‘Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study

[pinebox]

Despite many around here taking the Republican position (who all seem to be coming from the same camp, go figure!) "Medicare For All" would cover everybody and save us billions. The best part? This has been known for over 2 years now.

‘Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study
Economist says Canadian-style, single-payer health plan would reap huge savings from reduced paperwork and from negotiated drug prices, enough to pay for quality coverage for all – at less cost to families and businesses

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

Friedman said the savings would come from slashing the administrative waste associated with today’s private health insurance industry ($476 billion) and using the new, public system’s bargaining muscle to negotiate pharmaceutical drug prices down to European levels ($116 billion).

“These savings would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care,” he said.

Friedman said the savings would also fund $51 billion in transition costs such as retraining displaced workers from the insurance industry and phasing out investor-owned, for-profit delivery systems.

Over the next decade, the system’s savings from reduced health inflation (“bending the cost curve”), thanks to cost-control methods such as negotiated fees, lump-sum payments to hospitals, and capital planning, would amount to an estimated $1.8 trillion.

[upaloopa]

1. So how much does each individual pay for this?

My guess is you don't know.

[restorefreedom]

9. less than the are now

Families Will Pay Less
Currently, the average family of four covered under an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care annually – $2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services, drugs and supplies (Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.) This figure does not include the additional 1.45% Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. A study by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs.


https://www.healthcare-now.org/legislation/hr-676/

[LynnTTT]

66. Way out of date info.

Stats from 2006 are out of date. The average family pays much more in premiums and spending

[hughee99]

106. Yes, these numbers are very low,

Based on my own recent experience selecting a new plan for 2016 for a family of 4.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. The BIGGER QUESTION is how much will CEO's lose?

Eliminating a parasitic industry
that siphons off wealth at the
expense of providing actual
health care is a good thing.

We don't need health insurance.
We DO need health care.

[upaloopa]

11. Well that's what the voters want to know isn't it?

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. Definately a big concern for 4 or 5 of them

The 4 or 5 CEO's of the ingrained private insurance industry that scratch Hillary's back. Their votes would have a $million$ times the weight of the many Americans without healthcare insurance for her.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/democratic-debate-2015-hillary-clintons-enemies-pharmaceutical-insurance

In 2008, Clinton was the among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. In all, the watchdog group reports that she raised $738,000 from employees of pharmaceutical manufacturers and companies classified as “Pharmaceuticals /Health Products.” The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.

On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

[JeffHead]

94. You want to know this?

I have paid over $12,000 in premiums and over $5,000 in co-pays this year alone.

Want to know how much my third party leach of a health insurance company has paid? $515 measly fucking dollars. That means the "insurance" company has made $16,500 off of my families pain and suffering and I haven't even been to the doctor once. That doesn't even count all the prescription drugs, so there's another 3 grand. IMO that is not health insurance that is wealth insurance for company executives. Guess what, in 6 weeks the calander resets and we get to start the deductable shit show all over again.

That is the system that you are trying to defend. My guess is under a single payer system AKA Medicare for all I would be paying a hell of a lot less than that. Maybe with the savings from that I could take a vacation or something which I haven't been able to do in years.

Anyone defending a system such as we have now doesn't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. The old " I've got mine screw you crowd" Go ahead keep defending that and the candidate that is against it. That is one among many reasons I will never support Hillary.

[DeeDeeNY]

136. It's very troubling

that many Democrats will argue against single payer because Bernie fights for it and Hillary doesn'tt. I don't get how anyone can decide how they stand on issues based on what their favorite candidate thinks. The politicians are supposed to reflect OUR views, not the other way around.

[Dcoast]

160. Blind party ideology?

that it doesn't matter what the D stands for, as long as there is a D in office? And since Bernie isn't a D... it really doesn't matter what he would ever say, they don't trust him because he is an independent.

same reason republicans continue to vote republican regardless of what it does to them, they vote for the home team because that's their team.

[DeeDeeNY]

165. Bernie is running as a Democrat

So if he gets in, there will be a Democratic president. He has always voted with the Democrats and espouses the ideals of the Democratic Party better than anyone else running.

[pinebox]

148. If I could fave you comment, I would!

[pinebox]

155. But the socialisms don't work!!!11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251841018#post152 <----there's your laugh for the day.

[dreamnightwind]

171. +1, thanks

[Moostache]

34. AMEN!!! HEAR, HEAR!!!

The idea that people think universal health care run by the government as a non-profit would be MORE expensive than the status quo is symbolic of just how warped our national thinking has become. The whole "government is the problem" crowd and their blind allegiance to that thoroughly debunked clap-trap is causing this to stay in the discussions.

Bottom line - between lost wages (that cover the employer contributions to private health care), the individual contributions (which continue rising every year, even AFTER Obamacare), the non-negotiated drug prices that see US citizen pay exorbitant amounts for the same medication that costs exponentially less across the borders - there is so much added money in our bloated healthcare system to cover profits that it stuns me to see that people cannot recognize this.

Now, to the costs of those removed profits, add the benefit of an expanded pool of people in the system, including those who are healthy and may not need the coverage NOW but almost certainly will at SOME POINT, and you have to be willfully ignorant or plain pandering to insist that private healthcare is the preferred solution or the most cost effective (without denying coverage, bilking the covered or flat out fraud).

