A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

[Hassin Bin Sober]

A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-medicare-for-all-public-option-bernie-sanders-plan-support-2018-3

A new poll found 59% of Americans support a "national Medicare-for-all plan."

The plan is similar to a proposal made by Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Support for the idea is split along party lines, with only 36% of Republicans in favor.
The healthcare system supported by Bernie Sanders and many liberal-leaning Democrats has begun gaining steam with more Americans, according to a new poll.

The poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, found that:

59% of respondents supported a Medicare-for-all healthcare system in which all Americans would get coverage through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid.
Moving to a public-option model, under which people could sign up for the Medicare-like program, would be even more popular.
About 75% of the public would favor a program framed as a public option for anyone who wants it.

[bettyellen]

1. We gotta break through the propaganda.

[Hortensis]

164. You know, 59% admitting it means a lot more wanting it.

I don't know what difference it makes, but when conversation allows courteous input I try to break through the propaganda by telling the simple truth that Democrats under Hillary were going to drop the eligibility age by something like a decade (which would cover most people who've entered their years of increased health problems). Many of our acquaintances are at ages this would affect.

No one has seemed to know this. I like to think behind the silence this usually generates a new idea has been seeded. "Really? She was going to do that?"

Given the blood-red conservatism around here and knowing their knee-jerk reaction to the "threat" of change, I don't normally mention that it was intended to be merely the next step to genuinely universal coverage.

"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" - William F. Buckley, Jr.

[bettyellen]

165. Yes! That and expanding SS benefits to caregivers were two of my favorite policies! I wish people

had listened to her instead of the BS propaganda.

[Hortensis]

169. Caregivers! Yes.

How many have been kicked out of the homes they lived and provided care in, in settlement of estates, since the election? Some states consider that caregivers may have earned rights in estate settlement, but many others still do not. Ongoing tragedies victimizing more people every year.

This is also something I like to mention in Hillary's or Democrat's defense. A plan meant to help our exploding population of hidden victims, 7:1 women. They sacrifice themselves and their own incomes and savings to provide care and then often end up nearly destitute. Such an un-glam issue that it's almost never mentioned, even when it's become the future of many.

[TomSlick]

2. It seems inevitable.

There is no way the current Congress would do such a thing - or probably even the next - but someday.

[yurbud]

69. The current pols need to make a calculation: is insurance industry money worth losing their seat?

Will they be around or have the money to give them as lobbyists, execs, or do-nothing board members when they are voted out of office?

Unless they have fairly short term financial goals, it's time to cut these guys like tobacco and asbestos.

[erronis]

127. And the industry that services health care services is huge. Lotsa $$$$s

I'm not talking necessarily about the doctors, professionals, practices, laboratories, ambulance services, home-care, etc.

I'm talking about the parasites that want to keep the US healthcare feeding into their profits. Insurance carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, third-party administrators, debt collectors.

Getting the US on a single-payer or universal healthcare system will eviscerate many of these companies that currently support the current congress.

Do It!

[yurbud]

158. it would be tragic to see the former executives homeless, but I would pay

for their bus tickets to red states that will teach them personal responsibility and not to be dependent on the government.

[Hoyt]

3. The key to fastest enactment is 75% support a public option.

If Medicare for All is as good as we think, within 10 years 80% or more will be in the government program.

Trying to stuff one plan down white wingers’ throats will take decades.

[Demsrule86]

60. That is what I say...it helps those who need it now...can be done in reconciliation and once

implemented, the GOP will never be able to get rid of it.

[yurbud]

159. that's probably why it WASN'T in Obamacare

It's kind of like Abe Lincoln coming into office and saying "no new slave states."

From outside the context, it sounds an almost absurdly modest change, but slaveholders knew it was the beginning of the end.

The public option, then or now, will have the same effect.

It's hard to imagine how the insurance companies will respond.

[Voltaire2]

4. Thats why its important that we dont rock the boat.

We need to not propose bold changes. We will win by not being as vile idiotic and incompetent as the other guys.

[dlk]

5. We Have a For-Profit Healthcare System and Therein Lies Most of the Problem

[Wounded Bear]

9. Ding! Ding! Ding!

The bottom line is.....well...the bottom line.

