General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpinion: Medicare for all is the way forward
by Jack Bernard
I was both pleased and surprised to read Ken Zapp's oped regarding single payer. He is right on target.
The passage of the Affordable Care Act(ACA) was a positive from the standpoint of coverage. Although it has not met its goals, projections were that 9.1 million would be signed up via health insurance marketplaces and only 8.8 million were, the ACA still has been a major positive regarding access. And, if the Supreme Court had not gutted the Medicaid expansion provision in a strange politically motivated move, many more would be covered.
In any case, there are still tens of millions still uncovered. These are our friends and neighbors, hard working people who are employed by firms that do not provide health insurance.
Now for the negative side of the ACA: it is built on a rotten fiscal foundation, depending upon private insurance. As I wrote in various published letters and opeds when it was first passed, the ACA will cost taxpayers a lot more than predicted.
Insurers will only participate if they can make money, profits. Many are currently suffering huge loses due to adverse selection and are seriously considering withdrawal . In simple language, the sickest people are enrolling and the healthiest are choosing to opt out. Inevitably, premiums will go up due to financial pressures on the insurers which remain in the program.
Under Medicare for All, this obstacle is overcome. There is one insurer (the good old US of A) that covers everyone and can apply leverage to obtain lower prices. But, Medicare for All is not socialism, whereby provision of services is done by the government.
more
http://businessinsavannah.com/bis/2016-03-18/opinion-medicare-all-way-forward#
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
edhopper
(33,594 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)weren't concerned with trying to elect someone that is on the take to prevent single payer.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)I mean, what planet does this come from? It can't come from anyone who has successfully negotiated a raise or anything in life that wasn't guaranteed to begin with. Or could it? Have we forgotten what it is to go for what is right and correct instead of going for what the other side (mostly suffering from various forms of insanity and wrongful group thinking) will go for?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Republicans are only a part of congress. Getting all of their approval is impossible, and all of us know it. However, as happens with most bills, getting a few to cross over is possible (a large number of highly political bills get voted on down party lines, but the vast majority of bills have most of one party and cross-over votes).
Right now, unfortunately the majority of both chambers. Hopefully past November they'll only be the house and we'll have the Senate by 2-3 seats.
It's your side that keeps making the assertion that Hillary got virtually every Senate, and all but a handful of Representatives who are Democrats in Congress because they are "bought and paid for".
If that notion is wrong (which i feel it is) then they are endorsing Hillary because they are onboard with her plan, and/or feel she is the one to get her agenda done.
If the assertion is actually correct, then Senator Sanders plan is even more of a pipe dream, and you are wasting your time and energy until you change the landscape of congress.
As long as the Republicans ARE the majority of Congress, then yes the only plans that make sense in promoting are the ones where we can get the cross-over's needed.
NEITHER of our candidates will be terribly effective, and certainly won't get much progressive wise done as long as that reality continues. If WE give the next president a progressive congress, WE will have a progressive president. If we don't, then we'll have Hillary who will be marginally effective, and draw even more criticism for reaching across the aisl, or we'll have Sanders, whom I whole hartedly believe will be the single most ineffectual president in history.
You show me the Sanders movement to change the landscape of congress, and I'll feel the Bern with you.
revbones
(3,660 posts)but I think it's deeper than just not wanting to fight. I think the reasons those policies are put forth are that the ones putting them forth want them. Otherwise, why would they start asking for the middle of the road and then get dragged off the edge to the right.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)that's the point
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to recognize the reality that a Red Congress is not going to pass a single payer is not the same as being on the take to prevent it.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Start out with low expectations tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)which was abt accusing others of preventing something
DhhD
(4,695 posts)real free health screening is rapidly approaching. Lets say in time for the soon to be here next Primary season. Many more are passing to age 27; no healthcare, no college and now to another imperialistic war in which we have no business being there in the first place. I see a future where Presidents will be primaried because voters see no future or are being prevented from having a future with TPTB. A $7.25/hour life is not sustainable. Let's see if $10.00 and hour comes about.
The Bern may take to the Bully Pulpit over the next 4 years in or out of the Oval Office.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Obamacare is a monstrosity that works well
for the insurance companies and not at all
for the vast majority of people forced into it.
