Medicare For All - A Losing Idea

[mark46]

One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.

3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.

The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

 

[eleos1954]

One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.

3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.

The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

The goal of government (medicare for all) is to get rid of private plans. Obamacare was just one huge step in that direction.

After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan

And they will.

 

[super animator]

If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

We have already done that via ACA.

 

[cow451]

We have already done that via ACA.

No we haven’t. The “get rid of private plans” is a liberal pipe dream. Universal coverage can be achieved by getting plans that the uninsured could tap. The ACA was a move in that direction but was oversold.
It makes more sense to expand Medicare buy-in to fill the gap. Medicare includes options to buy Medicare “Advantage” plans that are available through Blue Cross, United and others. Medicare itself is managed by a network of private companies. Example, a Georgia would have Blue Cross managing the Medicare claims process.

 

[jayem]

The goal of government (medicare for all) is to get rid of private plans. Obamacare was just one huge step in that direction.

Whatever are you talking about?
ACA plans, sold on the exchanges, are totally underwritten by private insurance companies.

And for the record, ACA doesn't replace or eliminate employer group health insurance in the least. In fact, just the opposite is true. It requires that every employer of 50 or more FTE's provide group coverage. That's my biggest problem with ACA. Health coverage must be separated from employment.

 

[mark46]

ACA was NOT an effort to get rid of private plans. Over 150 million have plans at work that they like.

The hope was that the states would all have state options, and that a federal public options would not be missed. Biden is now proposing adding a public option. Folks can choose to stay with their old plan or choose a public option.
=====
I believe that a Medicare buy-in sounds good, put practically would (and should be) very expensive. After all, consider the current value of the money a senior has put into Medicare over his working life.
=====
Of course, Obama wanted a public option but couldn't get it passed, even with control of the Senate and the House. He needed to twist arms, make misrepresentations, and make questionable deals even to pass the ACA.
=====
IMO, a public option has no chance until the Democrats have 60 senators or abolish the filibuster. I suspect the best the Democrats can do is to reverse the reductions Trump has made in the ACA, and increase the subsidies, and give incentives to states to expand Medicaid.

The election issue should be about restoring ACA, along with its several very popular components that folks don't want to give up.

No we haven’t. The “get rid of private plans” is a liberal pipe dream. Universal coverage can be achieved by getting plans that the uninsured could tap. The ACA was a move in that direction but was oversold.
It makes more sense to expand Medicare buy-in to fill the gap. Medicare includes options to buy Medicare “Advantage” plans that are available through Blue Cross, United and others. Medicare itself is managed by a network of private companies. Example, a Georgia would have Blue Cross managing the Medicare claims process.

 

[eleos1954]

Whatever are you talking about?
ACA plans, sold on the exchanges, are totally underwritten by private insurance companies.

And for the record, ACA doesn't replace or eliminate employer group health insurance in the least. In fact, just the opposite is true. It requires that every employer of 50 or more FTE's provide group coverage. That's my biggest problem with ACA. Health coverage must be separated from employment.

The goal is total government control of healthcare ... it's maybe halfway there now ... you are looking at the way it is now .... medicare is a government program .... medicare for all is a government program for all.

 

[mark46]

This is the view of Sanders, Harris and Warren. I suspect that if this is the policy that the Democrats campaign on, they can probably count on the home states of these three candidates. They represent their states well.

.Health coverage must be separated from employment.

 

[mark46]

What Republicans forget is just how popular Medicare is.

The issue of the majority with Medicare for All has exactly NOTHING to do with government control. The issues are cost and the wish of many to keep their current plans. The vast majority have a favorable view of Medicare and the VA.

The goal is total government control of healthcare ... it's maybe halfway there now ... you are looking at the way it is now .... medicare is a government program .... medicare for all is a government program for all.

 

[eleos1954]

What Republicans forget is just how popular Medicare is.

The issue of the majority with Medicare for All has exactly NOTHING to do with government control. The issues are cost and the wish of many to keep their current plans. The vast majority have a favorable view of Medicare and the VA.