For profit health care is immoral.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

33. Even the non-profits find ways to drive up costs...

... Like Sanford Health in the Sioux Falls region. They have their names on several sports venues, donate land to the local school district for a new elementary school, paying $5 million for a Sanford Health sign at the new U.S. Bank stadium in Minneapolis, etc...

But at least South Dakota has no state income tax. The shifting of, "excess funds", from health care to local school district, local recreation and entertainment, not mention vanity, is mind boggling.

I can appreciate the carry over of healthy and active recreation and good health, but is this right?

[yurbud]

70. we can give jobs to a lot of the claims processors at Medicare & execs...

could get a taxpayer-funded Caribbean vacation at Guantanamo Bay.

[NCTraveler]

6. Onward we fight.

We will get there.

[yardwork]

7. Democrats need to run on this.

[spooky3]

8. Agree nt

[BigmanPigman]

10. I have been saying this for a few months. There is one thing that must happen if

we do and that is the NAME! The deplorables didn't even know that the evil Obamacare was the same as the ACA which they love and wanted to save once they learned the GOP wants to take it away. They had no idea (dumber than dirt Fux Ruse viewers no doubt) that the two were the same thing.

[Wwcd]

11. I believe Dems ran hard on this last time. We got Trump.

Just saying.

[leftstreet]

12. What Democrats ran on National Health Care?

Hillary certainly didn't

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Dems afraid to. Now/2020 is the time. Really stand in contrast to tRump & broken RepubliCON brand.

[Wwcd]

15. Whoa! Ok. Is this an anti-Hillary position? WTF!

Who did run on National Healthcare?

Point being Dems ran on variations of Healthcare and we still ended up with TRUMP.

Do you think a candidate running on National Healthcare would have made the difference between Trump & that candidate?
Answer: NO.
What other Dems were running in 2016?
Maybe the National Healthcare Campaign couldn't answer how it was to be funded.

Thanks for bringing up Hillary !
Edit to add an eyeroll too.

Geezus

You seriously took a stab at Hillary!

[leftstreet]

16. Lol, hardly. You claimed they ran on it and failed

Yet you don't tell us who these candidates were

But as to your goalpost-moving "variations of it" - the article in the OP is about Medicare For All, not any variation of it

[Wwcd]

21. I am referring to running on any improvement in healthcare

Look at the healthcare variations proposed in 2016. By all candidates.
None, no matter how well a hc system was proposed, seemed to matter since Trump was elected in the end.

That was my statement.

And imnediately the goal posts get moved to BUT HILLARY!!!!

Geezus ..NO ONE'S HEALTH CARE MADE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN 2016.

YOU stop moving the goal posts.
Hillary was the last thing on my mind .
Someone else couldn't hold back their need to refight that primary.
Wtf..get over it.

Do we need a HC system? Absolutely.
But good luck convincing the Republican voters, if it comes from a Dem.
You can call it Affordable Health Care, but just wait for the Repub Party because they will rename anything proposed by the Dems as they did with "Obamacare ".

They flat out don't want health care.

Perhaps when Trump is finished trashing the GOP & Mueller busts up their criminal organization, we will have a better shot at a finally having a society that cares for the needs of its own before the big money global Mobsters that run the govt today.

[leftstreet]

22. You basically said the Democrats gave us Trump

You claimed Democrats ran on Medicare For All, and that's why we got Trump

[Wwcd]

25. Ummm. No you "BASICALLY" said that. Not my words., YOURS.

Stop it.
That's not at all what I said & I don't recall asking you to summarize my posts to fit your narrative.

[leftstreet]

28. Dems 'ran hard' on it

and we got Trump

I'm not putting words in your mouth

[Wwcd]

31. Omfg. Yes Dems ran hard on health care improvements of many types.

Yes Dems. Every Dem that ran in 2016 ran hard on HCare improvements. Many HC improvements were proposed but the Repub investors didn't want HC. Like they didnt want Obamacare.
IT DIDN'T MATTER.
See!

And yes, Trump was still elected.

You have misunderstood what I was saying.
Maybe try rereading it until it is clear.

I have no idea why you're harassing me.

[Mariana]

43. Do you think Dem candidates should just shut up about health care

because it causes them to lose?