[Enthusiast]

81. +1 an entire shit load.

[cui bono]

88. And people will use preventative health care instead of waiting until it's so bad they have to go

to the ER. Another cost saver, oh, yeah, and LIFE saver. Doh.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. LOL ...

We don't need health insurance.
We DO need health care.

Then ... This plan is NOT for you! ... It IS a health insurance plan AND it DOESN'T provide health care!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. It's a payment system so you can get healthcare.

Don't know why you're laughing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. And so is the current insurance model ...

Why did I laugh? Because I found that statement humorous ... for the reason I provided:

This plan as good as it is IS a health insurance plan AND it DOESN'T provide what the poster indicated was needed ... health care!

[zipplewrath]

103. Well, sorta

"single payer" or "medicare for all" can technically be called "insurance", but it isn't by any ordinary model of insurance. On a national level, it just becomes an entitlement program. It's something similar to being "self insured", which is just a fancy way of saying you pay all the bills. It really isn't a "national insurance program" as much as it is a shared risk pool.

But beyond the sematic argument you seem to be pursuing, you're missing the larger point which is that under a medicare for all or single payer, everyone would be "ensured" of receiving health CARE. Under ACA, no such assurance exists.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

134. Thank you ... he was being obtuse ...

But I don't think he can overlook the clarity of your post.

[JimDandy]

170. Good to keep reminding the naysayers of the difference. n/t

[Jarqui]

40. Insurance CEOs collect unemployment insurance

The middle man and most of the bureaucracy bickering about your claim is out of the loop.

[pansypoo53219]

101. or 'the medical industrial complex'.

[yurbud]

143. yes, what about the CHILDREN (I mean trust fund babies given overpaid sinecures)?

[mtasselin]

145. on target

Cosmic Kitten, you on right on about how much the ceo will lose and yes they are a parasite on our whole society. I had a discussion with one of my conservative friends and I asked him what does the insurance industry provide for America and surprisingly he couldn't answer that simple question. He is just another libertarian that is trying to create this utopia that never has nor never will exist.

[sabrina 1]

149. Yes, the profits going to Health Ins. Corps take money out of the system, and people

pay more for their HC in a system where their deductibles and premiums will increase every year causing many people not to go to the doctor meaning more costs when they finally do.

Medicare for all is the best way to go right now. For so many reasons.

[Android3.14]

14. You will note, the person knew.

So how come do you support a candidate who will benefit insurance executives at the expense of regular folks?

[pinebox]

16. Here you go

&feature=share&app=desktop

[SunSeeker]

22. So why didn't Bernie push for the 9.5% tax to pay for VT'S single payer? nt

[pinebox]

25. As I said earlier

Bernie is in DC, he's not a state rep. My state reps don't get involved in local politics and most don't.

[SunSeeker]

31. This was a national issue. Bernie said it was the "model for the nation."

He was able to find a microphone when it was time to push for the single payer law in VT. But he suddenly could not find one when it cam time to push for the 9.5% tax to pay for it.

Seriously, his excuse is "not my job"? I don't think even Bernie would assert that lame excuse.

[pinebox]

43. No you're misunderstanding

Most people in DC don't get involved in state issues. Am I right or am I wrong?
VT is a state but now we're looking at a broader option, covering the whole country and that is Sanders territory.
Also, remember, 9.5% tax is cheaper than the average ACA cost which works out to be 14.7%.

It isn't his job. If anything it would akin to I saying "why didn't Hillary push for her health plan when she was a senator from NY?". Yet the answer is a tad different isn't it because she pushed for her national health care plan while serving DC.

See what I did there?

[SunSeeker]

53. As senator, Hillary pushed for funding 911 first responders healthcare and got $21 Billion for NY.

Her plan is to expand the ACA. The ACA did not exist when she was Senator, so of course she did not raise it as Senator. She at that point had tried and failed to get universal healthcare as first lady and had the scars to prove it.

This "not my job" excuse is bogus. Even Bernie does not raise it. The only people raising it that I have heard are some of his supporters on DU.

[LiberalArkie]

56. She was using federal money to do it. Not state money. The Vermont plan

was to use state money not federal money. Big difference.

[SunSeeker]

59. How do you think federal single payer would be funded?

By that same 9.5% tax on residents of every state.

Again, why couldn't Bernie speak up for the tax like he did the law?

[pinebox]

77. Good

BUT again, why are you defending the ACA when so many fall through the gap? It sounds like you have an axe to grind here with Sanders despite his plan being a LOT better than Hillary's. Would I perhaps be correct in that assumption?

Her plan is to expand the ACA which actually isn't as cost effective as single payer. People pay more because of the ACA and people in red states would still suffer because no medicaid expansion which is a state issue. That in turn leads to higher cost for the rest of us, sadly

[SunSeeker]

87. Why are you attacking the ACA, when it has saved thousands of lives and is a great Dem achievement?

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure, true single payer, as described in HR 676, is the most cost effective. HR 676, by the way, is not Bernie's plan. Bernie's plan would let state's administer single payer in their own state. Would you want Governor Brownback administering your healthcare? I tried to find his plan on his website but it has been scrubbed off of it. Regardless, his plan has no change of passage, just like HR 676 that has been sitting as a bill for years has no chance of passage. At least we have the ACA and can expand on it. We need to do the possible and stop wasting time tilting at windmills.