If it's a government program ... the government controls it.

 

[cow451]

The goal is total government control of healthcare ... it's maybe halfway there now ... you are looking at the way it is now .... medicare is a government program .... medicare for all is a government program for all.

You didn’t read my post? Medicare is like the DOD in that services are contracted to private bidders. The only healthcare provided to any degree by government employees is the Veterans Administration.

There are Bernie types that want single payer, but confuse single payer with universal care. Single payer is one way to universal coverage, but most people would rather build on the existing system when you actually get into the nuts and bolts.

 

[cow451]

If it's a government program ... the government controls it.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversees Medicare and Medicaid. If I go to a clinic, that clinic bills Medicare (administered by a private company) just as it would Blue Cross.

FWIW, Medicare coverage beats the daylights out of the coverage and premiums I had with a hospital system.

There are legitimate questions that would be of concern in any healthcare reform. But lots of the criticism is ill-informed and/or intentionally misleading.

Hey, maybe someday the GOP will roll out a plan. Not likely.

 

[eleos1954]

You didn’t read my post? Medicare is like the DOD in that services are contracted to private bidders. The only healthcare provided to any degree by government employees is the Veterans Administration.

There are Bernie types that want single payer, but confuse single payer with universal care. Single payer is one way to universal coverage, but most people would rather build on the existing system when you actually get into the nuts and bolts.

so will the veterans administration be under medicare for all as well?

 

[FenderTL5]

With employer based insurance, it doesn't matter how much you like your plan; you can't keep it if you lose or change jobs.

 

[Christopher0121]

One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.

3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.

The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

Several observations, thoughts, and questions...

1.) Why would anyone want to pay extra in taxes for the Medicare Single Payer program AND a monthly premium for a private insurer?

2.) Those candidates, such as Rep. John Delaney, who are advocating for creating a public option to buy into are typically invested in the insurance companies.

3.) This approach weakens the reform. If people can opt out, states can opt out. And if they do, they will sabotage the reform, just like they did with the ACA. Remember, those states that participated in the ACA market exchanges saw monthly premiums drop dramatically. While those states who chose not to participate in the ACA market exchanges saw their premiums rise, basically making health insurance an unbearable cost on citizens and employers. They could do the same thing with the Expanded Medicare For All program, saddling their citizens with the high private monthly premiums AND a federal tax increase. Then blame it all on the President.

Single Payer can only work if everyone buys into it at once. The insurance companies want the "public option" approach to both stay in business a little longer and to have time to cause the plan to fail.

If one keeps their private plan they will still face the tax increase. This means they will be paying more than DOUBLE what was ever intended. The Single Payer program is designed to immediately eliminate the high monthly premiums being paid currently, and replace them with a marginal tax increase. For example... let's say that you're paying $600 a month for a private family plan right now. That monthly premium will go away, and your taxes will increase maybe $180 to $200 dollars. This means you'd save roughly $400 to $420 a month. That's an extra $400 in pocket every month. In addition to there being no co-pays or deductibles.

So, why would one even think about keeping their current plan?
And as previously stated, no matter how much one loves their private plan, they lose it if they lose their job or have to change jobs. What would one's current private plan have that Medicare for All wouldn't?

That's a better question if you ask me.

 

[mark46]

I missed the point.

Over 150 million American like the employer-based plan that they have. IMO, they will resist any candidate that proposes that they be forced to give up their plan.

But, yes, the over 150 million might support being able to choose a public plan, either now, or when they leave their jobs.

With employer based insurance, it doesn't matter how much you like your plan; you can't keep it if you lose or change jobs.

 

[mark46]

You presume that a single payer means that care will be free. I have Medicare. I have paid into it for my entire working life, and I pay a premium each month. Anyone can opt out of Medicare. In addition, I have supplemental insurance.
========
I agree that a government run single payer system would work best if everyone were on it. IMHO, the best way to do that would be to add age groups to Medicare, with buy-ins. However, it is NOT clear to me that this approach is what the people want. Maybe, just maybe, the majority would support a plan where everyone could afford a public option. That cost is $750B over 10 years.
=============
So, yes, IMO, for any Medicare for All system to be acceptable to the people, anyone would need to buy out of the plan (through a tax credit) and have a private plan. Harris may come to this position, but she still can't accept a private plan being paid for by an employer as part of worker compensation.

