Ask Betsy DeVos - Queen Charter School.

personal political futures will rise if they parrot the easily packaged talking points of the GOP and the health nsurance industry catapulting the propaganda.

You see some of it posted here at DU even.

possible long term goal. The root of the US problem and why we did not get to the same point that all other top industrial countries did is that in the 50s/60s a gradually increasing percent of the population got their insurance paid by their companies.

I think that they see that - right or wrong - there are many people who strongly feel that they would lose something if their hard fought for union (or company) insurance would be taken away from them and what they would get is inferior. It is for these people that most of the more moderate candidates argue for the ACA structure with a public option.

Now, I understand - and I assume they do too - that the real gains of single payer come when it is universal. However, if the public option is added and is seen to be better than the corporate alternatives, more people will chose it. The promise (and the danger because it does not include all the gains) is that the people will see the success or failure of a public option plan as a proxy for how MFA would do.

I think that one piece of legislation could help would be to allow a company the same tax deduction they take for paying all or part of their insurance and allow them to give "vouchers" that could be processed as the subsidies currently are. There are likely many companies - especially smaller ones - that would find that easier than having the HR department review and manage their interface with the insurance companies.

I don't think it is their political future they are worried about, but in achieving the most gain on this issue. I remember that going into the ACA discussions there was a comment by Ted Kennedy that he regretted working against the Nixon health care plan holding out for something more. Considering it was decades before even children (in Kennedy's SCHIP program) got healthcare and until 2010 that it became near universal, it is hard to disagree with his regret.

In 2010, when we had 60 Senators briefly, even Bernie Sanders said there were less than 10 Senators who would vote for single payer. Since then, the Democratic grassroots have made it a bigger issue. That might shift some of the Democrats - including newer Democrats coming in supporting that. However, in the next Senate, we will be lucky to have the majority - and will not have 60 Senators. It is very unlikely that we will have even 50 senators who would vote for single payer.

Therefore, it is reasonable that some candidates are proposing that we fix what Trump and the Republicans broke and add a public option. Some of the former can be corrected by executive order (just as Trump broke them by executive order). It is also possible that some things need to be fixed legislatively - especially as the SC has not been helpful. If we had a Democratic President, Senate and House - we can correct the mandate "problem" by replacing the zero cost with a penalty. Even a small one takes us back to when Roberts ruled it was legal.

Where's the choice in that?

You cannot plan your future medical needs, there are so many factors in place, its impossible to predict. A healthy 20 year old male may feel like they don't need comprehensive, affordable care, until they get diagnosed with cancer, a congenital disease or have a bad accident.

There's no market for inflexible demand, I don't understand why people insist there is.

transparency of quality. transparency of price. negotiation sounds great until you are anesthetized and some stranger is poking inside your chest.

I guess i'm saying that capitalism does not, and can not, apply in these matters

exclusively.

Yes you can have set prices for "checkups" and for shots and other common things that apply to everyone, but medical can can also be very individual. How do you price for treating a funny looking mole? It could be a mole, a blood blister, or cancer, and there are various different ways it can be treated, with varying levels of treatment available. It could be that you leave it alone, have it cut out, or even have to go in for chemo and/or radiation therapy. For that one "mole" the price for treatment could be 0 dollars or tens of thousands of dollars.

to the system.

I think it comes down to some people having enough income to pay the extra fees associated with most insurance plans coupled with a fear of change.

the medicare advantage open season produces a tsunami of slick sales brochures featuring smiling seniors with great teeth. the actual details of the plans (if they are provided at all) are in print so fine we old people can not read it, much less compare the information.

in real life we do not know what doctors, drugs, or procedures are covered to which extent by each plan until it is too late. in network hospitals often use out of network specialists, and you don't really know until the bills come in or the collection agencies start calling.

last time my employer switched plans a flack came to explain to us the wonders of the higher deductible plan which would save us big bucks if we were "smart medical consumers." I snapped right back, how are we supposed to be smart medical consumers if we are lying on a gurney after an auto accident or having a heart attack? I swallowed hard and ate the higher premiums for the good plan but it was worth it when I needed two angiograms and a stent right before my 50th birthday.

And on every issue.

Give people the ability to make a bad choice if they want. And if we do the Medicare right, not the way it is now people will realize that they made the wrong choice. There will always be the people who "don't want to be told what to do" who may or may not come around but this plan gives those of us who want a Medicare for all type program to have a better chance of getting it done at this time. Unfortunately there are people who would choose to be the canary in the coal mine if faux news told them to.

their employers provide and are afraid if it is changed or to change jobs. Their is too much disinformation out their for most people to make an informed choice. I just signed up for Medicare and chose a supplemental plan. I spent hours on this choice, actually days of work. I found out the Advantage Plans were actually pushed by the insurance industry and the ReThuglicans, but people like hearing there is a $0 premium, and do not think about what in-network means until they need care or the bills start arriving.

After hearing so much on this topic, i do believe that if the public option is offered, business will choose this option for their employees, because it will be cheaper. The public option coupled with say lowering Medicare eligibility to age 55 is the (Trojan Horse) way to get universal healthcare imo.

They have Medicare for all ..It is very popular ….Per capita spending on healthcare is 1/2 of what it is in the States ….Outcomes as good or better … We are told it is a utopian fantasy to join the rest of the Western developed world by a mainstream media that profits fabulously from the private health insurance and pharmaceutical industries …….

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2019, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

agrees 100%. I would not even think for a second about moving to the US, even though the warmer climate sometimes beacons, because of your healthcare system.

The "choice" cannard being discussed here also IMO applies to "rationing". Healthcare in the US is often "rationed" i.e only to those who can afford to get access and, if you can't afford it, you may get rationed out forever.

as an original post. I think your viewpoint would be illuminating and greatly appreciated here.

A little under five years ago, we both needed and had bariatric surgery. There was ONE insurer in the state that covered the procedure. We both had the surgery just in time: three months later the insurance company was forced into bankruptcy because of Marco "Rubles" Rubio.

This year, the condition my wife has been suffering with for two years was diagnosed as a rare complication of the surgery. To save her life, she had to have another surgery. But because it was bariatric surgery, no insurance company in Oregon (or at least, none that sell in our county, exchange or otherwise) would cover her. So we had to remortgage our house to get her the care she needed.

The ironic part is that if it had been me, it would all have been covered under Medicare, even if it was being administered by the same companies that refused to cover my wife.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if the insurance companies want to go into the Medigap business, that's fine. But they should not be the gatekeepers.

that DO cover our county on the northern Oregon coast, the one large-enough to sponsor a sports arena in Portland, won't cover our doctors in the nearest "big city" (population 50k) because it's in Washington, instead preferring is to have to drive twice as far (over a highway that ices up at times in the winter) to get to Portland.

So I'm counting the months before she can get on Medicare, too, which will save us a minimum of $20k/year.

Assuming the Republicans don't fuck it up first.

..."if the insurance companies want to go into the Medigap business, that's fine. But they should not be the gatekeepers."

I agree 100%

Our money should be paying for health, not insurance and not insurance company jets, skyscrapers, mansions, winter retreats, armies of "doctors" whose only job is to deny coverage, etc.

They aren't doing the fake choice thing insurance companies and republicans push.