Gingerly, Democrats Give ‘Medicare for All’ an Official Moment

MfA has 1 critical problem: it puts the government in charge of running it. Every 2 years, we risk Republicans taking over and overhauling it. Even if it set up with the right policies, government employees (appointed or civil servants) will be running day to day operations. Services and contracts will be outsourced to the usual groups, who have high overhead. Just stop. We need a public option, your USPS equivalent to UPS and FedEx. We need proper policies encoded in law that makes prices more transparent. What we don't need is another monolithic government agency that will do an OK job at best.

What could go wrong... put the government in charge of your healthcare. The government has proven incapable of managing everything they have been given responsibility for. Enough of this liberal idiocy.

I live on Australia were we have a universal health care policy my mum asks me when I will i move back yo the Stated and I say never I just had a day surgery at a public hospital Walked in showed my card was well attended by all the health carers and at the end of the day walked out with smiles goodbyes and nothing to sign or pay granted I had to wait but if you have something serious there is no wait or Chest pains free ambulance takes to best cardio center 8 hours of observations and a follow up cost me a taxi ride home I am bemused by the health debate in states and saddened as the politicians here are trying to erode a good system into a state system If the corporations would pay their taxes like i a humble teacher pay mine think if the amazing universal health system Australia and the States could have By the way for more comparisons Ventolin over the counter here 5 dollars Benefits of PBS in states do for appointment and 35 dollars I will not come home as it doesn't make economic sense Cheers From down under

"When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well; I meant Medicare and Medicaid; I meant veterans' benefits; I meant every single, solitary thing in the government." (J. Biden, Jan., 1995) He was defending the proposed GOP balanced budget amendment at the time and his argument was clear. At other times in his career we have seen the same capitulation that might have been in the service of political expediency and/or a 'higher ideal'. But, sadly, the politicians that do this only delay necessary change like Single-payer health care, living wages, addressing clear taxation inequality that benefits, disproportionately, the wealthiest corporations and citizens etc. The fact is National single-payer healthcare is approximately 2-3x 'less expensive' and it results in better outcomes, preventive care saves business(es) and patients 10s and 10s of billions annually, and it's more humane and moral. These are all facts. And yet, too many candidates for POTUS are hedging their bet on this subject. Why? The majority of Americans are for it, it's less expensive, more 'christ-like',etc. The 'why' is because of one thing and one thing only: Profit. Insurance Company Profits. Pharmaceutical Company Profits. Lobbyist Profits Profiting off of pain & suffering is immoral and wrong. And only politicians seeking lobbying money & insurance company propheteers will tell a different narrative. This battle has nothing to do with free enterprise. Nothing.

It's idiotic that there is debate on this issue. Just look around the world and one can see so many successful healthcare systems that provide worry-free, cradle-to-grave care. It's embarrassing that our once-great empire is #37 on the list of countries' healthcare quality. Our infant mortality rate is about the same as Cuba, the poorest country in North America. We pay twice as much, per capita, as France, the #1 rated system in the world. The opposition? The highly-profitable private health insurance industry, pharma companies afraid of price regulations, some compromised democrats, and all republicans, of course. Money truly is the root of all evil.

If people like their private insurance so much, why don't they continue with their private insurance when they retire or when they reach 65? Most people I know in my age group who are between 55 and 64, can't wait to get their Medicare benefits. I wonder how many people who "love" their private insurance are willing to forgo their Medicare option when it becomes available to them. People who crow about how great their employer provided insurance is, are deluding themselves because they don't know how much their medical care is actually costing them or could potentially cost them if they got really sick. Private insurance raises costs because of so many factors. People have to have insurance, so they pay outrageous prices often with blinders on because no one, not even the doctors providing their care knows what the prices are! Wake up people and realize that you are being scammed to death.

Americans will never accept health insurance that doesn't have a private component. They like their freedom to choose and to have options. Obamacare's unpopularity was its restrictiveness and high costs. A dead end for American consumers.

Some version of Medicare for All may be good policy and certainly better than our current for profit catastrophe. But if the proposal requires that 175 million people give up their private insurance it will never see the light of day. Americans like their freedom and their ability to choose; it would be political suicide to eliminate private health insurance and promise something better. Allow Medicare, with its dramatically lower administrative costs, compete with private insurance and consumers will flock to it.

If the Democrats don't whole-heartedly get behind healthcare as a basic human right and that the health of the nation should not be a for-profit business, but rather a better regulated and fairer system then they will only be seen as Republican-lite and still beholden to Wall Street. Without a clear difference, the Republicans will hold on to the Senate and Presidency because short of the economy tanking before the election, unemployment skyrocketing toward double-digits or the Electoral College being abolished, healthcare is the only area where Trump's base might be willing to change sides.

Those who have listened to the new regs regarding monitoring of health care in religious-based systems must be appalled. I am - ISIS of health care does not acknowledge indications of patients about their desire for abortion, end-of-life care, medical agreements with family, etc. Instead, it prioritizes the religious beliefs of providers. This proposal is unacceptable, discounts the expressed needs of patients and is yet another step in the disintegration of democratic values.