[Wwcd]

48. Thats not what caused them to lose. But you knew that right.

Next time use the sarcasm thingy.

It didn't matter what HCare was proposed in 2016.
Stop talking like that made any difference in the selection of Trump.

You have read about Putin, or Cambridge Analytica & the Mercers, the NRA the social media messaging, the Kochs, the trolls, bots gerrymandering, the plans to install Trump no matrer what as far back as 2013, right?

No one's Health Care plan was going to win against Trump.
Not Dems, not even Bernie.
See?


.

[leftstreet]

47. On Medicare For All?

I'd be grateful if you could post some articles or political campaign ads.

It's obvious that I missed it

[Wwcd]

64. I'd be grateful if you'd admit that this Bill was John Conyers' ..HR 676

Nothing to do with Sanders.

The original Kaiser article never mentioned him.
The actual Bill that was proposed was HR 676 AND was by John Conyers.

Sanders campaign pushed out this great idea as it was his own.
Never once giving a mention of credit to Conyers bill HR 676.

The article linked above does the same.

"MONEY & MEDIA". Guess if we've learned anything from 2016, it is that we must fact check.

This was not sanders' idea, it was already in a bill proposed by John Conyers.

The article is quite intentionally misleading, in that case.

See link at post #54 for the facts.

[ehrnst]

77. You are confusing Univeral Health Care with "Medicare for All"

Medicare for All is to Universal Health Care as toy poodle is to canine.

Is that clearer?

Hillary Clinton has led and will continue to lead the fight to expand health care access for every American—even when it means standing up to special interests.

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

[leftstreet]

78. Did you mean to respond to someone else?

I am quite clear on the differences

The OP discusses a Medicare For All scenario, not 'universal' health ins...er I mean care

[ehrnst]

79. I was responding to this post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10423033

That is you, right?

[leftstreet]

81. That makes no sense

I was asking the poster for links to evidence that candidates ran on Medicare For All.

There aren't any, because no one did

[ehrnst]

84. You were responding to this post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10422833

That didn't mention Medicare for All.

They mentioned

Every Dem that ran in 2016 ran hard on HCare improvements.

You brought up Medicare for All as though that's what "HCare improvements" are.

And they're not the same thing.

Is that clearer?

[leftstreet]

88. Oh, the goalpost moving

The post attempted to reframe my original statements. I tried to get it back on track

I lost interest

[ehrnst]

89. Whatever. (nt)

[Wwcd]

65. Yes Dems. Clinton & Sanders both ran as Dems & both ran hard on health care.

Yes you did insert your own opinion into my post.

DEMS ran hard on health care.
Sanders ran as a Dem right?

See link at post 54.
Medicare for all was John Conyers Bill # HR676.
Sanders had nothing to do with it. Btw
Nor did he give an iota of credit to the Conyers sponsored bill.
He talked like it was his idea.
He has a habit of doing that tho.

SEE?

Point is that no matter how great a healthcare idea was presented by Dems in 2016, and like Bush in 2000, Trump had already been pre-selected as the winner.

Maybe next time around we can see that fewer antagonists & Republicans are elected, so John Conyers' bill HR 676, can become a reality.

Elect Dems & get Conyers original proposal passed

[yardwork]

57. Hillary told the truth. But Americans want big promises now.

It's time for Democrats to dream big. We need big audacious goals.

[questionseverything]

122. funding national healthcare would be easy if we taxed the 1 % correctly

i don't blame hc as much as i do her supporters, they were so preoccupied with dissing bernie wanting healthcare for all ( remember all the pony comments) they turned off voters that should have supported us...a year and a half later it is still going on here on du

[lapucelle]

125. That's exactly what HR 676 calls for.

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

There are no funding provisions in the recently introduced Senate bill. Conyers’ bill has been crafted and honed over the past 15 years. Hopefully Democrats will control the House in the next session of Congress, a House member will take up Conyers’ mantle of leadership, and we can get the bill on the calendar.

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

[Hortensis]

170. I've been waiting for the time for Conyers' bill to come.

Keith Ellison has taken over sponsorship of this bill that would virtually nationalize health insurance now that John Conyers has retired.

I never understood why Sanders felt a need to advance another, inferior bill when this one, that already has strong backing in the Democratic Party, is on the table waiting to be pushed front and center.

