes the realities.
They are going to try their best to push their whole agenda but just as with other administrations, they will eventually reach the stage where they will have to be willing to make adjustments.
That IS "just letting it evolve" and I think that is a rather natural process IF we all agree that we are all attempting to make life better for as many as possible.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 09:39 PM

Medicare for all. Offshore those insurance jobs like they were 80’s steel workers. I fail to understand the logic of slow walking taking care of people and defending some for profit business model That’s delivering the least while costing the most.
Get rid of insurance companies. What value do they add? The old arguments of adding efficiency to the ‘market’ have never appeared. Opposite in fact.
Why would you preserve it or slow walk from it?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/20/19 10:55 PM

Quote:
Why would you preserve it or slow walk from it?

Simple, I see it as the path of the least resistance. Start at the beginning and work your way towards a completed project. A lot of people are going to be against it, so you implement it in a way that they never even know it's happening.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 12:53 AM

Democrats passed a republican health care package. It didn’t matter, they still railed against it,
Why not pass something most are in favor for? I don’t recall FDR or Johnson slow walking their major accomplishment. Come to think of it, I’ve heard nothing but slow walking on anything to do with healthcare from either political party for decades so really aren’t you just advocating for the status quo?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 02:23 AM

Status quo doesn't have a public option, expanded medicaid, or expanded medicare. Status quo doesn't cover every American.

I'd be perfectly happy if they can find a way to offer Medicare to everyone. But I'm skeptical that it can happen. Republicans are not going to all go away when Trump does so I see a better chance that ACA can salvaged for the interim to ease us into real affordable healthcare.

And I'll point out once again that Medicare is not free and it doesn't cover a lot of things, Eyeglasses and hearing aids aren't covered, nor the exams for them. There's no dental at all. There's no long term care. You pay 20% of the cost of some procedures, 100% of others, many are free. Flu shots are covered, hepatitis shots aren't. I'm likely going to be liable for several thousand dollars worth of odds and ends for my recent hospital stay. Medicare isn't exactly a magic bullet and I don't know that it can be turned into one. There isn't a co-pay that I know of but pretty much every time I visit a doctor I've gotta fork over $35 bucks or so.

As I understand it Medicare for all is about a $3 Trillion dollar program. Warren plans to release her plan to pay for it soon.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 02:45 AM

Oh...and what plan do you plan to pass? It's not even written yet and may take years to put together. Then it has to be implemented. If Biden is elected he will do exactly nothing to move the project forward, some limited legislation may be passed but then a Republican will be elected who will tear it all back apart.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 09:19 AM

There’s a Medicare For All bill that I’m very interested in seeing passed. At the state level there is the Healthy New York’ act that is modeled on the Canadian province of Ontario. Our northern neighbor. It has been number crunched by both opponents and proponents of the bill.
Bill proponents had UMass, Amherst do the number crunching and found the cost savings to be significant. Most state residence would pay around 40/month. That forty would cover dental, vision and drugs.
The opponents scoring showed a dystopian future where we eat our pets and minorities will rush the state line from every direction.
At the public meetings I’ve been to, the opponents are all white male small business tyrant paw paws. They, too, would like a ‘go slow’ approach
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 09:29 AM

Medicare covers prescription drugs, vision and no co-pays in NY. No dental.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 02:37 PM

New York expanded Medicaid, so they got tons of federal aid for whatever state insurance system they have. Most other states did not, because OBAMA.

Medicare Part D covers prescription drugs, it costs about $30-40 a month.

Medicare Part A covers most medically necessary surgeries but you'll get a bill from the anesthesiologist, the ER doctor, and anyone else who sees you that is contracted by the hospital instead of employed by them.

Medicare part B covers most medically necessary expenses but they don't necessarily pay the whole bill. Each month you get a notice from them telling you what you are liable for.

Parts A and B run about $126 a month.

Supplemental plans to cover what Medicare doesn't run around $200 a month. Less if you tie it all into a private Advantage plan.

Since I'm disabled and poor my Medicare premiums are paid by the State of Florida, I also qualify for Medicare Extra Help which covers some of my more expensive expensive drugs. When my medical expenses go over about $900 for the month Medicaid kicks in.

I can't afford a supplemental policy and since almost everything is handled by the state or the federal governments I'm afraid to mess with private Advantage plans which can completely replace Medicare and depending on how much you pay they can almost eliminate out of pocket expenses.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 02:48 PM

Quote:
Medicare covers prescription drugs, vision and no co-pays in NY. No dental.


Medicare covers the same things everywhere. Ophthalmologists(Vision) are covered for glaucoma screenings, eye care and exams, but they will not pay for eyeglasses or testing for eyeglass prescriptions.

If you have any sort of government insurance it is not Medicare, you aint old enough, son! It's Medicaid whatever NY chooses to call it.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 03:10 PM

With all that money pouring into the state. Unreal.
Same up here I suppose. The epicenter of capitalism with rural and urban poverty rates that are near feudal. Luckily we do have social services still. For now. Most of our hospitals are going out or getting bought up in this consolidation phase of health biz.
My mom’s supplemental is around 200/month with copays on prescriptions, Office visits.
I’m trying to remember when the ides of a national health care system was first talked about?
Roosevelt? His Uncle before him?
It’s so odd that we Americans are so reactionary or so easily frightened away from public goods or services.
Or have been. Maybe that’s changing
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 03:26 PM

I'm currently in a fight with my wife's Medicare Advantage provider over a medication. It runs $250/month. Medicare pays half. But it is now nebulized, which under her plan has no copay. BUT, according to her provider, "it is not on the "Medicare Part B" formulary," they insist. How do I know what is on "the formulary?" The contract doesn't say that, it says "nebulized medications". (Actually, it says "medications administered by durable medical equipment (e.g., nebulizer) authorized by the plan".) It's that ambiguity - is it the medication, or the durable medical equipment, that has to be authorized by the plan? - that is the basis for the fight..

It is these kinds of fights, which I am better equipped than the average Joe to fight, that are not considered by most policy makers. The point of "Medicare for all", at least under Bernie's vision, is to eliminate these fights. But, can it? I'm not convinced.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 03:58 PM

Yes it is Medicaid and the current ‘Healthy NY’ proposal would have us not sending state dollars to DC to have it sent back to the state as Medicare dollars. Letting them, instead, be used to fund this program proposal. It’s getting a hearing in the Capitol. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they lost their republican excuse to do nothing as the states blue dogs were voted out in 18’.
I know all about medical bills. When I bleed out financially and can no longer pay shop rates of doctors offices out of pocket, Medicaid will pay for the opiates. This is the well tread path. Who would a thought having Dunkin’ Donuts rum our health care would have put the emphasis on the commodification of disease and not restoration of health.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 07:48 PM

Gov. Ron DeSantis has shown no interest in expanding Medicaid here. But he's done a fine job otherwise. Once Trump is out and a few more red states sign onto it he may change his mind.

Quote:
the commodification of disease and not restoration of health.


I don't quite buy into that narrative. They aren't hiding the cure for cancer so they can sell more chemo drugs. You wanna restore your health you can eat better and get more exercise. Doctor's gonna do his best to cure you and if he can't he'll do what he can for your symptoms. What more has anyone ever been able to ask?

Our chances of being cured of whatever ails us has never been better than it is today. And it will get even better tomorrow.

Getting that healthcare to the poors is the tricky part.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/21/19 11:50 PM

Uhhh....no.

Here's some numbers and empiricals that are supposed to change minds and win arguments. Health quality comparisons

health costs comparison

I guess you could make the case that if the poors got more healthcare the trend lines might improve. My view is that it's a profit driven endeavor and the results are pointing to that fact.

Here's a quick 10 yr. average chart comparison (select the 10 yr. option) of the healthcare sector compared to the S&P average:

Fat city for investors

real expensive.
so so outcomes
fat returns

The sector is doing fine.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 03:04 AM

If they did find a cancer cure, the drug company would patent it, get an exclusive right to make it, and charge $500,000 for it BECAUSE THEY CAN. That's our free enterprise system. People on insurance plans would hit their cap of about $7000 and pay no more each year (their insurance company would pay the rest). People on Medicare would spend enough to hit catastrophic care in January, and then pay 5%. (About $30,000 per year.) Medicare would pay the rest. So you can see who's sucking up all the money from insurance companies and Medicare.