I see a lot of people paying high premiums and getting
no care whatever.
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)
mountain grammy
(26,630 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)no drug plan. To cover the 20, get drugs, and pay the deductibles you still need private insurance.
So... when someone says Medicare for all I am certain they don't know what it really means.
Wounded Bear
(58,673 posts)it definitely needs some corrective action, not the least of which is to dump the Repubs in the House who refuse to fully fund it so doctors can get paid at levels that will attract them to take on Medicare patients.
Part D needs complete overhaul (I know, d'uh!) to stop the giveaway to Big Pharma.
In the end, the cheapest method is to cover everybody for everything (most elective surgeries excepted) and charge a minimal tax from incomes, both payroll and investment income. So, I support the concept of "Medicare for all" with some tweaks to make it truly a universal program.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)
GreenPartyVoter
(72,378 posts)
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,378 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Their mascot is No We Can't Man.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Insurance companies are still involved, and the administrative paperwork is staggering. Those who say we just need a few tweaks either don't know what they're talking about -- or work for insurance companies.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)as I rarely if ever see it mentioned. Having watched my mother have to deal with it all I agree with
your "staggering" characterization.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)They send me a lot of paper but all I have to do is throw it in the file. And they've improved it this year by not requiring referrals for specialists.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Nonpartisan physicians group calls single-payer reform ‘the only effective remedy’ for nation’s continuing health care woes and urges focus on facts, not rhetoric
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, January 22, 2016
Contact: Mark Almberg, PNHP communications director, (312) 782-6006, [email protected]
Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of 20,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance, released the following statement today by its president, Dr. Robert Zarr, a Washington, D.C., pediatrician.
The national debate on single-payer health reform, or "Medicare for All," that has emerged in the course of the presidential primaries is a welcome development. But unfortunately a number of misrepresentations about single-payer national health insurance – and the prospects for its attainment – have crept into the dialogue and are potentially misleading the public.
Most of these misrepresentations, or myths, have been decisively refuted by peer-reviewed research. They include the following:
Myth: A single-payer system would impose an unacceptable financial burden on U.S. households.
Reality: Single payer is the only health reform that pays for itself. By replacing hundreds of insurers and thousands of different private health plans, each with their own marketing, enrollment, billing, utilization review, actuary and other departments, with a single, streamlined, tax-financed nonprofit program, more than $400 billion in health spending would be freed up to guarantee coverage to all of the 30 million people who are currently uninsured and to upgrade the coverage of everyone else, including the tens of millions who are underinsured. Co-pays and deductibles, which have been rapidly rising under the Affordable Care Act, would be eliminated. Further, the single-payer system’s bargaining clout would rein in rising costs for drugs and medical supplies. Lump-sum budgets for hospitals and capital planning would control costs even more.
A recent study shows 95 percent of U.S. households would come out financially ahead under an improved version of Medicare for all. The graduated, progressively structured tax burden would be based on ability to pay, and the heavy cost to average U.S. households of private insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and many currently uncovered services would be eliminated. Patients could go to the doctor or hospital of their choice, and would no longer be restricted to proprietary networks. Multiple studies over a period of several decades, including by the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, show that a single-payer system would provide universal coverage at a much lower cost, per capita, than we are spending now. International experience confirms it. Even our traditional Medicare program, which falls short of a true single-payer system, has much lower overhead than private insurance, and shows that publicly financed programs can deliver affordable, reliable care.
A single-payer system would also greatly diminish the administrative burden on our nation’s physicians and hospitals, freeing up physicians, in particular, to concentrate on doing what they know best: caring for patients.
Covering everyone for all medically necessary care is affordable; keeping the current private-insurance-based system intact is not.
Myth: The U.S. has a privately financed health care system.
Reality: About 64 percent of U.S. health spending is currently financed by taxpayers. (Estimates that are lower than this exclude two large sources of taxpayer-funded care: health insurance for government employees and tax subsidies to employers and individuals for purchasing private health plans.) On a per capita basis, the amount of government-funded health care in the U.S. exceeds the health spending of nations with universal health systems, e.g. Canada. We are paying for a national health program, but not getting it.
Myth: A single-payer system would overturn the gains won under the Affordable Care Act and provide inferior coverage to what people have today.