[lapucelle]

173. It's nice to know that Ellison will be sponsoring the house bill in the 116th session,

but what we really need is a senator to step up and write companion legislation. S 1804 isn't as good a proposal.

[George II]

24. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform, page 34....

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

"Securing Universal Health Care"

[leftstreet]

27. "universal" is not Medicare For All

The OP is referring to a national, non profit health care plan

"universal" is not the same thing - in fact it generally means universal access to health care coverage through both private and public plans

[Wwcd]

34. Rofl. Really?

Ok, great idea. How is it funded?
Simple question that deserves a realistic answer.

Check back in a few days.

[Demsrule86]

86. Most European countries have universal healthcare /some use insurance companies ...regulated.

The UK and Canadian type systems are in the minority...my thinking is we will get some sort of hybrid system in the end...not medicare for all. Americans won't pay those sort of taxes...and it was offered as 'free'. It is not free.

[Wwcd]

93. True. Obamacare was great in its original concept.

Until the Repubs chopped it up then claimed it didn't work.
Their usual way of killing any good thing the Dems try to do for society.

Medicare for All is a fine idea, but as you say, when the cost is finally revealed it won't be quite as popular.
If taxes won't kill it the GOP will.
Just as they did with Obamacare.

[Demsrule86]

100. It can be fixed and a Public option added for those states that won't expand medicaid and for those

folks who don't make enough to qualify for Obamacare. My daughter could not get medicaid...she should have been able to but Ohio kept asking for her W2's and other paperwork that she didn't have because she was not working. She couldn't remain on ours as the company hubs worked for was grandfathered in and the kids were off at 21. She was in college and not working. She had received a great deal of scholarship money...so I used that figure to get her on the ACA...I was informed later that I wasn't allowed to do that...but I would rather say sorry than ask for permission...the next year the state contacted her and put her on medicaid (Ohio). They got into trouble over not permitting it the year before...and she broke both her ankles during this time...and had to have surgery...which would not have been done had she not had insurance. The dirty secret is that people are breaking bones or having some illness that is treatable and not getting treatment leading to a lifetime of suffering.

[Wwcd]

105. My sympathies to your daughter & the minefield one must maneuver thru

to simply have coverage.

I honestly would like to know how many people, families have been forced to often go thru what you did.
Also, there are many who just aren't as savy or knowledgeable as you are when jumping thru those hoops.
Some just give up and that's exactly why the Repubs muddied up a healthcare plan that was never intended to be so difficult.

I see the same thing in my family & friends as well. And we know this difficulty was intentional so the Repubs had a reason to kill healthcare in America.

They are the most evil, cruel & cold hearted breed of humanity.

2018 is so critical.

Kudos to your efforts

[Demsrule86]

109. I am lucky that I can wade through this stuff...many friends and family members can't

I have helped many with healthcare over the years. We need to do something fast. Those in states where medicaid was not approved are dying as they have no healthcare...and many don't make enough for the ACA. The GOP are evil and sick in their hearts.

[Eyeball_Kid]

106. Its the myth of government inefficiency...

that gets in the way. Either citizens pay a medical premium “tax” or they pay a lot more in healthcare premiums through the current system. It’s essentially a pocketbook issue.

But wingers will flood the market with the “raising taxes” red herring as they ignore the financial windfall for ordinary citizens were a Medicare-for-all system in place.

[Demsrule86]

108. I agree. I didn't say medicare for all doesn't make sense...I like it...but I don't think

we can get it through congress. If we start with a public option and move on from there, we will end up with some form of universal healthcare and not have to throw ourselves under the bus with a big standalone single payer bill that will be demonized. We already paid the price for the ACA electorally...and it was worth it...but this time let's not.

[Wwcd]

111. That is exactly how it needs to be implemented.

A stand alone plan would be met with the same thing as Obamacare.
The end result would be nothing like the original plan that sounded good on the campaign trail.

It would be chopped to pieces. And we'd have nothing better than we have now.

2018/2020 Dems is the only way we'll ever see a necessary change.
They have always carried society.

Stop electing Republicons

[Demsrule86]

118. We agree. Those that want to put a big plan on the floor should consider what happened in

the 90's and in 2009.