Medicare-for-All would heavily involve insurance companies. Right now they process all the Medicare claims for about 5% of the total. Also, many many Medicare users have either Advantage Plans or Medicare Supplement Plans, because bare Medicare leaves you very vulnerable to medical bankruptcy. My Advantage plan just costs the same as the Part B cost, so I effectively pay nothing and I get Part D drug coverage included for free. But I still have to pay that 5% for an expensive drug. It would be really nice if Medicare (including drugs) had a cap.

My point is that Medicare-for-All would mean more of the same. The hard part is figuring out how people would pay for it. Us retirees worked and paid in for 40+ years. So you can't suddenly give it on the same terms to everybody, or even those 55-65. They would have to pay say about 15% less than an ACA policy. When they turn 65, they could get it for $130/month like we who paid for it.

The reality is that Medicare-for-all has to be very much like adding a government option in ACA. It's not single-payer. Not at all.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 02:34 PM

Want to expand Medicare? You'll need to hire the insurance companies, not fire them
The Hill
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 04:16 PM

No I can't see who's sucking up all the money from insurance companies and medicare from your hypothetical.

Yes, there would be contractors for admin grunt work. Far less than we have now. Or it should with a single payer pricing structure.

Your point is that you think it would be. That is the only point I can see with the argument you made.
Sanders has proposals on how he would raise revenue. Warren's supposed to release hers soon.

Your last line makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Want to expand Medicare? You'll need to hire the insurance companies, not fire them
The Hill


No need to shout Gregor :0

One interesting take away from the proponents of the 'Healthy NY' proposal meetings was comparison between the admin costs of a local regional hospital nearby and a hospital located in the city of Windsor, Ontario. The entire billings department consisted of six people whereas our local regional hospital had over 150.

So yeah, there will be people needed to push paper, etc.. but with a standard of pricing from a single payer there will no longer be a need to staff an army of clerks to wrestle with insurance companies ever changing reimbursement negotiations that get re-negotiated constantly.

That's off the top of my head.

Frankly, these arguments have more to do with who's making the proposals and which side is winning. To argue for the current system is beyond my comprehension really.

It's not individual doctors that are trying to make money off your diseases (well I'd like to think so like you do) but a system that, by design, does.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 06:50 PM

It was a headline I wasn't shouting. grin Usually I follow those with a quote and an opinion ¯\_(--)_/¯

Quote:
To argue for the current system is beyond my comprehension really.


Yeah it is, but I tend to look at what's going to happen rather than what really should happen. I can see a way forward to a single payer system by working with existing infrastructure. Or maybe they'll pull off a political miracle....

Supreme court is going to be an issue too. Which is to say that Constitutional restraints may come into play. The Constitution is fairly flexible but our current Supreme Court is not.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/22/19 10:49 PM

The goal is single-payer. That's something I would like very much. The question is: How do we get there from here? There is so much money and opposition involved, I doubt everybody will suddenly come to their senses and do the right thing! That NEVER happens in America. Politics is The Art of the Possible. So what is possible? If we fight hard and a lot of things work out, I think we can get a public option put back in ACA. We can also undo all the Republican "fixes" that tried to kill ACA.

Expand Medicaid in every state so a bunch of people are not in the gap between Medicaid and ACA. That is just plain insane! Right now if people make a little too much for Medicaid but not enough for ACA, they have to pay full price. If they make just enough for ACA, it is essentially free. What clown designed that system? (Answer: Republicans)
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 01:18 AM

And the Democrats passed the ACA.

I’ve heard all the equivocating, lowering expectations and killing progress for political protection of capital in one lifetime to take any of that seriously anymore.



Aside from a raft of Russian investigation. the Democratic Party has proposed Butkus.
They did help pass a monster of a warfare budget. But healthcare? Wonkish condescension, adults in the room patronizing, and ignoring broad popular proposals that have won elections historically in this country in the past and in other countries currently.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 06:16 PM

Quote:
I’ve heard all the equivocating, lowering expectations and killing progress for political protection of capital in one lifetime to take any of that seriously anymore.


That's too bad because it's how politics works. I try to be analytical about the whole thing and don't take any of it too seriously.

What I want to happen almost never happens.
What I hope will happen occasionally does does.
But what I think will happen seems to be mostly on track.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 07:45 PM

It’s one way politics works. You may prefer it but that doesn’t make it the only way.

Now who’s gunna give the dead German political quote next?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
It’s one way politics works. You may prefer it but that doesn’t make it the only way.

Now who’s gunna give the dead German political quote next?


"That's one way politics works and we may 'prefer it' but that doesn't make it the only way?"

Pffffttt, why do I get the sense that you're just taking out your frustration at the reality of the way the world works by taking it out on people here and mocking what we said?

Ahhh, maybe it's just my imagination.

So, what do you suggest instead? Shall we firebomb Washington?
Hold a mass protest and engage with the National Guard?
Shall we initiate some "paper terrorism" and sue the crap out of the government for every single thing that they do a la the SovCitizen bunch?

Shall we "go Galt" and set up our own libertarian paradise somewhere and refuse to pay taxes a la Ayn Rand?

Should we storm a bird sanctuary and bring a bunch of gunz?
I hear there's an empty one up in Oregon.

Geez Chunkz, when you say we "prefer it" you ignore the fact that so many of us have expended effort as best we knew how for most of our adult lives to participate in our democracy while those around us took everything for granted.

Oh well, I guess we're just a bunch of disheveled useless liberals.
Best of luck with your endeavors, lord knows you don't need an albatross like liberals around your neck.
We're worse than the Republicans!
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
the Democratic Party has proposed Butkus.

Minor point of information: Butkus was a Dick who played football a long time ago. Bupkis is the one who is generally credited to be a total zero. wink
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/23/19 10:56 PM

I love it when you speak Yiddish!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 01:03 AM

I guess I will not be getting any suggestions. Hmm
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 02:25 AM

I’m sorry Jeff, were you asking a question?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 02:34 AM

“Fame defensive end Deacon Jones, Butkus "was a well-conditioned animal, and every time he hit you, he tried to put you in the cemetery, not the hospital."

Dang!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 02:40 AM

Following the lead of pharma-friendly Rep. Richard Neal, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee this week crushed several progressive amendments to a House drug pricing bill that would have expanded the number of medicines covered by the legislation and extended lower costs to the nation's tens of millions of uninsured.
Neoliberals....

But hey, that’s how the world works
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 03:42 AM

Like I said, unlikely that everybody comes to their senses and decides to do the right thing. Humans (Republican AND Democratic) are complex beings with the ability to rationalize anything that benefits themselves as benefiting their constituents. They "think" they are doing the right thing, though it may be very right for them and not so much for everybody else.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 12:36 PM

“Pffffttt, why do I get the sense that you're just taking out your frustration at the reality of the way the world works by taking it out on people here and mocking what we said?

Ahhh, maybe it's just my imagination.“

I’ll take that statement to task. Like so much Lib BS you claim to know ‘how the world ‘works’?
From what I can tell your simply sh!t posting into the internet whatever the current windup form of infotainment is on your TV.
Or it’s getting into a ‘facts and reason’ battle with the extreme right.
Neither is politics but it has been mainstreamed as though it were.

Any progress in this country was not achieved by taking a firm stand of ‘but The other sides doing it’ or the appeal for phoney timelines being realistic.
Never.
Name one Jeff of that working in the ‘real world’?

You and others here insisting on your real world arbitrary timelines and rationalizing deferring any real progress for tarted up status quo arguments, are simply justifying your own ideologies as I do mine. Fine.

Single payer is not radical. What is radical, in the face of unnecessary commodity cruelty of healthcare, is withholding your support of such a plan with vague rationales of being ‘reality’ and other condescending arguments. That is stunningly radical not the other way around.

What were some of the other arguments? Others might not like such a large change?
Well what does professor history say? What happened the last time Democrats passed ‘radical’ legislation that addressed people’s material concerns having broad popular support? Oh, right. They enjoyed congressional majorities for the next 40 years.