Reality: A single-payer system would go far beyond the modest improvements that the ACA made around the edges of our current private-insurance-based system and ensure truly universal care, affordability and health security. For example, H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, would guarantee coverage for all necessary medical care, including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care and correction, hearing services including hearing aids, chiropractic, durable medical equipment, palliative care, podiatric care, and long-term care. It would eliminate financial barriers to care like co-pays and deductibles and eliminate restrictive networks. It would end the steady erosion of job-based coverage under our current arrangements and disconnect insurance coverage from employment. H.R. 676 currently has 61 sponsors.
Myth: The American people don’t support single payer.
Reality: Surveys have repeatedly shown that an improved Medicare for All is the remedy preferred by about two-thirds of the population. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey yielded similar results, showing 58 percent of Americans support Medicare for All. A solid majority of the medical profession favors such an approach, as well, as do more than 600 labor organizations, and many civic and faith-based groups.
Myth: The goal of establishing a single-payer system in the U.S. is unrealistic, or “politically infeasible.”
Reality: It’s true that single-payer health reform faces formidable opposition, especially from the private insurance industry, Big Pharma, and other for-profit interests in health care, along with their allies in government. This prompts some people to conclude that single payer is out of reach and therefore not worth fighting for. While such moneyed opposition should not be underestimated, there is no reason why a well-informed and organized public, including the medical profession, cannot prevail over these vested interests. We should not sell the American people short. At earlier points in U.S. history, the abolition of slavery and the attainment of women’s suffrage were considered unrealistic, and yet the movements to achieve these goals were ultimately victorious and we now wonder how those injustices were allowed to stand for so long.
What is truly “unrealistic” is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.
We call upon our nation’s lawmakers and the political leaders of all political parties to heed public opinion and to do the right thing by acting swiftly to bring about the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) has been advocating for single-payer national health insurance for three decades. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-‘medicare-for-all’
See also:
Government funds nearly two-thirds of U.S. health care costs: American Journal of Public Health study
Contrary to popular perceptions, taxpayers fund 64 percent of U.S. health care, more public dollars per capita than the citizens of other nations – including those with universal health programs
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-health-care-costs-american-journal-of-pub
mountain grammy
(26,630 posts)It's much simpler and covers far more than any private insurance I ever had. That's the case with everyone I know. Medicare for all is really the only solution that makes sense.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)And the administrative paperwork is just as staggering. I have to be my own billing company most of the time in order to get it paid. Every year they jack my premiums up more.
AND I have a $3000 deductible and the drug prices are stupid ($400 for ONE MONTH of Levemir - insulin).
I don't think anyone is saying that Medicare - AS IT IS NOW - is the utopia of medical care. Just that it can be better. And having the strength of the government behind us to negotiate could save us a hell of a lot of money.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Also, there's nothing preventing "Medicare for all" to be more comprehensive than the current Medicare, particularly when it comes to drugs. .
LiberalArkie
(15,720 posts)was the $110 a month for basic coverage tough. They can then pick out a supplement to cover their copays etc. Part D was a joke because it did not allow medicare to negotiate for lower prices. If Medicare for all become the law, I for see the redrafting of Part D. Also the pool would be a lot larger with younger people in it.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Part A is inpatient and it covers everything. These things very by state. I'm not sure you really know what it means.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Loudestlib
(980 posts)The part B gap coverage changes from state to state. Medi-Cal for example covers everything for low income. Educate yourself...... n/t
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)the state to state difference between Medicare and Medicare/Medicaid. You are the one who needs to learn the terms. Medicare does not change from state to state. But Medicare/Medicaid coverage does.
Response to Loudestlib (Reply #22)
WillowTree This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)First there is a $1,288 deductible. That's per admission unless a full 60 consecutive days have elapsed since your last discharge from a hospital or skilled care facility. And the inpatient co-pays should you happen to be confined for more than 60 days in any benefit period are pretty serious and, should you be in for more than 90 days (could happen.......don't forget, this also includes a skilled nursing facility) the co-pays are a draconian $644 per day.
And not to be overlooked, you'll be responsible for 20% of your doctor's bills while you're inpatient, too (assuming you've already met the $166 Part B deductible, that is).