As I said up the thread, if even Bernie wouldn't fight for a 9.5 % tax to pay for single payer in his state, it is a lost cause. We need to do it incrementally. We have to accept the reality that we live in a country that watches Fox News 24/7 and work around that.

[pinebox]

151. It's a half assed Dem achievement

The ACA saved my life, literally, no joke, it literally did and I was one of the first in the country to be allowed into the high risk exchanges however there are over 30 million uninsured in this country. 30 MILLION! We don't have universal heath care and under the ACA we never will and do you know why? Medicaid.

You say this---

Would you want Governor Brownback administering your healthcare?

But that is EXACTLY what the ACA does. There are a lot of states who haven't expanded Medicaid and that leaves people screwed, literally. This is where the ACA goes south because a single payer system would insure everyone under Medicare For All as Medicaid is a state issue, Medicare is federal.

You can expand the ACA but it still leaves millions uninsured because red states decide if they wish to participate in it.
Let's be honest here, single payer is far superior. The ACA is a great start BUT we need to do a lot more.

[SunSeeker]

153. We do need to do a lot more. So why would Bernie repeat that state provision?

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. In fairness ...

we don't know that he didn't. He may have told the VT folks to pay for it with the tax increases; but, they didn't listen.

But that said ... Looking at how this plan would be funded, I doubt that there was any way VT could have made it work ... too many of the funding sources are/were out of VT's reach.

[SunSeeker]

50. I have yet to see any quote from Bernie urging Vermonters to support the tax.

I have not heard him say "too many of the funding sources are out of reach" either. I don't know what you mean by that.

Considering how hard he pushed to get the VT law passed, his silence on the 9.5% tax is deafening. Why did he push for the law at all if it was unworkable?

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. I was trying to be polite ...

But, by out of reach for VT ...

◾ B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners. ◾ to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)

◾ C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income. ◾[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]

◾ D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income. ◾[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]

◾ E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

I meant, using the above formula would not likely raise the needed capital to make the system work ... however, it would if done on a national scale.

[SunSeeker]

61. But that is not the VT formula. Aren't you quoting HR 676? nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. I know ...

No. This is from this source: http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

Interesting ... I just notice the crying faces.

[SunSeeker]

67. That's what I thought. You were quoting HR 676, not VT's law.

I am very familiar with HR 676. I actually made my own "Yes on HR 676" Bumper sticker for my car years ago when the bill was first introduced. I went to a few little rallies for HR 676 here in Los Angeles. It went nowhere. But at least we have the ACA and can expand on it. We need to do the possible and stop wasting time tilting at windmills.

If even Bernie wouldn't fight for a 9.5 % tax to pay for single payer in his state, it is a lost cause. We need to do it incrementally. We have to accept the reality that we live in a country that watches Fox News 24/7 and work around that.

[cui bono]

90. Why is Hillary against single-payer?

[SunSeeker]

92. Why can't you answer my question? nt

[cui bono]

109. Why are you asking the question? n/t

[SunSeeker]

112. I asked first. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Actually ... Here is a good primer on the Bill ...

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676#nodeductibles (Go to the top and read down)

The Bill is fantastic and would do wonderful things ... though it would require A LOT of work, and pressure, to get the tax increases through Congress ...

◾ B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners. ◾ to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)

◾ C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income. ◾[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]

◾ D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income. ◾[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]

◾ E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

I support this Bill.

[SunSeeker]

96. HR 676 is not Bernie's bill.

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

HR 676 is not Bernie's plan, another reason this should not be in GDP. I tried to find Bernie's Single Payer plan, which would have governors administer each state's single payer coverage, but his site appears to have been scrubbed of it, even though it talked about single payer previously. Weird.

Regardless, here's Bernie's bill, and despite his head-shaking denial at the last debate, it quite explicitly provides for states to administer it:

Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.php?s=Bernie+Sanders+S.+1782

Bernie appears to be a big states rights fan, as he invoked that to justify his anti-Brady Bill votes.

Me personally, I would not want Governor Brownback or Governor Christie administering my healthcare coverage.

[eridani]

111. Under ACA, they are administering insurane coverage right now.

Under Sanders' single payer bill, all states would be required to meet national standards.

[SunSeeker]

113. Under the ACA the plans must meet national standards. nt

[eridani]

115. Yes, standards that suck

They allow overpriced underinsurance that can prevent access to actual health care--say, when you can't see a doctor about worrisome symptoms because the money went for your premium instead.

Single payer would mandate no deductibles and require negotiation of prices with drug companies and hospitals.

[SunSeeker]

119. No, ACA requires free preventive care, including colonoscopies, without a copay.

-It requires that kids be able to stay on their parents' policy to age 26.

-It puts yearly limits on out of pocket expense and require the the coverages to be comprehensive, so that unlike in the past having health insurance actually means you're covered for what might come up.