[progressoid]

147. "A stand alone plan would be met with the same thing as Obamacare."

A stand alone plan would be met with the same thing as Obamacare.
The end result would be nothing like the original plan that sounded good on the campaign trail.

You mean like HR 676?

[George II]

68. The OP also spoke about a "public option", which is preferred by many more people....

.....(75%-59%)

The fact is people have to unite behind something practical instead of fighting each other over something that will most likely never happen.

Look into the history of Medicare, how it came about, what the makeup of Congress was at the time, and how long it took to pass.

"Medicare for all" sounds good on the surface, but it's just a buzzword that attracts some idealists, but it will never happen.

Unfortunately, this is another issue where many of it's supporters want all or nothing, so we're going to wind up with nothing.

[Gothmog]

112. Thanks for posting this

[lapucelle]

130. It surprises me that some on this forum aren't aware of HR 676.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act has been introduced in almost every session of Congress since 2003. It was re-introduced in January 2017 and currently has 122 co-sponsors. Unlike the Senate proposal, this bill is fully-fleshed out and includes detailed provisions for funding.



http://www.pnhp.org/hr676

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

[ehrnst]

87. Universal Health Coverage is a blanket term

that describes the end result of various strategies, including single payer, hybrid plans, socialized medicine, etc.

[leftstreet]

91. And "Medicare For All" is not like that

When people hear "Medicare For All" they think of Grandma's non-profit coverage, not what they're getting through their employer or buying privately

[ehrnst]

117. Yes, unfortunately.

But it's a great marketing ploy.

[George II]

139. You're redefining "universal"? I think it means "for all".

[Wwcd]

29. Thank You George.

[ehrnst]

74. She ran on universal health care, and expanding the ACA, essentially our National Health Care.

She was a driving force behind CHIP.

[Wwcd]

97. But not good enough for some. They didn't have their name on it, so they moved to

claim something else that was originally put forth by another wise Dem, without crediting who originated that Bill HR 676.

Some shifty shit there.

[ehrnst]

116. Yep. (nt)

[IronLionZion]

75. Truman, FDR, LBJ

I wish FDR had gotten us national health insurance as part of the new deal. Truman had a great plan but Americans had caught anti-communist fever by then so he almost lost.

Johnson got single payer for the elderly

[lapucelle]

123. Read the 2016 Democratic Party Platform.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-health

[leftstreet]

124. That's not Medicare For All

Democrats will keep costs down by making premiums more affordable, reducing out-of-pocket expenses

That's a completely different coverage than a national single payer system

[lapucelle]

126. Read HR 676.

The bill was re-introduced in January 2017 for the 12th time. The bill has 122 co-sponsors. Unlike the recent Senate proposal, HR 676 includes funding.

This is what our party has been working towards since 1993. We need non-Democrats to do the right thing and get on board.

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

http://www.pnhp.org/hr676

[George II]

140. An inconvenient truth.

[progressoid]

148. And did our prez candidate say anything about supporting HR 676 on the campaign trail?

Or indeed 'Medicare for all' in any way (which is what the OP and subthreads are about)? I think you'd have a hard time finding that to be the case.

[lapucelle]

157. The 2016-2017 focus was to insure that people would not lose their ACA coverage.

Democratic leadership under Schumer and Pelosi was masterful last summer in guaranteeing that Americans remained protected. That was our nominee's primary concern in 2016. She was a veteran of the health care battles and was clear on the campaign trail that saving Obamacare was a necessary first step to universal coverage. (It was because her leadership in the 90's that universal coverage has been written into the subsequent platforms as a core Democratic Party value.)

Medicare for All is one of several possible delivery systems for universal coverage. Medicare for All itself has different iterations, some using a single payer system and others (like S 915) through 50 individual state systems.

What we need now is someone in the Senate to step up and write a Senate version of HR 676. (Medicareforall.org has been lobbying senators to support and/or write the companion legislation for years.) It shouldn't matter who gets credit for HR 676. What should matter is getting it done.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676_and_S915

[Hortensis]

171. Our candidate proposed lowering Medicare access

by approximately a decade, to include most of the people entering their years of vastly increased medical needs. Yes it's incremental, but look at the nation any advance currently has to appeal to -- or be destroyed.