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)all prescription drugs (with negotiated prices for a change!), mental health, dental health, eye care - all without co-pays or deductibles and covering all Americans. It is what we need; it's great stuff!
Oh wait, you support Hillary so you don't know what Bernie's plans are or, perhaps, that he lays out how to pay for this great health-care (notice how I can call it health-care and not health insurance?).
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)$350/month employee alone, $3,500 deductible, including DOCTOR visits, with a 50% co pay after deductible met. Medicare is a LOT less. Look up the deductibles alone. If I wanted a drug plan, that employer insurance was an extra $100 a month with a $400 deductible. Spousal alone coverage was an extra $400/month and children was $700/month. Add that extra
$100/month per family member for drug coverage also.
Minus the spouse and children, tell me how Medicare isn't better, especially for someone who doesn't USE their health insurance? I am totally understand, even as a Senior, how young adults feel they are being screwed by these crazy health insurance rates.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)different than Medicare for all.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)That adds a seriously high cost to the current Medicare plan, with medadvantage plans or not.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Co-pays, if any would have to be worked out.
LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)If you don't have a policy that picks up the charges Medicare doesn't pay you are in deep trouble. And the drug policy coverage, and there is no dental and very little coverage of eye tests. Medicare might sound good, but to those of us who have it, it's not that great. Better than nothing, but you must have another policy or you will be bankrupt if you get really sick.
Giving up Obamacare for Medicare as it is now would not be an improvement. And quite a premium is paid for Medicare. They take it out of SS.
Be sure you know what you are wishing for.
but Bernie would no more be able to get this done than it was possible 8 years ago.
The Dems will have a slim majority in the Senate at best and a minority in the House.
Reality is this won't happen soon.
So stop the Hillary bashing like it's her fault.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Whatever.
edhopper
(33,594 posts)I was directing it at some of the replies that were swipes at Hillary.
I agree with your OP.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)To begin we must begin.
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)WHEN DO WE WANT IT??
IN DUE TIME!!
Appropriated from the sig line of someone I admire.
edhopper
(33,594 posts)with a GOP House.
And explain to me how we get a Dem House before the 2020 Census.
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)and Bernie in the Bully Pulpit is as good a start as I can imagine.
Edited to add:
Do I really need to point out the obvious? Return to the guiding principals of the Democratic party; educate young people; GOTV;
You know, maybe we need a crash-and-....... well, that would be against the TOS, so I'm not going there. People don't realize what they have until it's taken away from them.
Duval
(4,280 posts)edhopper
(33,594 posts)I like both candidates.
I just tire at hearing how much Bernie will do. Much of which is unrealistic.
eridani
(51,907 posts)How does Clinton get a public option with a GOP House?
edhopper
(33,594 posts)in reality I don't think that happens until Dems can take the House.
I am not a Hillary or Bernie supporter. I would vote for either one.
I just have limited and i think realistic, expectations on what can be done.
eridani
(51,907 posts)They don't accept limitations on what they advocate for.
edhopper
(33,594 posts)repeal Obamacare and privatize Social Security while ending abortion?
They have limits too.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And they get elected while still advocating for all that crap.
edhopper
(33,594 posts)I just don't think it will happen. Not if Hillary or Bernie is Pres. Not with a Repuke House.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sander said something to the effect that if you demand a whole loaf, you might get half, but if you demand half you get nothing but crumbs.
edhopper
(33,594 posts)in 1993.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--on her website, but has never bothered to mention it in forums or debates.
Uncle Joe
(58,372 posts)"IN DUE TIME WE DINE ON INCREMENTAL CHANGE!"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhomAjqHPKHWHPbaFDjsKijFnU6Si8_JMdtGV2mwQahQS0AGskqQ
That should fire up the Democratic base!
phantom power
(25,966 posts)There's a difference.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)No more compromise
MidwestTech
(170 posts)That is a tricky line.
We NEED comprehensive health care
We NEED better education for our children (that's another debate in itself what is better)
We NEED a way to live better...
What we deserve... I'm not sure I want what I deserve unless I know whose making that decision. Some may say I deserve ill. Some may say I deserve fortune. MANY across the world would say we are currently getting EXACTLY what we arrogant Americans deserve.