-no lifetime coverage limits nor pre-existing condition exclusions.

-Medicare is greatly expanded, covering the poor and assisting with payments for the lower middle class.

They may not be as good as the single payer dream, but they don't "suck." They've saved thousands of lives, including my brother's.

[eridani]

125. If you want to check out a worrisome symptom, that is NOT preventative care

If you have breast soreness, but the mammogram came out OK, then what? Medicare is not expanded, and Medicaid is expanded only under Dem governors. If you have a painful toothache, then what? Dental care is not covered. The yearly limits are far too high for the cheap plans.

[SunSeeker]

127. But you will have coverage for illness, with copays. Free dental care is available for the poor.

Sure it would be great it we had true single payer like HR 676 (I would not want Bernie's plan, which is state administered http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.php?s=Bernie+Sanders+S.+1782 - You want Chris Christie administering your healthcare?). But Bernie would not even try to convince very liberal Vermonters to take the 9.5 % tax hike to pay for single payer. How is he going to convince the whole country, including the red states?

[eridani]

128. Chris Christie is already implementing ACA--to the extent that he is willing

Vermont's plan was not actually single payer, once it got messed over by negotiating with the state's only insurance provider. The standards for state administration would require no copays or deductibles.

NOTHING is covered until you pay your deductible, which is prohibitively high for bronze and silver plans. These would not be allowed under the Sanders/McDermott version of single payer--only one comprehensive plan would be allowed (though you would be free to add bells and whistles on your own dime

[bvar22]

163. The problem with that is:

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

The ACA containes no provisions for a WatchDog Agency to oversee these National Standards.
From what I can tell, if a "consumer" had/has a complaint, the only resource is to file an individual suit against the Insurance Company, and fight them in court for 10 years.

The ACA SHOULD have established a FREE Consumers Watch Dog Agency with TEETH that can streamline consumer's access to FREE help in dealing with a balky Insurance Corporations.

We will have to wait a few years to see if the ACA is really going to work.

I abhor the Bronze, Silver, Gold Caste System established by the "Exchanges".
Caste Systems are UNAMERICAN.

One HealthCare System for ALL.
The RICH can still buy additional rich people coverage from Private Insurance Companies
to pay for face lifts and other cosmetic surgery.

[SunSeeker]

166. Know what really sucks?

Dying waiting for the perfect healthcare system like 45,000 Americans were doing each year before the ACA.

Instead of attacking the ACA and playing into GOP memes, we should improve it. Expand the Medicaid provision and take it out of the states' hands as to whether it covers the poor. Add Dental. Add the Consumer agency. All these things can be done a lot easier step by step than trying to get single payer all at once.

[bvar22]

167. EXACTLY!

It needs MUCH "improvement",
but it ain't gonna happen under Hillary or a Republican.

Help me out here
and include a link to ANY discussion in the Democratic party about "improving" the ACA.
I have heard NOTHING....except from Bernie.

So, really, help me out and post links to some of the Democratic debates or PLANS for improving the ACA.


How do you personally feel about the Caste System used on The Exchanges.
Have you ever rally looked at the "Bronze Plan" that is only plan most Working Americans can afford?

[SunSeeker]

168. Hillary got 8 million poor kids covered under CHIP. She knows how to do it.

Here's Hillary's plan from her website:

Health care

Affordable health care is a basic human right.

Hillary led the fight to expand access to quality, affordable health care for decades—and she’s not going to stop now. Throughout her career, Hillary led the fight to expand health care access for every American:

• In 1979, Hillary chaired the Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee, which focused on expanding health care access to isolated rural areas of the state.


• As first lady, she refused to give up when Congress defeated health care reform. Instead, she worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now provides health coverage to more than 8 million children. Senator Ted Kennedy said that if not for Hillary, the Children’s Health Insurance Program wouldn’t be in existence today.


• As senator, she introduced legislation to reduce the cost of health insurance expenses.


• Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary pushed the Bush administration for $20 billion for recovery and to address health care needs of first responders who suffered lasting health effects from their time at Ground Zero.


Going forward, Hillary will build on these efforts and fight to ensure that the savings from these reforms benefits families—not just insurance companies, drug companies, and large corporations.

• Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.


• Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.


• Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.


• Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans.


Hillary will also work to expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care. She will explore cost-effective ways to broaden the scope of health care providers eligible for telehealth reimbursement under Medicare and other programs, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. She will also call for states to support efforts to streamline licensing for telemedicine and examine ways to expand the types of services that qualify for reimbursement.

Hillary is continuing a lifelong fight to ensure women have access to reproductive health care. As senator, she championed access to emergency contraception and voted in favor of strengthening a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. As president, she will continue defending Planned Parenthood, which provides critical health services including breast exams and cancer screenings to 2.7 million women a year.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

I notice Bernie's site does not even discuss his healthcare plan, other than to mention he wants to lower prescription drug prices.

[bvar22]

169. Good, campaign Boilerplate.

We've all seen these kinds of meaningless theatrics during campaign season.

I started to take apart your vague promises from the Promotional Campaign Handouts about the Rainbows and Ponys Hillary's her campaign is promoting, and apply them to the actual record of 3rd Way "Democrats" over the last 8 years.
Doesn't fit.