I think we should every year lower the Medicare eligibility age by one year. Eventually we would have Medicare for all, but in a gradual fashion that would allow for payroll taxes to be adjusted slowly. We cannot predict the results of a rapid change to our health care system. And allowing people to buy into Medicare would select for the sickest and eliminate the broad membership needed for lower premiums. Remember that Medicare pays 80%, not 100%. Supplement premiums are the same regardless of income, unlike premiums and copays under Obamacare.

There are two types of voters in America. Those who vote with their hearts and those who vote with their heads. No one who votes with their head supports Single Payer.

Medicare at 55. We have too many people at 65 who put a drain on Medicare since that have put off treatment for chronic conditions for many years due to no health insurance, or lousy health insurance. Get them in the system and under treatment.

Since the Republicans in the Senate will kill any attempt to expand or improve US health care, while they're trying to eliminate coverage for more people, this discussion is really about considering plans, mapping out battle lines, and choosing sides. Politics is like driving: use "D" to go forward, "R" to go backward.

Medicare for all will keep in place our high quality hospitals and health systems, but will allow universal access and decrease costs overall. it is time to give it a try.

There are many millions of Americans, many of them voters, who like their current health plans and will strenuously object to having to give them up and to lose control of the doctors and treatments they have access to.

Be careful here. Universal, quality, affordable health care should be our number one goal here in America and join the rest of our peer civilized countries. What not to do? What Hillary did in the 1990, ie pigeon hole the answer into a total socialist program like in Great Britain. Yes, as mentioned in the first paragraph but don't obsess over a single problem like medicare for all or what Hillary did. Any program our peer countries have or any combo of them is better than our current (per ACA) de facto criminal republican plan of don't get sick, be rich and/or don't have a bad life event. Comprise it with moderates of both sides and avoid the extremists on the left and right.

For the 11 millionth time, we are NOT talking about overhauling the health care system. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE PAY FOR IT. We are NOT talking about eliminating doctors. We are talking about eliminating insurance companies. We are NOT going to ration healthcare. We are going to EXPAND IT. We are NOT talking about putting government in charge. We are talking putting doctors in charge. The people who oppose MFA are either greedy insurance executives who profit off of death. Or tragically stupid people who are terrified that the government might help "those people."

To avoid undermining their national health care system, Canada manages to have few illegal immigrants and accepts most of its legal immigrants on a point-based merit system. Those who could help Canada’s economy by bringing a special skill and educational background are given high points. Those who are fluent in English and/or French, and those who could easily assimilate are also rewarded with points. (While already having a relative in Canada might help a migrant assimilate, this is but one small consideration.) Thus, Canadian immigrants get high paying jobs which allow them to pay high taxes that help support the national health care system. We have what might be described as the opposite of the Canadian immigration system. We have millions of poorly educated, non-English speaking illegal immigrants. (The PEW Trust estimates the number at around 11 million. A Yale - MIT study found the number to be between 16 and 29 million.) We award almost 2/3’s of our green cards solely on kinship. It does not matter if an applicant is educated, has any skills, knows any English, or would be able to easily assimilate, beyond that of having a relative already living here. The only thing that matters is having that relative. Thus, many, if not most, of our legal immigrants have low paying jobs. If we want Medicare for all, we must change our immigration system.

start taxing these corporations that are paying zero taxes and put that to pay for health care,it is a start

The poor and the unemployed have Medicaid. The Democrats should defend their base by proposing Medicare for everyone who works for a living. What are we, chopped meat?

The least disruptive way to move toward a single-payer system would be to start out w/ Medicare X, a public option that could be offered on ACA Exchanges. Medicare X is co-sponsored by Va Senator (former VP candidate) Tim Kaine. Medicare X would NOT touch the Medicare Trust Fund, as consumers would pay premiums for health policies. “Well baby” and obstetrics would be offered, unlike W/ traditional Medicare. There would be no deductibles and premiums would be cheaper, because like w/ traditional Medicare, Medicare X would NOT have to pay fat CEO bonuses, shareholder profits, or pay for fancy TV ads/expensive P.R. Medicare X also doesn’t pay CPAs to devise clever ways to deny care. (private insurers pay ALL these costs) Medicare X would force private insurers to lower overhead to compete. There is very little real competition in healthcare and that’s one reason prices are so high. Unfortunately, the kind of free-market, “less-government intervention” policies Republicans pushed in the past saw private insurers merge and jack up rates. This hurt consumers. Another important point is that in an eventual single-payer health system, ONE big “insurance risk pool” would include the whole country. This would bring premiums down, as a favorite way for private insurers to raise premiums is to create tiny risk pools and then raise premiums because of “bad experiences” the year before. Common illnesses are treated as shameful liabilities. Not so w/ Medicare X.

As long as MfA doesn't restrict private insurance it should be great for America. The problem is that "the movement" will always object to the idea that the wealthy can pay for better care. They need to let that idea go and just be happy that everyone can get basic care for free.