When you only carry the insurance you can afford and there is a $6,000 deductible you are not getting the preventive care and tests you need because you can barely afford the insurance.
I have Medicare and a supplement, too. In my last year of employer sponsored insurance, it cost twice as much and covered much less.
The big losers in our patchwork health system are the people. The big winners are the insurance companies.
I don't care if it raises taxes if it eliminates other costs.
I read your post a few times. The statement on "national health care" seems out of place, and not related to your primary arguments. BTW, I don't think that a National Health Service would be cheaper. The middleman won't be the insurance company; it will be government paperwork inefficeincy. But no matter, this won't happen.
I AGREE WITH YOUR OTHER ARGUMENTS
1) A $6,000 deductible policy should in no way prevent folks from getting necessary preventive care, tests, and immediate treatment.
2) I cannot speak for your employer. Medicare works. I would note that we have paying in for our entire working lives. There is an issue of size. It is not all clear that Medicare could work for everyone, even if the government could find a way for everyone to buy in. Medicare needs improvements. There are costs that should be covered, and there is a lack of competition in prices for their drug purchases.
3) You say that the people are the losers and the insurance companies are the winners, and the government is the solution. I'm not buying.
HOWEVER, I do agree that we need improvements to the Romneycare system that we have. We need much higher subsidies, especially for those who live in states that refuse to expand Medicaid. MORE money should be spent by the feds of healthcare. That being said, there are lots of ways that costs can be reduced without ending company-paid insurance. Many of these changes have been proposed for many years by bi-partisan groups in the Senate. However, Republicans still aren't willing to accept Romneycare/Obamacare. It has been saved 4 times: once by a Republican Congress who refused to come up with a replacement system, second by the Roberts led Supreme Court, third by McCain, and recently by the current court. Democrats can slip minor changes into other bills and into various reconciliation bills.
4) I agree that our taxes are much too low at all levels. Our government is also much too inefficient at all levels.
I don't think that the progressive answer of spending $10T of federal money is the right approach. Much more need to be done by the states, local partnerships with business and through the market.
Democrats have a year or so to make generational changes. They need to FOCUS. The first, second, third and fourth priorities need to be on pass something like the Manchin revisions. The idea of not spending $1T on bridges and roads is too small is just plain silly. It would be the largest infrastructure bill in many decades. POUTING that they will hold this up if they can't have their $6B at the same time is posturing that simply won't work.
Republicans have staked out their positions.
Manchin and the conservative Democrats have staked out their positions.
Progressives have staked out their positions.
REALITY CHECK
It takes 50 votes to pass anything.
PREDICTION
If the progressives succeed in forcing Schumer to link the so-called infrastructure bills, the huge recon bill will lose in the Senate for lack of 50 votes. The infrastructure bill won't come close to 60 votes.
AFTER THIS, Biden will then be forced to beg Manchin to vote for a filibuster exception to the voting rights bill. I think that he will succeed, after many apologies for failure of the infrastructure bill.
BIDEN'S plea for a revised recon infrastructure bill will be heard and rejected.