Reality is, we can't count on the far left not to join the right in opposition to workable advances. Fortunately, America has always been a centrist nation and sustainable advances always result from agreements between respectful and sensible people.

[shanny]

45. Not true.

"Dems" did not run hard on this. And btw those statistics show there are plenty of independents and even Rs who are in favor.

[Hortensis]

172. WHAT??? Your statement is not true. Hillary has fought

for healthcare for all for decades, and she has fought for it in not just this nation but nearly 200 others around the planet. NO other politician surpasses her on this issue. And the Democratic Party is the party of healthcare reform. We've been trying to extend universal health care to Amercans since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Our commitment is not at fault, but that of those who fight us.

This is straight from our platform, and there's also a lot more in there on that subject. Healthcare was a HUGE issue in 2016.

Securing Universal Health Care

Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits. Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and Democrats in Congress, we took a critically important step toward the goal of universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, which has covered 20 million more Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Democrats will never falter in our generations-long fight to guarantee health care as a fundamental right for every American. As part of that guarantee, Americans should be able to access public coverage through a public option, and those over 55 should be able to opt in to Medicare. Democrats will empower the states, which are the true laboratories of democracy, to use innovation waivers under the ACA to develop unique locally tailored approaches to health coverage. This will include removing barriers to states which seek to experiment with plans to ensure universal health care to every person in their state. By contrast, Donald Trump wants to repeal the ACA, leaving tens of millions of Americans without coverage.

For too many of us, health care costs are still too high, even for those with insurance. And medical debt is a problem for far too many working families, with one-quarter of Americans reporting that they or someone in their household had problems or an inability to pay medical bills in the past year. Democrats will also work to end surprise billing and other practices that lead to out-of-control medical debt that place an unconscionable economic strain on American households. We will repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance and find revenue to offset it because we need to contain the long-term growth of health care costs, but should not risk passing on too much of the burden to workers. Democrats will keep costs down by making premiums more affordable, reducing out-of-pocket expenses, and capping prescription drug costs. And we will fight against insurers trying to impose excessive premium increases.

Democrats will fight any attempts by Republicans in Congress to privatize, voucherize, or “phase out” Medicare as we know it. And we will oppose Republican plans to slash funding and block grant Medicaid and SNAP, which would harm millions of Americans.

We will keep fighting until the ACA’s Medicaid expansion has been adopted in every state. Nineteen states have not yet expanded Medicaid. This means that millions of low-income Americans still lack health insurance and are not getting the care they need. Additionally, health care providers, clinics, hospitals, and taxpayers are footing a higher bill when people without insurance visit expensive emergency rooms.

Democrats believe your zip code or census tract should not be a predictor of your health, which is why we will make health equity a central part of our commitment to revitalizing communities left behind. Democrats believe that all health care services should be culturally and linguistically appropriate, and that neither fear nor immigration status should be barriers that impede health care access.

[dalton99a]

17. +1

[Demsrule86]

62. Democrats run on fixing the ACA which is popular and can be demonized...single payer will be

attacked and probably ruined for a decade. The GOP can't really demonize the ACA...we can run on how they deliberately tried to destroy it. It works in the red areas where we are fighting for seats.

[yardwork]

138. We always tell the truth and it comes across as incremental.

Trump tells big lies and people love it.

Democrats need to go back to the Big Dreams. Give people something to believe in.

[Demsrule86]

149. No, it won't work for us.

Single payer will be demonized and we are vulnerable to attacks on how it will be funded and how much it will cost.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. I'll keep saying it: USA is progressive lib Big D nation w/out R gerrymander, tricks & suppression.

[Lucky Luciano]

35. True, but many white people think that until they are reminded that minorities (The undeserving) get

...covered too. Look at the far right in Europe. They don’t want anyone to touch their healthcare- they just want to get rid if the “mooching” immigrants taking their healthcare!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. It is false economy, self-destructive, to deny basics even to underserving people.

Everywhere, cities save money and grow faster when they give free apartments to homeless people, just as one example. Those people then start getting jobs because they finally have an address to put down on a form and some stability. It saves policing costs and emergency room costs and so much more.

Same thing with basic healthcare free to all.