[bvar22]

150. IIRC, HR 676 was Kucinich and Conyers Plan.

HR 676 was one page long. Easy to read and understand for most Americans,
made us ALL equal in access to Health care...not the stratified, cast system of the ACA.

*RICH People who can afford the "Gold Plan" get better coverage and access than a Working Class Schlub who can only afford a "Silver Plan", and further down the caste system are those who can only afford a "Bronze Plan" which is virtually useless to somebody not making much money.

This type of caste system is un-American. We are ALL one. The poorest among us deserve the same level of Health Care as the "Gold" members, and deserve exact same access to Health CARE as everyone.

It will be a few years before the verdict is "IN" about the ACA.

*How many are really "covered", and to what extent?

*What does it really cost.

*Will a caste system of MORE access for the RICH,
and less access for The Poor be a step forward?....or backwards?

*Will the Health Insurance Industry, now the established GATEKEEPER to access to Health Care help....or hinder the ACA?

It will take a few year to answer these questions.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Have you ever had to go without healthcare when you got sick because you couldn't pay? i have!

SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL IS THE ONLY HUMANE AND EQUITABLE WAY! It's a democratic way to be in this world!

[Beartracks]

84. I pay a shitload into the current system.

Does that count for anything?

==============

[MaggieD]

99. A lot

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[Fuddnik]

100. They're talking about the formula for HR 676, and it's easy.

In order to provide coverage for every American, cradle-to-grave, with zero deductibles and zero co-pays, a tax would be leveled on each citizen of an additional 3.5% Medicare tax on the worker and an additional 3.5% on the employer.

You're not tied to employer just to keep healthcare. In fact, employment is not a requirement for coverage.

Sounds a hell of a lot cheaper than what I'm paying for health insurance.

[rhett o rick]

104. Do you have an opinion on this issue? Or just here to ask insinuating questions?

rhetorical question. Question is why are you disparaging Medicare for all? Seems like a solid Democratic issue. Oh wait, it's a solid Progressive Democratic issue. The Conservative Wing of our party don't like to see corporations cut out of their profits.

[eridani]

110. I was paying $900/month for catastrophic coverage before I turned 65

Under Washington Health Security Trust I would pay $150-$225.

[bvar22]

161. I had one of those rip-off "Catastophic Coverage" Plans too.

The Premium was affordable,
but the (non) coverage was a scam.

Deductable= $5000
Max Yearly Payout= $50,000.

One minor Heart Attack and 2 nights in the hospital would bankrupt me anyway.
Why bother with Catastrophic Coverage when it doesn't even come close to covering a "catastrophe"?

I dropped mine, and went commando for 9 years until I was old enough for Medicare.
I was able to self-pay from my savings at our Community Health Center with a 30% discount for cash for the few health problems I had.
My health care plan for a catastrophe during those years? Self medicate...and a pistol in the mouth if the pain go too bad.

I know many others in my age group who were in the same situation.
Unemployed and unemployable Americans who had worked HARD all their lives, now with ZERO income, living on savings,
praying to make it to MediCare.
Ah...The American Dream.

The Medicaid Expansion helped in those states that had it, and I was eligible for 1 year (I was 64), but I used it up going to the Doc for 10 years worth of ailments.
I survived to make it to Medicare.

[Cleita]

126. How much do you or your employer pay for your health insurance now?

It would be less and probably half of what you pay now. Not only that when you need medical care you will get it. You will get follow up care. You will get care for a chronic condition. You will never be sloughed off because of a prior condition. That's how it works in Medicare here, in the VA and many other government health programs we have. You should look at them. If you get your medical through a government job, I don't understand why you wouldn't want everyone to have what you have.

[JDPriestly]

132. We now pay per capita about twice the average that other developed nations pay.

They all have single payer. Their pharmaceutical prices are lower than ours. Some of the raising of prices on drugs that have actually been on the market and in use for years by the pharmaceuticals in America in recent times is just beyond the pale.

If we save as a nation, we save as individuals. The savings would be divided among all of us.

[Javaman]

162. I'm not going to hold my breath for your apology.

you got owned.

[hootinholler]

2. IT's been know for more than 2 years

But hey, maybe someone will listen this time.

The last thing we need is another insurance program, we need a care program.

[valerief]

3. But the disease profiteers would lose money. nt

[KansDem]

6. Well, then they'll just have to get a second job!

That's the way it's done in the heartland.

[LWolf]

8. We can't have that. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. Yeah, it will suck not being paid $58,000/day that these Health insurance CEOs rake in.

That's just WRONG!

[taught_me_patience]

28. Including doctors?

You do understand that for doctors who run their own practice that "profit" = compensation?

[valerief]

41. You KNOW I don't mean medical practitioners. They're disease treaters, not disease

profiteers.

Oh, yes, and welcome to my Forever Ignored club.

[Hoyt]

105. Not sure about that. They profit from questionable testing, drugs, surgeries, etc. But I get your

point. Presumably, a national plan would Crack down on that heavily to ensure viability of the system.

[Moostache]

44. Look on the bright side...

I am quite sure that they have VERY nice bootstraps to pull themselves up on!!!