Several observations, thoughts, and questions...

1.) Why would anyone want to pay extra in taxes for the Medicare Single Payer program AND a monthly premium for a private insurer?

2.) Those candidates, such as Rep. John Delaney, who are advocating for creating a public option to buy into are typically invested in the insurance companies.

3.) This approach weakens the reform. If people can opt out, states can opt out. And if they do, they will sabotage the reform, just like they did with the ACA. Remember, those states that participated in the ACA market exchanges saw monthly premiums drop dramatically. While those states who chose not to participate in the ACA market exchanges saw their premiums rise, basically making health insurance an unbearable cost on citizens and employers. They could do the same thing with the Expanded Medicare For All program, saddling their citizens with the high private monthly premiums AND a federal tax increase. Then blame it all on the President.

Single Payer can only work if everyone buys into it at once. The insurance companies want the "public option" approach to both stay in business a little longer and to have time to cause the plan to fail.

If one keeps their private plan they will still face the tax increase. This means they will be paying more than DOUBLE what was ever intended. The Single Payer program is designed to immediately eliminate the high monthly premiums being paid currently, and replace them with a marginal tax increase. For example... let's say that you're paying $600 a month for a private family plan right now. That monthly premium will go away, and your taxes will increase maybe $180 to $200 dollars. This means you'd save roughly $400 to $420 a month. That's an extra $400 in pocket every month. In addition to there being no co-pays or deductibles.

So, why would one even think about keeping their current plan? What would one's current plan have that the Medicare for All plan wouldn't???

That's a better question if you ask me.

 

[carlv_52]

One candidate opined that if the Democratic candidate supported Medicare For All, he or she would win only 2 states. I suspect that this is only a slight exaggeration.

3 of the top 4 candidates support plans where you would not be ALLOWED to keep you work-based medical plan, even after 10 years.

The GOAL of Medicare for All in fine, as long as each citizen has the CHOICE to keep his or her work-plan. If the government plan (state or federal) is good and cost-effective enough, eventually almost everyone would accept this plan. After all, the government would do all it could to move people to its plan.

I do NOT understand this desire to have the "choice" of paying for-profit companies a lot of extra money to support their bloated executive suite. Seriously, I don't think I've met anyone who actually "loves" their insurance. Sure they may think it is better than what other people are stuck with, but c'mon...at the end of the day no one loves their insurance.

Single Payer systems the world over (and there are many that are doing quite well) cost their citizens almost half of what we pay per capita. And many of them have better health outcomes (lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, and better general access to healthcare) than America.

Why would ANYONE say our system is "better" when the numbers simply don't show that?

 

[Christopher0121]

I missed the point.

Over 150 million American like the employer-based plan that they have. IMO, they will resist any candidate that proposes that they be forced to give up their plan.

But, yes, the over 150 million might support being able to choose a public plan, either now, or when they leave their jobs.

In other words, 150 million Americans want to have the best of both worlds.

Again, why would they want to face the tax increase and pay a higher monthly premium?

 

[mark46]

What can I say?

Nominate Warren or Sanders and make single payer the key issue in the campaign, and you will see just how popular such a plan is. As of now, all we have are polls that indicate the voters oppose plans where they would be forced to leave their current plans.

I do NOT understand this desire to have the "choice" of paying for-profit companies a lot of extra money to support their bloated executive suite. Seriously, I don't think I've met anyone who actually "loves" their insurance. Sure they may think it is better than what other people are stuck with, but c'mon...at the end of the day no one loves their insurance.

Single Payer systems the world over (and there are many that are doing quite well) cost their citizens almost half of what we pay per capita. And many of them have better health outcomes (lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, and better general access to healthcare) than America.

Why would ANYONE say our system is "better" when the numbers simply don't show that?