Since the Clintons taking the party to the right as a solution to winning occasional majorities in Congress or winning the Oval Office, we have been locked into this game of ‘who’s more conservative’ between both political parties with the end result being this historic level of poverty, corporate crime (while the laws are still there as such) and state violence to third world colonies. Side note: libdems deregulated banking, imposed austerity, deindustrialized the Midwest, expanded wars, etc etc etc.

So pardon me if I don’t buy your , ‘hey man that’s just how things are’, rationals any more than you buy into the more conservative arguments made here by others.
Your arguments remind me of Kings fear of liberal apathy more than the racists or KKK.


Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 04:08 PM

Quote:
So pardon me if I don’t buy your , ‘hey man that’s just how things are’


Things aren't how they are because I want them to be this way.

Even discussing healthcare with a Republican President and a Republican Senate is a complete waste of time. Even if the house passes a watered down pharma bill it will never see the light of day in the senate. Even if they hope watering it down might get McConnell to put it to a vote.

Bernie's plan is to incrementally lower the age for Medicare enrollment. First to 55 then to 45 on down the line until everyone is covered. It could take many many years to accomplish it and enormous political resistance each time another step is taken. He plans to pay for it with a transaction tax on Wall Street.

Warren's plan is to abolish private insurance and put everyone on Medicare all at once. She plans to pay for it with a 2% tax on wealth over $50Million.

What's your plan? You with Bernie and incrementalism? Or Warren's more radical approach? Biden doesn't have a plan so he is the most likely to beat Trump. Because Americans don't like plans.

My plan is to watch and see what happens. I'm convinced now that Democrats are the devil so I will no longer be voting at all.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 05:51 PM

I'm with Warren. I'll be backing Bernies plan by supporting Sanders.

From her 'Plans' website:

"Elizabeth supports Medicare for All, which would provide all Americans with a public health care program. Medicare for All is the best way to give every single person in this country a guarantee of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance companies...

...Medicare for All solves these problems. Everyone can see the doctor they need. Nobody goes broke. And your doctor gets paid by Medicare instead of fighting with an insurance company.

Every American should be able to get the care they need when they need it. This is a goal worth fighting for, and Elizabeth is in this fight all the way. That's why Elizabeth will fight for Medicare for All."

Why get the Republican knock off when I have the option for the real thing. Sanders has been unwavering in progressive goals. Warren's history...not so much. Until recently, that is.

Her daughter, CEO of a for profit health insurance company, bribing WFP leadership for endorsement last month over the rank and file vote (which the leadership will not disclose vote totals from) between her and Sanders, is ominous and smells of Clinton corruption. Clinton's are poison for the Left.

No, I don't trust Warren to not back slide. That's just me
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 05:54 PM

I couldnt find where she's advocating an all at once enrollment for in addition to supporting Sanders' Medicare for All. Where did you find that info?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 06:23 PM

Quote:
I'm with Warren. I'll be backing Bernies plan by supporting Sanders.


What?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 06:37 PM

She hasn't exactly released the plan yet but that's the angle she's been taking. Looks like she's already earmarked the 2% wealth tax to other big structural changes so she's gotta find another way to come up with the $30Trillion.

Chuck Schumer has been working for ages to drop Medicare enrollment to 55. But he's a Democrat from the same state as Trump so he can't be trusted.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 06:44 PM

When it comes right down to it I don't expect much of anything at all to happen concerning healthcare. Because politics.

I do hope they'll at least fix the ACA but I'm not counting on it.

But that's just me. Always the optimist.........
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
She hasn't exactly released the plan yet but that's the angle she's been taking.


Wait... wut?

You were asking me to answer a question based on a clear bill proposal of one candidate and a fictional position of another?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
I'm with Warren. I'll be backing Bernies plan by supporting Sanders.


What?


Right!
Warren backs Sanders plan. I’m backing Bernie’s plan. I just don’t see the logic of voting for an intermediary when I can vote for Sanders to fight for his own plan. After all, he wrote the damn bill!’ laugh
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 07:21 PM

Oh, I see. Makes perfect sense, except for Sanders age and health problems. If Sanders is the nominee, I would vote for him but I hope his VP is viable as well because I doubt he would last a full eight years. Maybe a Sanders/Warren ticket would do. But unfortunately, it will probably be a Biden/Nobody ticket. Where Nobody is someone you never heard of. I think that older candidates in particular should start selecting VPs from among the other candidates closest to their positions for the sake of continuity. Because we all die someday, and you never know which day that will be.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 07:23 PM

You're aware aren't you that Sanders is not going to win the nomination? I just don't want you to get your hopes up like last time.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/25/19 07:31 PM

Quote:
Because we all die someday, and you never know which day that will be.

There is only one thing we say to death. Not today! Syrio Forel

I just saw Bernie on Jimmy Kimmel, he looks fabulous! I have no worries about him serving even two terms. I'd vote for him in a New York minute if he got the nod.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 01:32 PM

Quote:
I just don’t see the logic of voting for an intermediary when I can vote for Sanders to fight for his own plan. After all, he wrote the damn bill!

And I'm not asking you to vote for an intermediary or anybody else, I genuinely don't care who you vote for or whether you vote at all.
You can vote for Sanders in the primary but that doesn't make him president. Even if he was president Medicare for All is unlikely to be adopted in the near term. It's just too expensive. And he is not going to become president so it's a moot point anyway.

I just read Sander's bill. There's nothing in it. No specifics, no timeline, no suggestion of how to pay for it. Just some vague notion that since Medicare is popular everyone should have it...and it would save money. I agree with it wholeheartedly. But turning it into law and actually implementing it is a whole nuther ball of wax.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 02:15 PM

Well golly Gregor,

I'm not asking you to care about who or wether I vote for. Just addressing PIA's question.

You'll have to cut me some slack when I tell you that your critique of Sanders plan is lacking in specifics when you were posting up arguments of non-existent positions of other candidates.

But again, since you raised the issue:
OPTIONS TO FINANCE MEDICARE FOR ALL
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 02:16 PM

FFS
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 03:58 PM

Sounds like Bernie's pitch... good stuff, and solid, too.

I think what Warren is hung up on is that a basic premise for MfA is that there will be a trade of no more premiums for a new healthcare tax as the primary funding method.

The key element is that the new tax will be less than the old premiums for most people. Even Bernie doesn't say it bluntly, but at least he says it.

The danger they face is the loud and dishonest political spin machine that will go from 1000 RPMs to 10,000 RPMs when the words "new tax" are uttered, and the gullibility and low brane-wattage of the majority of the electorate when it comes to simple arithmetic.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 05:10 PM

Perhaps, Logtroll.

But since all we can do is speculate on what Warren may or may not have in her heart, There's only one candidate that has put forward a clear proposal and the rest is speculation.
Or maybe she is going to support Sanders bill if she were to become the president. Dunno.

It's a choice between preserving a profit motive based system who's very DNA means that profits will be increased by any means necessary vs. one of public goods and services.

Public goods and services is a scary concept until it isn't anymore. I think it's no longer as scary as it used to be. Most people have begun to question the rot at the top that has been sustained for decades now and calling B.S. to those rationales for blunting progressive progress.

Now the rot at the top of the Democratic party.... That's a tougher nut to crack as history has shown. Every once in a while though..
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/28/19 09:48 PM

I was wrong about Warren, I kept seeing the phrase "all in with Medicare for all" and got it in my head that she...anyway, what that phrase means is that she is all in with Bernie's plan. I don't care a lot about what the candidates are promising. It's all pure bullshite and nothing but political wishlists. The grits aint really gonna hit the pan until Donald Trump has an opponent.

Biden is most likely going to be that opponent. If you go by the numbers. But a long while back I spotted a trend that could get Warren, a progressive, the nomination. I'm not any particular fan of Senator Warren. I don't know all that much about her. I just think there's an invisible leftish trend that will get her the nomination.
I don't think it is leftish enough to nominate Bernie though.

It depends entirely on how many lefties vote in the primaries. I think there's going to be an uptick because Trump Rage is a thing.
Enough of an uptick to get a progressive nominated.
But not enough of an uptick to get Bernie nominated.