[valerief]

45. Ha. They pay people to pull their bootstraps. nt

[Scuba]

4. Medicare for all, including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health services.

Not only can we afford it, we cannot afford not to have it!!!

[jwirr]

18. If that takes the place of Medicaid then we are already

paying for much of it. And we would need to find a way to deal with some of the problems.

My daughter is a special needs patient. It is a local county social worker and doctors who determine her needs. That has to be done locally. She used to be on Medicaid and now is on Medicare. So I am not against this plan - just afraid that it will not cover such complex services.

I want a universal plan but am afraid that our DC officials have no idea what they are dealing with. I wonder if other parents of special needs children and adults are kind of afraid of the limitations placed on these programs?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Agreed ... This is a good plan ...

that will/could have positive downstream effects ... like, removing the provision of health insurance from business' expense columns, making it possible to shift those dollars (or more likely, a portion of the savings) to employee pay.

[AlbertCat]

60. Not only can we afford it, we cannot afford not to have it!!!

With lots of perks for "preventative care"!

Alas, it may require we act like a community that participates and does things for people we don't agree with. Bummer!

[JEB]

5. But Hillary supports the insurance industry and it is her turn.

[SmittynMo]

65. Sure it is

[Wilms]

7. Here's a link.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

[annabanana]

12. k&r. . . . . . .n/t

[SmittynMo]

13. We don't have health care insurance!!!

We currently have catastrophic insurance, not health insurance. And it comes in all kinds of flavors, from bronze, to gold. The prettier the color, the more it costs. Isn't that special!!! Even with the ACA, YOUR premiums are high, with high deductibles.

I'm sorry, but Medicare for all HAS to be cheaper than my annual premiums I pay now, even with tax credits. When you are on a fixed income, its almost out of reach.

[Andy823]

15. One thing

If we don't control the Senate, the House, and the WH it won't happen, and that could take years to accomplish.

[pinebox]

17. While true

it will eventually get accomplished and the sooner be begin to fight, the sooner it does.

[AgingAmerican]

51. FDR used Executive Orders and the bully pulpit heavily when he implemented the New Deal

[Enthusiast]

82. Bernies says he must take it to the people. Get them informed on the savings.

The people must force their representatives to go along.

[MisterP]

19. but then Americans would like it, and get mad at the people who'd blocked it for so long, and they

don't want that

that's somehow even worse a motive than Shkreli-level greed

[SmittynMo]

20. Bernie needs to work this info in all his speeches moving forward.

I'm sure MSM won't say shit.

[d_legendary1]

21. Expanding medicare and removing the wealth cap

is a great idea. Make improvements on it and watch an entire industry disappear overnight.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. Speaking from the Great White North

I was pulling my hair out during the health insurance ACA media debates going on at the time. I never understood (other than the obvious) why Obama and other Democratic leaders did not push for Single Payer and win over conservative voters by crowing about how much LESS IT WOULD COST American tax payers. Yes it would also cover everybody, but that isn't enough for the bagger crowd because that's called "soclialism". But money talks for the con crowd.

[SunSeeker]

62. The Great White North does not listen to Fox News 24/7.

I want Single Payer. I went to rallies for HR 676. It went nowhere. Too much hate for poor people in the US. But at least we have the ACA and can expand on it. We need to do the possible and stop wasting time tilting at windmills.

[pinebox]

156. Here's the problem with America and health care

This http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251841018#post152 and that state of mind and it's displayed proudly on this thread. Some are staunch defenders of the status quo and yell crap like that. It's incredibly sad and it doesn't allow us to move forward

[taught_me_patience]

27. What is the impact to doctor pay?

Why wife is a doctor, and is this going to cut into her pay? We just made a $350,000 investment into building out a new office. Are we going to lose that and go out of business?

[randys1]

30. If she is a specialist, she might make too much money. If she is a GP, probably not enough.

Bottom line is capitalism has to go when it comes to healthcare other than reasonable RX profits for R&D.

No hospital should make a dime in profit, unless it wants to set itself up as a luxury care for the rich type place.

Most GP's are probably not paid enough and most specialists are making too much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. It might affect her revenue ...

A quick calculation to estimate by how much, would be the difference between what Medicare pays out for a particular service and what private insurers pay out for that same service.

I suspect the difference won't be much.

[TM99]

58. Doctors in other countries

with universal or single payer live very comfortably.

I am sure you and your wife will be just fine.

[taught_me_patience]

68. They probably don't invest 350k into their own business

Or 150k into their education.

[TM99]

73. They certainly don't have the education loan debt

that we do.

But there are numerous professionals with massive student loan debt. We more likely to get that dealt with under a Sanders administration than with Clinton. That is for damned sure.

[randys1]

29. Link?

[George II]

35. Oh come on.....rather demanding aren't you?

I just wonder why this is in GD - P, no candidates are mentioned and no primaries are mentioned. That is, other than the snarky comment by the OP itself.

[randys1]

39. I assumed it was on oversight, why would the OP intentionally leave it out?

I want to believe this is an oversight

[SunSeeker]

95. I guess because it is not actually describing Bernie's plan and they want to imply it is.

HR 676 is not Bernie's plan, another reason this should not be in GDP. I tried to find Bernie's Single Payer plan, which would have governors administer each state's single payer coverage, but his site appears to have been scrubbed of it, even though it talked about single payer previously. Weird.

