Here is the truth about Medicare for All vs Private Insurance that robs you

[egbertowillies]

The private insurance system is nothing more than a family of corporations taking the money of Americans to pay a bill we could do at a much cheaper price. It is free money for them.

https://politicsdoneright.com/2019/04/progressives-stop-donald-trump-reelection/

[Hortensis]

1. MfA is like the ACA - KEEPS the private insurance companies.

Under the ACA, they're administrators, not insurers. Profits under government controls are lower, but happily for the "family of corporations" under both ACA and MfA are guaranteed. And they could always rise in future with a little help from friends in Republican administrations.

The name "Medicare for All" is just a name, Egberto, not a magic wand that vanquishes corporations. In fact, it does do great things for corporations that want out from under the burden of providing employee insurance, which is many of them.

Everyone wants employer control out of it, but the MfA is a dictatorial plan that would allow NO choice to anyone. It would make it illegal for companies who offer good insurance to draw good employees to offer insurance at all. And millions of employees who like their insurance would have it taken away. MfA not as good? Too bad. One plan for all. (Except senators.)

Fortunately, imposing Sanders' extreme solution on Americans is not the only MfA-type incremental step to universal coverage being discussed by our candidates. Medicare for America, to name just one for instance, would allow people to choose to be on Medicare or keep their current insurance.

Democracy: Government of, by and for the people. Not ON the necks of people.

[Voltaire2]

2. Eh what? The ACA retains the for profit

private health insurance industry but regulates some of its most egregious practices. MFA almost entirely eliminates it replacing a for profit insurance system with a government run “single payer” system.

[wasupaloopa]

3. Not true. Medicare for all has not been defined. Ask a dozen people what it is and you will get a

dozen answers.

"Medicare for all" is a slogan. It would have to go through the process just as the ACA did to become law and that means it would have compromises to pass Congress.

Current Medicare recipients use insurance companies to provide supplemental insurance. The Centers for Medicare and Medical Service uses private for profit companies in some states.

The first problem people have is that they don't understand what Medicare is in the first place. I am a medicare recipient and I pay for it through social security deductions and insurance premiums.

[Voltaire2]

4. Both the house and senate bills, as they have done for many years,

replace the private insurance system with a comprehensive government run not for profit single payer system.

[brooklynite]

8. Here is Conyers' bill from last term; point to anything that says there can be no private insurance

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/text

[Voltaire2]

11. Here is the 2019 House MFA text:

EC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.
There is hereby established a national health insurance program to provide comprehensive protection against the costs of health care and health-related services, in accordance with the standards specified in, or established under, this Act.


SEC. 102. UNIVERSAL COVERAGE.
(a) In General.—Every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled to benefits for health care services under this Act. The Secretary shall promulgate a rule that provides criteria for determining residency for eligibility purposes under this Act.

The issue was not "there can be no private insurance". MFA replaces the for profit insurance industry with a non-profit government run universal comprehensive system. Everyone is entitled. If there remains room for private insurance products around the edges of that who cares?

But this is not what the ACA does, which is what I originally responded to. The ACA regulates and subsidizes private for profit health insurance.

[brooklynite]

13. Yes it does, because that was what was achievable...

Not withstanding a leftward shift of Democrats, there's no ability of getting MFA implemented today, and a candidate advocating it is risking a loss to Republicans who will take us backward. Voters are far more open to a Medicare buy in "option" rather than a new mandate.

[Voltaire2]

14. Well we aimed low and got even less.

I personally still think it was a mistake to give up on a competitive "public option". There were never going to be any republican votes, so trying to woo them was just wrong headed. Understandable, but wrong.

But again, I am not attacking the ACA, I responded to a post that claimed that the ACA and MFA are no different and that MFA is just a slogan and has no specifics. Both the house and senate bills have been quite specific for years. It is clear what MFA is, unless you are posturing for some polemical reason and need to pretend it isn't.

[Hortensis]

5. As Wasupaloopa says. MfA's still a slogan, and the devil's in the details.

But those experts in and out of government who created the ACA did a great job, and there's no reason they and others can't do the same with the next incremental healthcare development. People are already working on many versions of "ACA evolves and gets a catchier name wiped clean of Obama" (that last's a big thing for a lot of voters).

[FakeNoose]

6. Thanks for making this distinction

It's making more sense to me now! I totally agree that the name "Obamacare" has to go. It was only nicknamed that so that the GOP could torpedo it. We Democrats can and should stop this immediately.

The ACA must be saved and revised, but it's going to take both parties working together to fix it. Why can't Republicans see that they have as much stake in this as we do?

[Hortensis]

7. I deeply regret the attempts to erase the name Obamacare,

which was adopted proudly by Democrats. In fact, I may just continue to call it Obamacare anyway, since his administration managed to pass the first giant healthcare reform after over 70 years of obstruction. Everything that follows will build on Obamacare's beginning.

The long, passionate desire of some noisy people on the populist left to rid healthcare reform of its links to Obama and his Democratic administration reveals that they have all too much in common with their counterparts on the right.

But as you say, the ACA will be revised in national healthcare's second iteration, and no doubt our Democrats who worked so heroically to create it will be very willing to change the name to get the next great advances passed. If that's what it takes to create bipartisan support for both the program and our candidates, it'll be a very small price in the end, though at this point the phrase "pearls before swine" always comes to mind.

[FakeNoose]

9. It's not called ClintonCare

And yet, both Bill and Hillary Clinton worked very hard for several years to make this happen.

Yes Obama did it on his watch, and he'll always be remembered for it. I don't want to take any credit away from PBO. I just want all the political hatred and bad feelings to be taken out of this. It will never be perceived as the inevitable healthcare program that America needs and deserves, until Chump stops screaming "Obamacare is a disaster."

[Hortensis]

10. Yes, they did.

[Voltaire2]

12. So you deeply regret the title of your post upthread: "MfA is like the ACA"?