Deserve is a word to avoid.
The government isn't Santa Claus. it doesn't dole out what someone deserves. It doles out what is needed. Laws are needed. Clean water is needed. Clean air is needed. Safe food is needed. Affordable healthcare in one of the richest nations in earth history is arguably a need!
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)edhopper
(33,594 posts)cause that was my point, if you missed it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)edhopper
(33,594 posts)I was answering the Hillary bashing, not supporting her over Bernie.
I like them both.
Darb
(2,807 posts)So we put the health insurance industry out of business? Just shut them down? We lay off everyone that works in the Health insurance industry? What about HMOs like Kaiser-Permanente? They are not just an insurance company, they actually provide health care too. What do they do? Is their business model that they have worked on for decades and invested billions into infrastructure and employees just dismantled? How exactly? Do we just lay off those employees?
You see, it is simplistic to think that we could get there from here without huge upheaval from people and companies. How do you do it?
Spell it out for us that cannot see the rainbow.
appalachiablue
(41,153 posts)
Darb
(2,807 posts)You either will not or can not answer. I would not want to switch from my insurance into medicare or medicaid. We worked hard to get what we have and now I am going to give that up for something less? Doubt it.
As for your ridiculous chart, it means nothing.
SPELL IT OUT!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)How do you get from where we are to where you want to go? If you cannot propose a road map of how it would happen then you are wishing in one hand and ..........
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Or that it hasn't been thought out by advocates for DECADES?
The Hillary campaign used to be for it until it became political ammo to claim it's "impractical".
Now you have Democrats acting like Medicare For All is the pipe dream of a bunch of hippies passing a bong.
Darb
(2,807 posts)No need to explain how to us serfs, just sit tight, we will deliver, everything will be fine.
Got it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)appalachiablue
(41,153 posts)who are working against the well being of the people they represent for starters. And lobbyists. She and others will be gone this year and in the next decade so we can rebuild the congress and legislatures with progressive public officials and support allies who will work for single payer and other necessary programs, finally.
Darb
(2,807 posts)But how does that explain the plan for single payer?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The same way they inflated the costs to claim it would be too expensive.
I'm old enough to remember when breaking your leg on a skiing vacation didn't mean you lost your house.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Not just saying the Netherlands did it. How do we get from point A to point B? That is what needs to be proposed. A plan of how to do it. Without a plan the proposal is nothing more than a wish.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)This provides a baseline of health care for all.
Republicans have made cuts in the Medicare for their corporate pals thus we have "Medicare Part D" where you pay to get meds that used to be free.
Don't kid yourself. Insurance companies see the end coming and are ready to transition away from denying health insurance claims for the sick to their traditional role of denying life insurance claims for widows and orphans.
Darb
(2,807 posts)It is a complicated transition to say the least. Nobody, me included, is going to go for worse coverage, worse service than they have now. That is the problem and a big one. Does what Bernie is proposing drag everybody down? Sure it might be better for those without insurance and little access to care, but what about the rest? How do you cover everybody and actually provide care?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Do you know there are doctors that have had to hire a secretary who's soul purpose is to argue with insurance companies so he can get paid?
I saw a notice to employees at a testing clinic that warned them not to take Blue Cross because they refuse to pay. Blue Cross used to be a member supported model like a credit union. Now it's "managed" by Anthem Inc. which is listed on the stock exchange.
WhiteTara
(29,719 posts)Before him, insurance was non profit and very inexpensive.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Just asking. Not your responsibility though. Only if you care to try.
WhiteTara
(29,719 posts)how do I know that? I was an adult during those years and before 1973, insurance was non profit. Nixon was a monster.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_(1971)_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973:
Transcript of taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) that led to the HMO act of 1973:
http://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
Skyrocketing health care costs: Thanks President Nixon!
http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.org/nixononkaiser.html
businesspractices.kaiserpapers.org
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)WhiteTara
(29,719 posts)Universities did research and not for private corps. Republicans are a horror on every level and if we get another one this year we are in deep trouble...we will lose it all.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The idea of corporations running the government is still considered to be a good one in the Beltway.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Adequate so providers can and will accept the patients.
WE use the power market to negotiate reasonable prices for drugs and medical devices.