Regardless, here's Bernie's bill, and despite his head-shaking denial at the last debate, it quite explicitly provides for states to administer it:

Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.php?s=Bernie+Sanders+S.+1782

Bernie appears to be a big states rights fan, as he invoked that to justify his anti-Brady Bill votes.

[Thespian2]

118. You might wish to know

that our single-payer plan in Canada is for the entire population, but each province or territory administers its health care system...seems to work really well...I will have knee-replacement surgery soon, after which I will have no bills to pay...

[SunSeeker]

120. I'm sure none of your provinces are run by Sam Brownback or Chris Christie types.

Canada is like one big blue state. I lived for about 5 years in Vancouver, B.C.

[Thespian2]

121. You're right...

I am truly sorry for people who have to endure the destructive leadership of the Red States...

I was born in Georgia, and retired from North Carolina...I do understand the difficulty of life in those states...

[totodeinhere]

33. I would support that as long as the current 20% co-pay is eliminated.

Otherwise it's a non-starter. 20% of the cost of a brief hospital stay is still a lot of money. And medigap policy premiums are getting ridiculous.

[randys1]

42. 20% medicare copay? I am not familiar with the details, is that what the

supplements pay for?

[totodeinhere]

74. Yes, that is correct. That's what a Medigap policy will pay. If you are poor enough

Medicaid will cover it, but if not it's up to you.

[randys1]

78. So , if you know, the 20% is for hospital stays only?

I would like to see a change here before too long.

Medicare should have no deductibles, no copays, like all other civilized countries.

Then it should be for all citizens as well.

[jeff47]

49. The co-pay doesn't apply to hospital stays.

Hospital stays are part A. The co-pay is part B.

[totodeinhere]

75. OK, thanks for the correction. But you get my point. 20% of a doctor's bill can be a lot

of money as well. And I think that outpatient procedures at hospitals are also subject to the 20% copay.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. The structure of the Bill calls for eliminating deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, ...

or other cost-sharing schemes.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676#nodeductibles

I really encourage EVERYONE to read the entire link.

[totodeinhere]

76. Thanks. Then that would address my concerns. n/t

[valerief]

38. But the very wealthy would lose money, and making rich people richer is the most important

thing in the world.

[PowerToThePeople]

47. "Job creators"

[bvar22]

70. The Health Insurance Industry...

...is Wall Street's incestuous sister.

The For Profit Health Insurance Industry:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Keeps NO inventory

*Provides NO useful service

*creates NO Value Added wealth

This would be a great job for our government.
Why have our politicians established THIS completely parasitic Industry as the Gate Keeper
for access to Health Care in the USA?

Billions ...right down the toilet.

[BeanMusical]

138. +1 Absolutely.

[AgingAmerican]

48. But Trumps kids might get it too!

So nobody should have it!

[SoapBox]

63. K & R!

[Autumn]

69. It would be wonderful. Too bad so many democrats don't want want it.

I just can't quite figure out their problem with it.

[MineralMan]

71. You want that. I want that.

So, elect majorities in the House and Senate. Without those, it's not happening, regardless of who is in the White House.

That's my recommendation, as always. Elect Democrats to Congress and get control back. Then people can get something done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. So do I! So do I! So let's get busy! n/t

[bread_and_roses]

89. The Democrats we elected in 2008 didn't even try

Democrats are only "on our side" when they are in the minority. They are - nearly all - as deep in the pockets of the 1% as the Rs. They are the scraps and bones Party and we're supposed to vote for them because the Rs offer only a scraped plate.

[Romulox]

91. I don't believe that. Not for a moment. nt

[99Forever]

137. Bullshit.

They had exactly that in 2008 and didn't even try for it.

Just who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

[bkkyosemite]

72. HR 676

would also include dentistry which is sorely needed as part of Medicare. It is impossible to pay dentist's fees and it is very much apart of a person's health. HR676 I only wish it can be now!


"expands the Medicare program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free (i.e. tax-funded) health care that includes all medically necessary care. This would include primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act

[Enthusiast]

80. K&R! There is no good argument against adopting single payer in the USA.

[Angry Dragon]

86. kick

[Romulox]

93. Hillary-style "progressives" are whining about their taxes possibly going up. nt

[Triana]

97. LINK:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

[MaggieD]

98. It's not a new study, which is why you left out the link, right?

Also, it is not a "study" - it is an opinion piece by a single economist. And it is from July 2013.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[NCjack]

102. but .. but .. the poor, "given" good health will just squander it. /s/nt

[Doctor_J]

107. Save billions for working people, sure

But no obscene insurance profits and no obscene drug profits means no big donations, private jets, hookers, and vacations for our so-called representatives (including the one in the white house).

[blackspade]

108. And some people in the Democratic Party are against this why?

[CharlotteVale]

114. K&R

[LiberalElite]

116. Kick! nt

[Overseas]

117. K&R. I've certainly wanted this for decades now.

[-none]

141. Yours is an excellent post also!

It is good to make them feel guilty about what they have done, if such a thing can be done.