Warren will be viewed as the candidate in the center.

If there is anything the democratic party can be counted on to do, it is to head directly towards the center. Warren will get the nomination.

It's not about the politics to me. Any progressive candidate will do.

Waaaay farther back, I called the 2020 election for the democrats. The scales tipped on that when Trump attacked AOC and her squad. He made the election about race.

Early on in this thread I predicted how the insurance problem will be solved. The ACA will be repackaged and resold and the the enrollment age in Medicare will be lowered.

You keep telling me what should happen. But I keep tellin' you what's gonna happen.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 01:33 PM

For some reason this keeps returning to s Warren v. Sanders thing.
I get it Gregor. You prefer Warren over Sanders.
There’s a couple things to keep in mind though. They may have similar ideas on issues such as health care but there politics are very different.
Warrens running a campaign much the same as Clinton’s. Her base is pretty much the same constituents. She has less baggage but is still running a lanyard people campaign.
Very vertical.
Sanders constituents are very different. Encompassing more working class, younger voters, etc. He has a hard core following that closely resembles Trumps base of support.
You don’t know how that type of support would have faired due to the corruption of the primaries.
We do know how the Clinton coalition did. Warren may do better with a antitrump bump but we also know how Trumps approvals went after Mueller’s imvestigation finished. They went up and his base was energized. That’s a handicap for the opposition running into the general. Over half the country sees both sides are doing the same thing in the Ukraine. It’s hypocrisy and they know it.
Your anti-Trump bump may not be enough.
May wind up being who’s base turns out more. I see Trump having the advantage with the Ukraine theatre.
Which means single payer option vs. universal healthcare is moot.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 02:45 PM

Quote:
For some reason this keeps returning to s Warren v. Sanders thing.
I get it Gregor. You prefer Warren over Sanders.


Nope. I literally don't give a flying feck at a rolling donut which of those two gets elected. As long as it's a progressive candidate of some sort.

But I simply don't see a path to the Whitehouse for Sanders. Perhaps you could spell out how you think he's going to get the nomination? Tell me of this path you see to a President Bernie Sanders as I have shown you why I think Warren has some small chance of getting the nomination and winning against Trump..

Both want to implement Medicare For All. Both will likely have to compromise if elected.

Quote:
Sanders constituents are very different. Encompassing more working class, younger voters, etc. He has a hard core following that closely resembles Trumps base of support.
You don’t know how that type of support would have faired due to the corruption of the primaries.


The only "corruption" of the primaries is who gets out and votes. If Bernie's millions of dedicated fans vote in the primaries he will win. If they sit on their hands and let the Democrats decide he will lose.

It's really just that simple.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 03:50 PM

Well, I don't know how to respond.

If I do, I'm hijacking a thread again.

O.K., I'll hijack away.

I assume your not for Sanders on account of your recurring 'he's not going to win you know? you know that don't you" hey chunks, Sanders isn't going to win..." Sure. O.K. Why would I want to argue with somebody who's made up their mind? Your entitled to your opinion.

I'm meeting you on your ground and seeing a problem with a Warren candidacy, should she manage to prevail. Way to early to call it but your happy too? O.K. fine. I think it's early.

Both want medicare for all. So then it goes to past performances because, unlike stocks, they tend to be predictive behavior.

Warren's been a republican on the side of capital. Her daughter is CEO of a for profit health insurance company. They are already willing to pull off corruption in aide of endorsements. Not a good sign. She's willing to compromise her 'ethics'. She's going the well worn path of talking from the left in the primary, like Obama, and the bones and stones don't look much different of her going on to govern from the right.

So as it relates to the thread's topic, no, I'm not convinced that she would carry out a medicare for all plan as Sanders bill is calling for.

I don't see Sanders cut from that same sell out cloth. His career speaks for itself.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 04:08 PM

But getting back to the subject..

A single payer option would more than likely sort out old and sick to a stripped down medicare buy in and young and healthy would stay in cheaper for profits that would be able to offer cheaper rates because of that profit sorting effect.

Or is there some kind of safeguard to keep that from happening? Would single payer option be able to negotiate drug pricing and treatment reimbursement? Stop the old and infirm from being thrown off private insurance and onto a public option similar to voucher schools? If the goal is to get to medicare for all why not do that politically instead of forestalling one system, that has broad popular support, in favor of another.

My theory, and it's a popular one in some circles, is that centrists Libs get off on means testing, byzantine rules and large compliance regulation that basically renders a program useless as they intended in order to get that sweet sweet payoff in the form of campaign contributions from the very industry that is doing so much harm for profits.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 05:23 PM

The entire healthcare/gov/tax thing has been going on forever. The facts, however, are pretty simple. Our system, a for-profit healthcare system, has been rejected by the rest of the developed world. The reason is simple, a for-profit healthcare system costs much more, is not as good as a no-profit healthcare system, and EVERYBODY get covered. The trick, I think, is to study the other systems, cherry pick the best of them, and have at it.

All that being said its just not gonna happen. Between the supporters of for-profit, the current ongoing war against government in general, the advertising clout of the drug companies, etc. its a miracle that non-profit has done as well as it has. The downside is that for-profit has enough supporters so that any endeavor of non-profit cannot win enough support to install an entire single payer system, optional or not. To get it done folks are gonna have to do it gently and without a war between and betwixt parties. Doesn't really matter who thinks what and who supports this or that. This is, I believe, reality and where we are at. Its not pretty but, again factual.

All that being said I think there are enough studies to absolutely prove the economical, and medical, value of a non-profit system. As far as I am concerned having a non-profit healthcare system is the same as having a non-profit police system (can anybody actually even think of a for-profit police system?). I think most people can support a non-profit healthcare system if presented correctly and doesn't threaten the healthcare of people who can currently afford it. I also suspect that anybody who is for a non-profit healthcare system get together and figure out the best way to present same. What we are talking about is reducing the cost of our healthcare by over a TRILLION dollars! When one considers that, and the simple fact that we have a national debt which is going to be around 22 trillion dollars by the end of next year, and there is actually a change to reduce that whilst also reducing the tax increases that are going to be necessary to deal with the debt I suspect we may have a chance.

As far as regulating prices, etc. is concerned. Other nations get it done, does anybody think we re so screwed up that we can't do it too? Are we so proud that we are willing to bankrupt ourselves instead of studying solutions even though they were not invented here? I actually note that there are arguments, in this thread, arguing as to how we will ever possibly control the drug companies. Are you serious? What part of "regulation" is not understood? I hate to throw this in but it sounds a bit like arguments over gun control! Sheer lunacy on a grand scale based, basically, on ignorance, druthers, and myth. We gotta get over this crap! Like the guy they just buried said; "We are better than this!"

(sorry, got a bit carried away..........)
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 05:59 PM

"We are better than this!"

No we aren't.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 06:26 PM

Quote:
Well, I don't know how to respond.

If I do, I'm hijacking a thread again.

O.K., I'll hijack away.


Don't worry...I'm a moderator. I'll bail you out if the others complain. We could start another thread...that's how it's supposed to work.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 06:30 PM

“Our system, a for-profit healthcare system, has been rejected by the rest of the developed world. The reason is simple, a for-profit healthcare system costs much more, is not as good as a no-profit healthcare system, and EVERYBODY get covered”

“All that being said its just not gonna happen. “

“All that being said I think there are enough studies to absolutely prove the economical, and medical, value of a non-profit system.”

“ I think most people can support a non-profit healthcare system if presented correctly and doesn't threaten the healthcare of people who can currently afford it. “

“I hate to throw this in but it sounds a bit like arguments over gun control!”

I have to admit, I’m not sure what your saying beyond government should regulate to control costs and don’t upset people who can afford healthcare?

Are you rejecting Medicare for all? It seems contradictory since it meets with some of your wish list. If it doesn’t could you explain how?
Posted by: jgw

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 09:18 PM

I am not rejecting anything. I am simply saying that it would be nice if everybody backed off a little bit and considered what is actually possible. Going directly, for instance, to single payer will pass nothing and the only thing that results is that, if that was your choice, you get to whine - that's about it. Same with all the other whiz bang solutions based on, basically, little or nothing but envy for the nations that have actually put some kind of taxpayer supported healthcare for all in place.