[Progressive2020]

38. Good Point

Do you have any references or sources about giving free apartments to the homeless? I would like to learn more about it.

I remember Hillary talking once about a guaranteed minimum income in the same sort of way. It is cheaper to help the poor then to leave them to ring up ER costs, policing, courts, etc., as you say.

Universal Health Care is the same. It is cheaper to take care of people using preventive health care now rather than ringing up big costs later when uninsured people get really sick and cost more to the entire system.

Welfare, Health Care, etc, all make sense morally, but they are also fiscally smart moves when done right also.

Thanks for the post.

[tazkcmo]

103. I remember Utah figured this out.

Google "Utah free housing saved money" and you will get what you are looking for.

[Lucky Luciano]

58. I agree. nt

[Sophia4]

39. Gerrymander, tricks, suppression and the electoral college which robs millions of

Californians of their vote in presidential elections.

[R B Garr]

131. Why would you leave out the intentional strategies meant to

undermine a major party’s candidate like we saw with a group who called themselves Busters who refused to vote for Hillary. And third party candidates who run as spoilers. Those are also “tricks”, it seems.

[Demsrule86]

90. Senate races are statewide as are governorships...the GOP holds the majority...

We are a center left country at best. I wish what you say was true, but it is not.

[Woodycall]

18. When you desire an initiative like this....

and it's been proven to benefit others, in other nations, but your "representatives" tell you you can't have it. You don't have representatives anymore, you have rulers.

[Renew Deal]

19. Makes sense. Who does the current system serve?

It's not even a good system for the insurance companies. They are better off with smaller, guaranteed profits than the disaster they have created. And actual humans are better off with a system that puts their health ahead of profits.

[erronis]

128. There are lots of feeders on the unpredictability of the industry.

Regulation and regularity are probably the bane of making absurd profits. Having everything in flux and turmoil allow all the players to extract maximum incremental payments from the consumer.

I think the hospital "non-profit" and obviously profit Corporations do rather well. Pharmaceutical companies make billions because there is no major negotiation capabilities (except VA).

In my little world, I've seen a huge increase in Pharmacy Benefit Managers (essentially drug intermediaries) and Third Party Administrators (LLCs set up to get around regulations). Each of these siphon off a big piece of the profits.

We're in a strange world where profit drives the delivery of care. Medicaid pays 40-60% of the "cost", Medicare around 75%. Uninsured pay 100% of an inflated "charge-master"cost except that most pay nothing and it gets billed back to overhead.

Again, this is the strangest way to run an industry or even a company. There is virtually no transparency on cost or outcomes (thank you AMA). There is no real competition.

Congress has its own health plan. They feel no pain. Most are wealthy (not necessarily deservedly so) and have no empathy for the 99.99%.

[Progressive2020]

20. Medicare For All

Medicare For All makes a lot of sense to me. It always bothered me that people in favor of Public Health Care do not court businesses more, especially small businesses. I know that if I owned a business making widgets, I would want to focus on widgets, not figuring out how to get my employees health care as a benefit and compensation.

Other than Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry, most businesses and corporations should favor a Public Option. This would free these businesses from having to provide health insurance to their employees, and let them focus on their core mission of providing services or goods.

I think that health care would be cheaper overall. Medicare For All would wipe out administration duplications and lower admin costs. Corporate America should want to get Health Care off of their books and leave it to Government, I think.

[mountain grammy]

23. I completely agree.

And welcome to DU.
I believe if healthcare came off the table, companies wouldn’t fight unions as much.

[Progressive2020]

30. Good Point

Employers should not really be the source of healthcare/insurance. I think Obamacare tried to make Health Insurance portable, ie, you could take it with you if you left your job. The labor markets would improve if people did not depend on their jobs for Health Insurance, and the Unions and Management might get along better. I think that you are right about Unions. Thanks for your post.

[George II]

26. More people prefer the "public option" over "Medicare-for-all"

[Ron Green]

40. The problem with a public option is that it continues to divide

people into more- and less-desirable risk pools. A single pool, improved Medicare for all, is what’s needed.