[7962]

123. And we're already paying into it now, it wouldnt be much of an adjustment

[Recursion]

129. Private insurance takes in $960B and pays out $850B

So that means he's envisioning a huge pay cut for doctors, while simultaneously expecting them to treat 80 million more people. That would be interesting to watch.

[MadDAsHell]

130. Yes it would cover all, but it's not "savings" to pay a provider...

far less than it costs them to provide a service. It may be "savings" for our government, but it's bankruptcy for many providers that Medicare patients currently depend on. The higher payments from private insurers that are subsidizing the Medicaid/Medicare payments are all that are keeping many providers afloat.

Medicare For All can and should be the future, but it's naive to throw out that bumper sticker slogan without any real knowledge of the current economics of Medicare for many providers.

[JDPriestly]

131. Bookmarked! Thanks. K&R.

[still_one]

133. Medicare is NOT single payer. It contains aspects of Single Payer, but strickly speaking it isn't

a completely single payer system

[raouldukelives]

135. K&R nt

[BeanMusical]

139. Kick and R

[WcoastO]

140. Canada covers everybody......

and their system has 80-90% support of the people. Their system works, but all you hear from the "liberal" media are the so-called problems with their health care.......if there were huge problems with the Canadian system, the population wouldn't support it in such overwhelming numbers.

[MonteSS]

142. We just don't understand Universal Heathcare

After 21 yrs in the USAF and then working for German and Danish corporations for the past 10 yrs, I have never understood out medical system. I always find it amusing that when I do go to Germany people are like; you American fight over the strangest things like health care. It is just given here and no one would ever think about taking it away or paying for services. They look at the taxes they pay into it like we already do for Social Security and Medicare (which you can’t get until 65). I always tell them; well it is not American if you can might a dollar off of it. Which that is the sad part they say.

I had an older German man (60-65yrs) tell me this once and it put things into perspective: “You Americans will never really understand what the European socialism means or its comforts. Name a time in the past 100 yrs you had your country completely destroyed and had to rebuild from ground up, not once but twice. Then you and your countrymen have to support one another and not having to worry about petty things like how will I pay for it”. This was profound and true.

[pinebox]

157. The German system I am familar with

as non military and I married a German, I am insured through AOK. It's not even a comparison between our 2 systems yet this is what we get here in the United States http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251841018#post152 That exemplifies what is wrong with our country. That entire state of mind and the thought surrounding it doesn't allow us to go forward and instead protects and defends the status quo.

People are STILL uninsured and dying in the United States due to lack of health care and not having access to it.

[senz]

144. Low overhead, no profit taking, even coverage, no games

It's a no-brainer. If the insurance companies hadn't put his head in a vice, Obama would have loved to include single payer in his plan. If Bernie's political revolution takes hold, the next president (who I hope will be Bernie) will be bolstered by the pressure of public opinion and then we can finally get this done.

Affordable access to health care is a human right and we as a nation can make it happen. Anything less is uncivilized.

Let's join the civilized world.

[99th_Monkey]

146. BIG K and R n/t

[rocktivity]

147. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award

The "To Figure This Out, You Had To Do A Freaking Study?"category.

Of course it would. The resistance to it has been spearheaded by the people who would stop pocketing that $1.8 trillion!


rocktivity

[moobu2]

152. The only problem is trickle down socialism doesn't work.

[pinebox]

154. "Trickle down socialism"? Are you a nutter?

Seriously? It doesn't work? And our system does?
In what galaxy and planet are you living on?
Go tell that to these people in the thread, in fact, I'll link them to your comment here.

http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd

[moobu2]

158. It wont work because Bernie Sanders can not get elected.

And even if he managed to get himself elected, or hell froze over, there would be such a backlash that the 2010 midterms would look like a win for Democrats. A Bernie Sanders presidency would actually be a setback even for his own supporters for a generation and Republicans would have a 4 year party. It wouldn't work out like you people have deluded yourself into thinking it would. But we wont have to worry about him winning because he can't.

[pinebox]

159. Oh ok so just give up and forget fighting for something? Quite the strategy

And yet you think Hillary, the most polarizing figure in all of politics (Palin is second by the way) is suddenly going to wave a magic wand and get shit done? Really? They're already talking about impeaching her on her first day in office, where have you been? Yet, Republicans like Bernie;

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-lifelong-conservatives-who-love-bernie-sanders/417441/
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/09/conservatives_bernie_sanders_lovefest_why_the_right_has_the_hots_for_a_prickly_socialist/
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32391-why-republicans-vote-for-bernie
http://socialnewsdaily.com/57217/republicans-explain-why-they-feelthebern/

Sorry but you're reality is a parallel universe so you support a candidate who is completely moving to the right and whose plan leaves millions uninsured because she wants to expand the ACA which uses Medicaid, a state issue. You're defending the status quo where people in this country are STILL dying because they don't have access to the health care they need to save their lives.

That is exactly what you're doing. You're scared of change.

[Orsino]

164. That might come in handy for all the ex-insurance employees dumped onto the job market.

I approve; I just think we can't discuss such sweeping change without also talking about the Citizen's Wage.