I did indicate I didn't want to upset people who can afford healthcare. That was wrong. When I look at all the people sitting behind Jackass trump I doubt that all of those can actually afford all that much. I was actually suggesting that those who really like the current for-profit healthcare are already upset and need serious education. We have had a national problem for a very long time. We have decided that there is no difference between perception and reality and perception is the rule. I am not sure that isn't the basis for our messes. Have no solution but its not a real good thing.

Not all of the existing solutions are the same, incidentally. Switzerland, for instance, has a rather complex system but EVERYBODY has healthcare! (the interesting thing about that one is that the insurance companies now own most of the hospitals). Had a high school student from Switzerland here and both his parents were doctors. He as highly amused at the mess we have for healthcare (and didn't even vaguely show any envy)

I guess what I am saying is that it seems to me that a lot of people have decided on 'their' plan as the right one and if they don't get their way they are simply not going to vote because that's the way it is. It also seems, to me, that we are a nation of over 300 MILLION people! This is not a little village where folks can actually all sit down and make decisions - that is simply not gonna happen. What we have is one of them things that need to be discussed, investigated, studied, and thoughts express (as thoughts) and some kind of agreement made. Instead, again, it seems to me that what we are actually doing is creating a bunch of outlying communities of true believers who absolutely refuse to agree, or even discuss anything other than "their" plan. That will not work <sigh>

Right now we have one rule; "My way or the highway". When you have 300 million citizens with that same attitude.......................

Oh, we may not be better than this but we sure as hell could be.............

Its too bad the congress can't setup a committee to discuss. It could have a rule that can remove anybody who expresses ideas as the only way to go. That means that folks with the only way to go get tagged. If nothing else it just may end up explaining a lot and, just possibly, open a few minds. Right now, I think, we have a congress wherein each member has THE solution and that's the way it is. They can deny all they want but that is the way they behave. Get rid of that stuff and we could probably actually make headway on stuff. We have done it before and it would be nice if we could do it again. The congress could start by their seating. Each seat would have an alternating party so that they would have to talk to one another if they wanted to or not (if nothing else that would certainly amuse)
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/29/19 11:48 PM

I'm really not sure what your beefing about JGW.

There is a proposal out there right now that a couple of candidates are running on as a plank in their campaign. The existing plan has been spelled out and scored by economists.

We get to decide weather or not we will vote for those candidates.

A bill generally gets discussed in committees of the house and senate do they not? There's a process already in place for considering legislation isn't there, or am I mistaken?

Testimony is heard by 'experts'. Usually lobbyists but no plan is perfect.

What do you think is the differences between single payer option and MFA? Any?

Just curious.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 02:11 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
For some reason this keeps returning to s Warren v. Sanders thing.
Not really. Now it's mostly a Biden-Warren thing. What’s Behind Elizabeth Warren’s Rise In The Polls? (FiveThirtyEight). My friend, you are stuck on this either-or paradigm and purity mantra. Warren is gonna win it all because she scratches a variety of itches. She has energy, populism, moderate AND liberal credentials, and she know what she is doing. Yes she has baggage, as everyone does, but she overcomes it with enthusiasm.

Wall Street and the GOP will go all in to stop her, but they won't succeed. And, she'll have coattails. I recognize you don't understand her. I get that you think she's too conventional, just as friend Perotista thinks she's too liberal. You're both wrong, I'm afraid. What NEEDS to happen is removal of the Republican roadblock to honor, progress, rationality and patriotism. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, you best both vote for her or you are putting ego and pride above national interest, and that is no exaggeration. It's too urgent for the niceties y'all espouse. It's not the time for third party theatrics. We're in deep s***. Right [censored] now. Right the ship now, set a course tomorrow.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 04:44 AM

ACA already has similar costs to Single-Payer, if we fix a few broken parts. Instead of raising taxes (but still keeping them progressive), ACA plus Medicare expansion subsidizes poor and working class people. Functionally, these are identical!

What upsets a lot of people is that for-profit insurance and drug companies are making a lot of profits off ACA. ACA lets insurance companies make 20%, instead of the 30-35% they used to make. Medicare has about 5% overhead, and it does that by paying doctors and hospitals less than they want. So if we just add a public option to ACA that pays doctors and hospitals Medicare rates, it has to cost about 15% less for the same ACA-compliant plan. ACA customers would flock to it, since it costs 15% less than other plans. Employers would too: They have to be ACA compliant when they supply insurance to employees, but they would LOVE to do that for 15% less.

All we need to do then, is to fix Medicare expansion so it's top income limit is equal to ACA's bottom limit, and to jack the uncovered penalty way up to the cost of coverage with the public option. Oh, and get rid of Trump's shitty not-real-insurance policies.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 11:13 AM

The question was about single payer vs. Medicare For All, or so I thought.
The MFA proposal is not the same as what you just proposed.
The results in savings would not be the same.
Coverage would not be the same.
I’m not sure you know what the differences are between MFA and single payer.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
The question was about single payer vs. Medicare For All, or so I thought.

Actually, that question was what I had right after the last debate where healthcare got contentious. So I did some research to try and figure out what the arguments were. What I learned was what was stated in the opening post:
Quote:
Public option = choice of government provided healthcare or private insurance

Medicare for All = no choice but government provided healthcare

I suppose the MFA strategy is that for it to work there needs to be the entire population paying into it. I expect that given enough time the public option would easily become preferred by enough to be viable.

The bugaboo would be in the transition.

That is what the candidates were debating.

I don’t know of any definitive descriptions of MFA vs single-payer - near as I can tell, MFA is single payer.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 01:18 PM

Yeah, your right.
Now even I’m doing it and I was involved in the state project having the same semantic problems. There’s running confusion on both sides as to what one another means when talking about this subject.

Gets even worse when you throw in ‘government run’, socialized, nationalized, etc...

Single payer is one entity bill paying. Doesn’t always mean guvmint.

Nationalized means guvmint owning and running hospitals, staffing and equipping them, etc.,. Think UK’s NHS,


Socialized could be any that has democratized healthcare giving people more control over how it’s organized and paid for.

Privatized is what we got. It costs the most money while delivering on the ability to pay.

Etc...

That is why I’ve been asking what people think of ‘single payer’ and how it would be different from MFA.

Sorry for my confusion Logs. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 01:58 PM

Isn't there a Biblical story about the "confusion of tongues"?

What I see are all of the Dem candidates wanting some form of universal public healthcare system. Everybody gets covered (it's a right) and it costs the least amount of money possible.

What I see Reeps prioritizing is that private companies get to control and profit from healthcare - even if it is against their best interests.

The private insurance and healhcare providers know they have an extremely profitable racket and that if people only understood the fundamentals of it they would lose their goldmine. So they work very diligently to keep the discussion away from the facts and the spotlight on big bad government, loss of choice, and raising taxes.

The general populace is so conditioned to fear and loathe these things, and so disinclined to put in the effort to do a rational evaluation of the facts, that chaos reigns and the profiteers get ever richer.

Political candidates find themselves in the position of trying to navigate a field of mis- and disinformation landmines when they try to sell the concept of universal publicly funded and managed healthcare, and their message gets so muddled that it becomes even harder to communicate it. It's really hard to compete at marketing the truth in a world of dishonest greedy salesmen, and lazy gullible consumers.

There's the problem defined in simple terms.

Somebody else can tell us what the solution is... sick
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll


The private insurance and healhcare providers know they have an extremely profitable racket and that if people only understood the fundamentals of it they would lose their goldmine. So they work very diligently to keep the discussion away from the facts and the spotlight on big bad government, loss of choice, and raising taxes.


Political candidates find themselves in the position of trying to navigate a field of mis- and disinformation landmines when they try to sell the concept of universal publicly funded and managed healthcare, and their message gets so muddled that it becomes even harder to communicate it. It's really hard to compete at marketing the truth in a world of dishonest greedy salesmen, and lazy gullible consumers.

There's the problem defined in simple terms.

