It sounds like a campaign sound bite.

It's all campaign sound bites, those proposals. Nobody is talking about how they'll get any of it through Congress. These are broad proposals. Maybe we could elect a Congress that would take these proposals on and implement them. Why don't we set out to do just that, along with electing a Democrat as President? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?

If Biden tell folks his ideas on policy they sneer at 'campaign rhetoric' but if he doesn't they complain that he has no policy...too bad. I believe he will be the nominee and beat Trump.

It's the only way.

I agree, Democrats have an opportunity in 2020 to remove the pretender and his allies from public office.

Imagine if Trump said the first thing he'd do is repeal the ACA. Well, he can't do it w/o Democratic Party help...and no way would the Dems "work with" Trump to kill the Dems' signature bill.

But I guess it lays out where Biden's head is at. What he thinks is important.

Just as no one else running.
And why Medicaid over Medicare? Isnt Medicaid more costly per individual?

and doesn't deal with supplemental insurance, Advantage plans, etc. It's a simpler system, and it covers more things than Medicare. Medicare was designed for people over the age of 65. Medicaid was designed for poor and working-class people of all ages.

Medicaid would be simpler to implement as a system that offered healthcare for all. That's probably why he has focused on it.

As for how it gets paid for, it gets paid for through taxation and through employer contributions. Right now, employers pay for part of most employees' health insurance. At least employers who offer health insurance to employees. They'd keep right on doing that with this medicaid for all system. By law. How about that?

to a slogan. That doesn't even make sense. I hope Biden keeps this as his policy and doesn't flip to M4A.

Using the Medicaid model makes it easier to understand for some people, I suppose. The reality is that a system like Biden is talking about wouldn't be Medicaid. It would be a brand new thing, something like Medicaid.

Right now, Medicaid pays providers less than any other system. That's why a lot of providers don't accept Medicaid patients. There will have to be adjustments, either by paying more or by disallowing rejection of those who are covered. The simplest thing would be for this Medicaid system to pay the same as Medicare does for the same services.

Almost everyone accepts Medicare patients. It's the bread and butter for most medical providers. If a new system paid the same as Medicare, there would be little excuse for not accepting it.

And then, if employee mandates required employers to pay this new Medicaid's "premiums" in a similar way they now have to pay part of traditional insurance premiums, how to pay for it would be solved, pretty much. Eventually, the same program could be extended to new retirees and that would allow Medicare to be retired as a separate system at some point.

Everyone pays for Medicare, through a payroll deduction. A new system would simply reconfigure those deductions, set payment percentages for employers, and Bob's your Uncle. No income cap. No nothing. Let the rich pay proportionally more. Progressive taxation at its best.

Anyhow, the candidates aren't going to provide the fine details. Just the framework.

where people whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid can still buy it through paying premiums, which are cheaper than private insurance.

I've searched for Biden's plan but didn't find much. The buy in option could be worth exploring.

The thing is that that buy-in can be shared by employers and employees, pretty much like the current insurance is done.

The details would have to be worked out, and I don't expect a detailed plan, with costs and numbers from any of the candidates. Even if they did produce such numbers, they'd almost certainly be wrong for the final implementation.

It's the approach that should be proposed now, with a general explanation of how it would be done and paid for, but without details, since that will take an enormous amount of research.

You're right. Some states are working on their own plans. It might be worthwhile to encourage some states to go full-on with a plan, so we can see how it works and understand the costs and implementation problems better.

Frankly, nobody can seriously offer a full-fledged proposal at this point. We don't know what is possible, legislatively, nor do we have the numbers to present. For some time, there will have to be a hybrid system, regardless of the plan. There's no way to just drop an entirely new system on the whole country in one pass. That's a recipe for disaster.

We need solid proposals that make sense, with the details to be worked out later. That's the only practical way to approach this.

Just like with the ACA, when you throw in the seniors with the rest of the population, the seniors get the raw end of the deal. I think it's important for Medicare to continue to apply to seniors. It works pretty well for a defined group of people. The ins. cos. and the govt have a handle on what kinds of medical conditions and costs they're dealing with, in Medicare. It's established.

I have Medicaid as a secondary and it leaves me with no co-pay on anything; drugs, lengthy hospital stays, and doctor visits. I don’t pay a thing.

Yes it will be more costly to the taxpayer but I can’t, in good conscience, receive these great benefits, yet be against the whole population enjoying said benefits.

I think one problme with Medicare (not medicaid) is that when you're 65 you HAVE to enroll. Why not let people still working and covered by an employer stay off of it? My mom was penalized because she DIDNT start when she was 65.

Expanding Medicaid to cover folks that can’t get employer insurance not as a universal health care program.

And much more affordable

It'll be what the ACA providers found: people who have not had health care, will use new health care a lot, and will not be in good health.

Anything that provides health care to the citizens w/o health care is going to cost a lot. A whole lot. We had best get used to that thought.

It should pay back the country at least somewhat in the future, because people will be healthier. They'll be more employable, miss work less, hopefully make more money. But in the beginning, it'll be a huge burden.

If we have a recession, which looks like may be coming, there won't be any of these nice sounding programs.

You cant get it all from the rich, because there arent enough of them.
The candidates have to do the math because if they dont, the opposition certainly will

Because it's not true.

Spoiler alert: other developed countries are able to provide some form of universal healthcare to their citizens. If the U.S. can't find the money to do that, it's part of a broader problem. Healthcare is important enough to rebalance the budget to fund it for everyone.

Haven't heard anyone propose that here

And actually Andrew Yang does support a VAT.

I think the countries w/VAT don't have sales taxes.

Sales taxes & VAT disproportionately affect the poor and working class, when those taxes apply to necessities.

In my parish, there is a sales tax on groceries and medications. For the middle class and wealthy, not a huge deal. But when you only have $200 to pay for groceries for the month for a mom and a couple of kids, taking out $11.50 for taxes makes a difference.

to pay for things that we say we need here.

To expect that enough money for health care, child care, free college and student loan forgiveness can all be paid for by increasing taxes on the rich isn't realistic IMO.

I mentioned the sales tax because if we did a VAT in America, it would be really oppressive because we already have sales taxes, which are used for other purposes.

Even at the levels the most extreme ideas propose. And a VAT gets ALL income. I've posted many times about just how many professions can get away with paying far less than they should, but no one seems to believe me.
Those other countries use the VATs because they make everyone pay. Yes, even the poor. And i dont see the poor in the streets marching to do away with them either. Because they're happy with their services.
The "pay your fair share" crowd just refuses to accept reality.

I don't know what people expected. Biden is a progressive. He's a cautious one, at times, but he's on the same page, as we're going to hear again and again.

I'm for any and all take aways from the 1% buttercups.

There arent enough of them to cover what it would cost

e.g., are burial plots to be considered resources or not. Its a nightmare of rules
and paperwork for recipients. If you like our tax complexity you will love means testing.

I've not heard him say.

(and provide the sources, as well...)

Your post prompted me to spend a few minutes looking again, and I couldn’t find anything.

But yes, my question was genuinely sincere. My wife and I are comfortable but certainly don’t consider ourselves wealthy. If a politician is going to start deeming certain people to be wealthy for tax purposes, I kind of want to know where she’s going to draw the line.