Anybody n the insurance industry is able to offer competing products.
Any provider can continue to offer their services as well.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)A good fraction of the work done by the health insurance industry is work that will still need to be done--tracking of costs, gathering information about treatment and healthcare patterns, managing records, etc. It's mostly the competitive side stuff that will lose jobs--marketing and its associated research. So there will certainly be a cost to jobs, but nowhere near 100%.
As far as actual transition process, the first step would likely be in the reinsurance market. Health insurance providers are backed up by a reinsurance industry that will manage the expense of large claims. So, start by requiring insurance co's cover 100% of patient costs, then let them pass those costs through to their reinsurance, which would then bill to the government. You can establish that system transparently to patients--all they'll notice is zero bills. Once it's up and running, set some cost targets and begin making the necessary structural changes to meet them. Remove the division between insurance and reinsurance. Displace companies that also operate outside of healthcare, absorb companies that are exclusively healthcare. Unify billing and paperwork procedures, etc.
The plan would face inflated costs during the transition, but the trade off is no interruption of care.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Medicare For All makes health care a Right.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)For the REST of the civilized, industrial world.
Darb
(2,807 posts)in 2016, to single payer of some sort.
How do you get there?
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)But I can, for sure, tell you that electing someone who says it can't be done is NOT the correct first step.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Selling people uncertainty is not advisable. Change is difficult. Especially with things like life and death.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)up to corporations who's FIRST priorities are profits, shareholder payments and CEO bonuses and who's SECOND priority is actual health care, is even MORE unacceptable.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Recently the Clinton's tried to misled me by using the Ryan/Republican campaign talking points of the 2010 Primary and GE about Obama removing money from Medicare and shutting down both Medicare and Medicaid. No wonder I do not trust any of the Clinton's. In 2013, New Democrat Barack Obama tried to chain Social Security benefits so third way triangulation is untrustworthy also. Many Democrats were unable to ask Obama to campaign for them as Republicans were the ones that said no to chaining Social Security. New Democrats are not for single payer and they are not for sustaining Social Security as an insurance trust fund run by a single payer agency-the federal government.
Privatization is a Republican Nixonian way of service.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)And our people would be healthier—which is good for the economy too.
It's clear our payment system is the way it is to swerve the interests of just a few CEO's of some mega-corporations. We have been sold completely down the river.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I just wish that saving lives via access to health care wasn't a political issue. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to pay for other peoples health insurance if it means that they don't have to be sick, suffer or die. Heck, you can raise my taxes to do so. We are bickering over whether one health care reform is better than the other. People are dying, are sick, going bankrupt because they spent all their money paying for their child's cancer treatments. Yet, the more important issue is what is the lowest tax haven we can allow to repatriate American corporations money. We are arguing how to defeat ISIS at billions of dollars a day!!!! That money could be spent saving lives.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)You are absolutely correct. It shouldn't be a political issue.
Nice post.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the poor have subsidies ,,,,,,, for "there are still tens of millions still uncovered. ", u has misframed them. by law they are those working poor in State without expanded medicaid whom work for companies that are too small to be required to furnish health insurance. Hopefully after this election we will be closer to fixing this of the Medicare for all. As long as Congress is Red , it aint happening
GoldenMean
(49 posts)The UN's Happiest Nations poll came out.
The top 12 happiest nations have free health care
The only thing USA is #1 is military spending
Buzz cook
(2,473 posts)Will come first.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Single Payer! Govrnment Run Healthcare! Not For Profit Healthcare! Medicare E!
Whatever you want to call it, it's a human right like air, water, food, clothing, shelter...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)most Americans. And when President Obama started trying to fulfill the dream it was still what we wanted. But we did not get it - either because the Rs would not let us or because the President had never intended to eliminate the insurance companies. I don't know which it was and it is too late to change that now.
What we have to do is work to change it in the future and Medicare for All. But we are not going to get this through if we get Hillary in without a big fight.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)eom
ConsiderThis_2016
(274 posts)Why would anyone be against creating thousands of jobs in the medical career field. The demand is there, and from a supply and demand perspective, it's the crony capitalism that stand in the way, along with some other groups that will take a haircut, for various reasons as it relates to public / private matters.