Somebody else can tell us what the solution is... sick


Well
Isn’t that the story of politics? Seriously, this has always been the case of the rules vs. the rulers.
One problem is communicating simply and taking time to explain it. Supposedly Eleanor gave that advice to Kennedy, according to Vidal.
If you’ve got to pull out a flow chart and pointer stick then maybe your plan is to complicated and ineffectual in the first place. Like the bank examiner said, the clue to criminal behavior is overly complicated language and structures.
Kinda the same way in design, story telling, engineering, financial loans, Kamala Harris financial aide plan, etc..
There’s another way you can shut down arguments. You can shut them down by simply boycotting the person making them.

I’ll leave it to others to wonder which candidate is being boycotted In the mainstream media.
(Hint: the only candidate who’s proposed a health care plan.)
Posted by: jgw

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 05:13 PM

Single payer is, basically, SINGLE PAYER! This normally means that every individual tax payer gets to pay for single payer. Basically the payer is the government who, in turn, gets the money from the taxpayer. Medicare for all confuses me. Both my wife and myself are on Medicare. We also get to pay for medigap insurance which is not cheap (we use the aarp plan with no deductables). My wife tells me that the price goes up every year and the increase is usually just barely covered by SS increases.

What I don't know if the medicare for all is completely free or is handled the same as we already on medicare get to pay right now for medigap insurance. If one is using the Bernie MFA plan we are talking, basically, about single payer as he is including everything but the kitchen sink in the coverage so I am not even sure why he bothers with medicare at all. I suspect that the different candidates that are offering MFA (medicare for all) each has a slightly different plan.

Anyway, if its all going to be covered by taxes then, we are talking about millions of people and the increase will be millions times at least 1000.00 plus the basic cost of medicare itself. What I really find interesting is that the congress passed a law that denies medicare the ability to even talk to the drug companies about their prices. As far as I can tell nobody has been able to do anything about that law. So, if gov takes over healthcare there are some serious questions as to how its going to be handled, what the rules are going to be, how much regulation will be put in place to control prices, etc. Under Trump, for instance, one of the first things he did was to release any controls on healthcare equipment plus some other stuff.

Since I am on medicare AND the VA I haven't spent much time looking at this stuff as it doesn't really concern me. I have noted, however, that there is little or no real facts about the entire thing. Just a bunch of promises from candidates who, even if they win, are not going to have the money available to actually do all the stuff they are 'promising'.

I have often wondered, however, what the general costs of medicare, VA, and for-profit healthcare are. I have searched on this one and, apparently, these costs are not readily available. My suspicion is that the VA does a better job, fiscally, than either medicare or for-profit. but base that on absolutely nothing. I have also not noted that any democratic candidates have offered VA coverage for everybody. Seems to me that may be the cheapest way to go.

Just wondering.................
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 05:31 PM

Most people don't realize that 64% of healthcare costs are already borne by the government. This comes in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, public health, tribal health, and must-treat policies.
Quote:
Medicare plays a major role in the health care system, accounting for 20 percent of total national health spending in 2017, 30 percent of spending on retail sales of prescription drugs, 25 percent of spending on hospital care, and 23 percent of spending on physician services.
CMS
Posted by: jgw

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 07:56 PM

In theory, when Obamacare started there were several things which were supposed to happen. I suspect most of those things were trashed. I do know, however, that obamacare was starting to reduce the increasing expense of healthcare. It was also, in theory, building a database of procedures and the outcomes of those procedures so that there could be a list of what worked and what did not. Have no idea what happened to that one. Then there was supposed to be a standardization of medical/healthcare software - I have no idea what happened to those things either. My suspicion is that all these sorts of things got trashed as they assaulted the stone cold assault of the for-profit side of healthcare.

Anyway, one can only wonder if any of this stuff is covered in any of the healthcare promised by Democratic candidates.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 08:06 PM

Quote:
I’m not sure you know what the differences are between MFA and single payer.


I know exactly what the differences between MFA and single payer are, and I know every different aspect of Medicare payments and reimbursements. I have Medicare and I pay about $635 per month when you count my drug copays. My employee plan I had while working capped out at $2500 per year, so it was a lot better...for me.

I think there are as many MFA plans as there are candidates and groups proposing it. That's the problem. We have everything from people buying in at about the same cost as commercial policies, to totally tax funded with different tax rates for retirees and working people.

What I do know is that we will never actually get anything if we try to make a radical change that destroys the insurance business and nationalizes Big Pharma. So lets not bother beating our heads against that brick wall. Adding a public option to ACA will be about 100 times easier, and has a decent chance of coming to pass. It does not force anybody to change anything. They will do so voluntarily because it would deliver the same ACA-compliant care for 15% less than the commercial ACA-compliant plans. It accomplishes the same thing! It just makes it easy because saving money is a lot more acceptable to the vast majority of US citizens of any political persuasion. Even conservative Republicans have ACA-compliant policies and would be interested in switching to a policy that delivered the same care for 15% less.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 09:14 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
I’m not sure you know what the differences are between MFA and single payer.


I know exactly what the differences between MFA and single payer are, and I know every different aspect of Medicare payments and reimbursements. I have Medicare and I pay about $635 per month when you count my drug copays. My employee plan I had while working capped out at $2500 per year, so it was a lot better...for me.



From Senate Bill S.1129 Medicare For All Act 2019:

SEC. 202. No cost-sharing.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act, except as described in subsection (b).

(b) Exceptions.—The Secretary may set a cost-sharing schedule for prescription drugs and biological products—

(1) provided that—

(A) such schedule is evidence-based and encourages the use of generic drugs;

(B) such cost-sharing does not apply to preventive drugs;

(C) such cost-sharing does not exceed $200 annually per individual, adjusted annually for inflation; and

(D) such cost-sharing is not imposed on individuals with a household income equal to or below 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved;...

Naw, I don't think you do know what your talking about.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
[quote]

I think there are as many MFA plans as there are candidates and groups proposing it. That's the problem. We have everything from people buying in at about the same cost as commercial policies, to totally tax funded with different tax rates for retirees and working people.



Please provide me with other candidates Medicare For All plans if you would PIA. Senate or Congressional bill numbers would be helpful.

As far as I know the only Medicare For All plan is the one Sanders has introduced. I could be wrong though.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Medicare for all confuses me. Both my wife and myself are on Medicare. We also get to pay for medigap insurance which is not cheap (we use the aarp plan with no deductables). My wife tells me that the price goes up every year and the increase is usually just barely covered by SS increases.


Here's Senate Bill S.1129 that you can read. You don't have to take my word for it. I would think someone having been involved in multi-employee companies would have no trouble understanding the proposals described in this bill.

I posted the link for the plan to pay for it earlier.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/30/19 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw


Since I am on medicare AND the VA I haven't spent much time looking at this stuff as it doesn't really concern me. I have noted, however, that there is little or no real facts about the entire thing. Just a bunch of promises from candidates who, even if they win, are not going to have the money available to actually do all the stuff they are 'promising'.



Whoops. Ignore my earlier post JGW. Your just trolling then?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 01:44 PM

Here's how I see this progressing in the next decade: Obama won the debate about whether healthcare is a "right", but didn't make the sale on how it would be done (mostly because he listened to Republicans). But, a decade of Obamacare has convinced the population that it's a good thing and they don't want to give it up (like Social Security and Medicare).

Sanders is losing the battle of how, because he's too "all or nothing", and people don't like "nothing." They want to hold on to what they've got. So, they'll LIKE "public option" because it's an option. And public plans will work better than private plans, so more of them will migrate (I'm not the first making this observation). It will be the better option.

There is a strong argument, too, for moving Medicare younger (55). But that will also raise the question, "why stop there?" Again, if it works, more people will want it. Between the public option and expanding Medicare, MFA will come.

BTW, I strongly agree with the sentiment that it's nuts that healthcare is controlled by private insurance companies, but getting them out of the business cannot be accomplished by fiat, it has to happen organically. Public option and Medicare expansion will do that. They'll still have a role, they just won't have control.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 02:44 PM

The one big rock in the river is that until the number of payers in the public option pool gets to a really big number, the cost won't be cheaper. And the rush to the public option won't be stimulated unless it is cheaper.

That's why the division between candidates (public option vs MfA) - it's because without requiring that everyone pay into the public option, it won't be cheaper in the beginning. One workaround would be to subsidize it for ten years, which is probably not possible with Republicans in control of one or more of the three branches.

At the core of every insurance structure is the risk pool. The idea is that a large number of people pool their resources to create a fund that will pay for possible future needs. In the case of healthcare, a person may at some time require more money to pay for something than they have. Others may be lucky and never need much. But if everybody in the pool pays in incrementally over time, then nobody in the pool ever has to worry if there will be enough money in a time of serious need. Risk pooling is quintessentially socialist. It's a very clever technique that intelligent humans should be proud of, and nurture. Common capitalism is a cancer on the risk pool, however, which corrupts it.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 04:25 PM

Quote:
a decade of Obamacare has convinced the population that it's a good thing and they don't want to give it up (like Social Security and Medicare).


Yeah, that's what I been saying. And it's been in the works for a long time...and it's not just the odd progressive candidate talking about it.

Chuck Schumer in 2017:

Quote:
“We’re gonna look at broader things: single payer is one of them,” he said. “Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table, a buy-in to Medicare is on the table, a buy-in to Medicaid is on the table.”
link

Democrats are chomping at the bit to get started on this.

Quote:
“We’re going to fill the vacuum that Donald Trump left when he campaigned on some of the things like this and then abandoned them for the hard-right Koch brothers.”


And they'll likely start with repackaging and re-selling the ACA as it was intended to work and expanding medicare.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 08:18 PM

You got it Logs,

As I was asking earlier, how do you stop insurance companies from dumping older sicker patients and load up on that profitable young blood?

Profit sorting. Like it gets done in the schooling biz and prison biz. I dont know if that's preventable as I dont know what single payer plan is out there as an option.

There still seems to be a slow roller argument among many here but I cant understand it. From a negotiating stand point I see no advantage with that line of reasoning at all. Why would you give up progressive ground in trying to get what you want?

Then there's the millions under-insured or without right now.

The only rational that I can think of is you aren't affected either way or somehow believe having the most expensive health care with the poorest results is some kind of progress?

The only other rational is it somehow serves your interest to have it not change? If your invested in the current structure then you would want to see it not change. We saw that similar protection happen in the recession where corporate interests were protected while people were not. Why would healthcare be any different?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 08:52 PM

Quote:
There still seems to be a slow roller argument among many here but I cant understand it.


Have you ever known the government to do anything quickly? Do you imagine Republicans will just sit still while Democrats just do as they please? Do you expect the Supreme court to just okay everything overnight? What's your plan to fast lane a National Health Service.

I read Bernies MFA bill but didn't see the rapid timeline you speak of.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 08:54 PM

FDR's first hundred days.
Had a similar court

What timeline was I referring to?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
FDR's first hundred days.
Had a similar court

What timeline was I referring to?
Quote:
From the outset of his presidency, FDR had known that four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland and Willis Van Devanter—would vote to invalidate almost all of the New Deal. They were referred to in the press as “the Four Horsemen,” after the allegorical figures of the Apocalypse associated with death and destruction. In the spring of 1935, a fifth justice, Hoover-appointee Owen Roberts—at 60 the youngest man on the Supreme Court—began casting his swing vote with them to create a conservative majority.

During the next year, these five judges, occasionally in concert with others, especially Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, struck down more significant acts of Congress—including the two foundation stones, the NRA and the AAA, of Roosevelt’s program—than at any other time in the nation’s history, before or since. In May 1935, the court destroyed FDR’s plan for industrial recovery when, in a unanimous decision involving a kosher poultry business in Brooklyn, it shot down the blue eagle. Little more than seven months later, in a 6 to 3 ruling, it annihilated his farm program by determining that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/w...lPjKmJ2Bkq35.99
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 09:07 PM

The point I am making is not that things shouldn't be attempted, but we know how this Court rolls.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 09:12 PM

If you dont show people your fighting for them there going to ask who's side your on. They might even come to the correct conclusion. Not theirs.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 10:06 PM

Quote:
What timeline was I referring to?


I have no idea, but apparently anything short of an immediate move to a fully developed NHS is not acceptable to you.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 10/31/19 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
If you dont show people your fighting for them there going to ask who's side your on. They might even come to the correct conclusion. Not theirs.


Then you better start piling up your weapons inventory because after all this back and forth I think your only remaining option is violent revolution. Maybe whatever finally arises from the ashes will finally make it come to pass...all of it, everything you ever wanted.

Oh and, Joe Namath is now shamelessly pitching reverse mortgages. rolleyes
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 12:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
If you dont show people your fighting for them there going to ask who's side your on. They might even come to the correct conclusion. Not theirs.


Then you better start piling up your weapons inventory because after all this back and forth I think your only remaining option is violent revolution. Maybe whatever finally arises from the ashes will finally make it come to pass...all of it, everything you ever wanted.


Oh and, Joe Namath is now shamelessly pitching reverse mortgages. rolleyes


I think I'll just support the candidate with a solid proposal on the table.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
What timeline was I referring to?


I have no idea, but apparently anything short of an immediate move to a fully developed NHS is not acceptable to you.

\



Weren't you the one pushing a warren plan on account of it being implemented for everyone immediately as an argument for supporting her candidacy?

Otherwise I'm not sure what your asking me about timelines.

I support the MFA bill. I don't believe I said I supported the British NHS.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 12:52 AM

So you're in favor of "slow rolling" this thing too? Of keeping for profit insurance around a few years while we transition into some sort of single payer system?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 01:23 AM

'Slow Rollin' for me is arguing for preserving ACA with vague ideas of non-existant public options that will somehow be added somepoint down the road, etc...


Fighting for a comprehensive universal public health care such as the MFA is my preference.

What's yours?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 04:19 AM

It's my preference as well, but I know it won't happen. Only about 1/3 of voters are registered as Democrats and quite a few of those are afraid of any abrupt change. Even if Sanders was elected President, Congress would not pass that Sanders bill, and this Supreme Court would not sustain it. So why waste everybody's time with something that will never happen, even if you shut your eyes real tight and wish really hard. Some people on the left are just as silly as Trump about wishful thinking.

I'm not suggesting "slow rolling" at all. Adding a public option and fixing the problems in ACA could be done in the first few months of the next administration. The risk pool argument is silly: If it offers the same ACA-level of care, using the same doctors, medical groups, and hospitals as existing plans but for 15% less (because the insurance companies are not getting such a big cut) why wouldn't the risk pool be huge? Cherry picking is already illegal under ACA, so that's not a problem. And those insurance companies already process all the Medicare claims for 5% right now, so they could do the same for public option claims.

And best of all, it does NOT require a radical change. It does NOT require all Americans to see the light and all become Good Socialists, marching together into the future. We can remain the greedy, selfish bastards we already are and always will be. It works by paying us that 15% difference which seems to have a much better chance for success than any other method of motivation.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 04:57 AM

Thanks for letting me know what is and isn’t possible PIA.
You keep saying how your preferred choice, public option, would be so much better than the MFA bill.
I’ll ask you again, could you provide a link to this proposal you speak of? It would be a help.
Thanks
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 07:03 AM

I never said it would be better, and you know it. I just said that it would be possible. It was actually in ACA until they removed it because of Lieberman. That variation would be fine. Almost any variation would be a foot in the door because being cheaper than any other ACA option it would get a lot of people choosing it.

The eventual, inexorable outcome would be everybody choosing the public option, so then all the more expensive commercial plans would wither and die. It's how we can actually get to single payer in a smooth voluntary transition with minimal complaints. If you try to jam something down people's throats, they will revolt and Republicans will be back in power and destroy it. I want to build something to last, and the only way that can be done is to make it voluntary and popular.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 07:30 AM

Quote:
As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.


A Democrat can't win if they scare the Independents away. That's why claiming a radical health care position is likely to lose the election for some candidates. If they propose a voluntary option, it's a lot less likely to scare anybody away. Instead of promoting socialism using health care, I just want to promote universal health care coverage. Where we go once we have that is probably up to the voting public because I don't plan on being around for 40 more years.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I never said it would be better, and you know it. I just said that it would be possible. It was actually in ACA until they removed it because of Lieberman. That variation would be fine. Almost any variation would be a foot in the door because being cheaper than any other ACA option it would get a lot of people choosing it.


You really don’t see the irony here? It’s better because it has a higher chance of passing. It was originally in the ACA but for a single senators opposition to it.

Then, of course, there’s the problem of not knowing what ‘public option’ really means as it doesn’t exist in any current form of a proposal.

So if I understand it, even though you would materially benefit from the current MFA proposal you would rather hold out for a public option that doesn’t exist because Democrats killed it off but if it did it would be better on the merit that it would be easier to pass.

The percentage breakdown of voters party affiliation really proved the percentage breakdown of party affiliation.

I could ask more about cost controls, co-pays, etc.. with your idea of public option but it would only be your imaginings. Nothing on the table as the say.

I liked the touch of Lib red baiting.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 01:04 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Adding a public option and fixing the problems in ACA could be done in the first few months of the next administration. The risk pool argument is silly:

Calling something silly as a way to avoid thinking about it is... what? Best to not go there.

My purpose for bringing up risk pools was not as an argument for or against anything. It is a fundamental reality in any insurance concept.

Remember the individual mandate? What was the purpose of that? Right, to make the pool of contributions large enough to contain sufficient funding to function. Accomplishing that is still a problem for any open choice plan. How do we navigate around it?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 01:27 PM

The risk pool is what makes the whole thing work. "For profit" insurance companies game the system to rig the risk pools for more profit. Any form of national health service needs to get everyone into the system for the best results.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 02:26 PM

That's it.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 02:33 PM

Bargaining power and better allocation of capitol and resources also comes to mind.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 02:57 PM

This, by the way, has been argued at the state level here in NY.

Pricing, co-pays, costs of treatments, etc... were done between the state and the province of Ontario, Canada (where Sanders went with a group to buy Insulin to highlight the criminal disparity of drug pricing). NY state and Ontario, Canada are very well suited for comparison. Both have similar populations of old/young, urban/rural, geographic size, ethnicity, etc.
The study was conducted by Amherst College. The results were very encouraging.
My district's Bill Representative is an accountant doing books for small business owners. She can explain it to them that makes good economic sense and all her clients have signed on. She knows the reality of 'going into the market' every year for themselves and their employees. If they are able to provide any insurance at all. This plan makes sense to them and it hews to the MFA plan.
That bill representative is a republican, by the way and was running for state office over this bill in 2018. She had bi-partisan support and, sadly, had to cancel her run due to a family tragedy.

The ACA is a Rube Goldberg contraption of contested coverage co-pays, price gouging variables of treatment with shape shifting price points that everyone enjoys every year like gutter cleaning and taxes.

I wouldn't disagree that it help grease the skids for peoples acceptance of a universal health care system I disagree that we have to prolong the ACA that, if anyone cares to look into it, had been written by industry and not much public input at all. The record on pricing and outcomes, over the last decade, is in. Why would you want to hang on to the decade of results that are in is hard to understand, but I'm repeating myself.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 06:11 PM

Hey look,

there having the same argument at the same time. At least Bernie's got everyone talking. Looking at you NWP. confused

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 06:31 PM

O.K.,

Warren's released her funding plan. See y'all on the other side of it.

Warrens funding announced
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 06:49 PM

"Lack of health insurance will kill some of those 27 million people, and somehow that fact always gets lost in the discussion amid an endless focus on budget projections and on a deficit that we seem to be willing to expand for everything other than getting people access to a doctor.

Think about that the next time someone insists the mainstream media is full of leftists."



Hell, think of that the next time someone tells you the Democratic party represents the Left.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/01/19 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
"Lack of health insurance will kill some of those 27 million people, and somehow that fact always gets lost in the discussion amid an endless focus on budget projections and on a deficit that we seem to be willing to expand for everything other than getting people access to a doctor.

Think about that the next time someone insists the mainstream media is full of leftists."

Hell, think of that the next time someone tells you the Democratic party represents the Left.

On the other hand, human population is out of control, and is a second major existential problem. However, I don't think access to healthcare is a proper population control strategy.

Maybe a test of consideration for the environment and other creatures should be what determines who gets to become Soylent Green, and who doesn't? That could be done with a basic wealth threshold - if you can't bring yourself to share your wealth, then you get composted.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/02/19 12:03 AM

Only if the composting is carbon neutral.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/02/19 12:08 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Only if the composting is carbon neutral.

Good point... we can make biochar, which will be carbon negative!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/03/19 02:28 AM

Quote:
My purpose for bringing up risk pools was not as an argument for or against anything. It is a fundamental reality in any insurance concept.


I am not discounting the importance of establishing a large risk pool. But every November we all get literature that compares our options for employee, commercial, or ACA coverage side by side. Those tables include the price (though employers rather than employees see it.) My experience with employers has been that they are ALWAYS looking to save money, and are quite willing to switch plans to save a buck. My experience with my wife's ACA info has been that we always carefully compare prices. If one of those columns had a price of 15% less, do you really think people would reject that option?

In addition, the government option would have a risk pool that extended across all 50 states! You don't think this would be far bigger than all the other risk pools?

My fault: I assumed everybody would understand these points. That's why I thought it was silly to worry about it.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/03/19 02:37 AM

I really have nothing against MFA: I just think it's harder to do than adding a public option. Maybe so hard that the fight for it gives Trump another four years in the White House. THAT would be a huge problem. So why not just do it the easy way? The non-coercive way? The way Republicans can't have (much) of a melt-down over, and convince all the Independents (39% of voters) that it's the end of the world?

And it really gets us to the same place a few years down the road.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/03/19 12:12 PM

I think 40 years of austerity, reckless foreign adventurism with rapacious capitalism and the final hubris of running an unliked candidate is what led to our current President.
Addressing people’s material concerns and lowering the level of biblical inequalities would be a good way to fight back.
MFA does that. Only those that are making bank or not affected or, god forbid, will pay higher taxes seem to be opposing it.
Nancy Pelosi comes to mind. I suppose if I was worth a hundred million I may not like it either.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/04/19 12:13 AM

I don't care much for Warren's pitch on health insurance/healthcare costs. Too nerdy and confusing. Pretending to put the "new" costs on the backs of the rich (I'm not against that idea, but selling it will be a minefield) and on businesses (I don't think businesses should be in the business of paying for healthcare) are a continuation of the desire to avoid the fact of using taxation to pay for the service, but at a lower rate than "premiums" (always thought that was a bullshit word used to sell a product).

I prefer a 30,000' approach where the prime discussion is about the general reasons why government provided single-payer healthcare would be better and cheaper than the private business model.

A simple chart should be sufficient to make the case (echoes of Perot...).

I haven't had the time to cobble something together, but thought I would float the concept to see if anyone sparks to it.

The major elements to compare between private and single-payer would include:
Risk pool size;
Profit;
Administrative costs;
Friction (to pay, or not to pay, that is the question...)
Elimination of the uncovered;
Peace of mind;
Regulation of costs;
What else?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/04/19 04:00 AM

I agree. We can consider all sorts of fine points here, but you gotta remember half the voters have IQs under 100. If you can't sum it all up with one chart and less than 8 bullet points, they are going to think it's too complex to ever work. Put details on your website for us detail-oriented types. Give the public something they can understand on TV.

And no: I'm not being a snob. Everybody has a right to choose and to vote. Unlike Trump, I don't love the uneducated (because the rubes are easier to con). I respect them, and I want their lives to be better. I'm a very inclusive sort of guy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/04/19 03:22 PM

The way things are looking right now MFA is more likely to get Biden elected than anything else. There's not a huge impetus to get it done as soon as possible and as such it shouldn't be a highlight of the campaigns. It's not winning votes for anybody but Biden.

Biden is all in with the ACA and it's popular with Democratic voters.

I haven't heard a peep from old Joe about raising anybody's taxes. With Biden at the helm I don't think you'll see either a public option or MFA.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Public option vs Medicare for All - 11/05/19 04:27 AM

Like I said, tying your campaign to MFA is a good way to lose the election. Hopefully it happens in the primaries instead of the general election.