[Demsrule86]

61. It can't happen...there will not be 60 votes...and it would be an cataclysmic shock in terms of

jobs and care...taxes; there would be problems for sure...if we try for it...doubt we get it and I think we lose the majority as we have twice already. Now Obamacare was a sacrifice of the majority for the country and it has saved lives:it was worth it. it was the best we could do...start with a public option. It must be done gradually...no standalone bills. Another problem is many folks think that single payer will be free and it won't. While people say they are for it I wonder about how they will feel about the taxes needed. I would like to see a medicare for all system where the money is deducted like the payroll ones now eventually, but this will not be achieved overnight.

[ehrnst]

71. That will take decades to implement.

And we have seen what can happen to even the ACA when congress gets a GOP majority.

Incremental expansion of CHIP, along with a public option, allowing people to buy into Medicare earlier and earlier will be much more likely politically, and will allow our health care delivery system to adjust.

[Adrahil]

156. The problem with jut one pool....

Is that it defines a single set of benefits, unless Medicare is radically changed.

IMHO, Medicare is a bare minimum kind of program. I'd prefer something more comprehensive.

Also, I want to get control of the Medicare benefits out of the hands of politicians. I don't want some political decision made to only fund diabetes care (for example) for fat patients if they agree to get bariatric surgery (a proposal like that was floated for the NHS in the UK).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

160. I don't think anyone is talking about keeping Medicare at the same benefit levels.

Medicare is weak because it treats the oldest and sickest among us.

It's crazy to let the for-profit insurance companies pocket obscene profits from relatively young and healthy people then pawn the high risk people off on the government when they get old.

[Ron Green]

167. It is a lot bigger than that.

Public health, and the “social determinants of health,” must be part of the total picture, along with realistic conversations and expectations about death.

The U.S. is probably too far gone to accomplish this - witness the timidity and denial right here on DU - but it’s what ought to be done.

[R B Garr]

99. Bingo. There has always been support for a public option.

It’s amazing that people fall for this co-opting of terms. This could have been done literally a generation ago (25 years ago with Hillary’s plan) but the all-or-nothing types gave us nothing.

And the support goes down for single payer when people see the costs. Same as it ever was. Sigh.

[democratisphere]

32. Single payer healthcare has been a Dem idea for a long time.

It is the only thing that will save our current criminal enterprise healthcare system.

[Wwcd]

36. Yes it has. One that has always been met with predictable stalling from the RW..

Elect Dems.
That's the only path to FINALLY having a govt that cares for the needs of its people.

As long as Republicans are given a place at the table they will find a way to keep inviting themselves back while stealing everything you own.

STOP ELECTING REPUBLICANS!

[democratisphere]

49. STOP ELECTING REDUMBLICONS!

Don't tell me! Tell the deplorables!

[Wwcd]

50. We tried & tried. That's why they're deplorable.

Wonder what % of Deplorables were really bots?
Probably the same amount that couldn't show up for Trumps inauguration.
Deplorable Putin bots can't ever appear in public, only on social media.

[democratisphere]

51. Fortunately bots haven't figured out how to vote yet!

Hope they haven't learned by November 2018.

[ehrnst]

72. Universal health care is in the Dem platform

in whatever form that takes.

Single payer is not the only way to get there, as the rest of the developed world has shown.

[Demsrule86]

92. It is not attainable and won't be for sometime. You would need a supermajority.

We need to get what we can when we take back power...a public option can be done in reconciliation and if the GOP gets back in power, they won't be able to get rid of it...we can continue to build on it...but the idea that a stand alone single payer bill is going to happen anytime soon is simply not true...get what we can while we can.

[Wwcd]

41. Do they address how it would be paid for?

Of course its a wonderful idea.
Just curious if anyone's gotten to the details of how to fund it.
Like the last time this was presented, the great idea was promoted but the funding was rarely addressed. Maybe since with that revelation the great idea suddenly became not so popular after all.

Campaign popular oneliners work till the reality of the cost is revealed.
That's probably why that part was never talked about much.
Shhhh...

[Ron Green]

42. Were paying for it now, just not getting it.

Insurance premiums, copays, inflated drug prices, out-of-pocket expenses - twice as much as other countries, with worse outcomes.

This is not rocket science; it’s just political will.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Yeah, I can't believe this is a difficult concept with liberals (some I guess).

[Wwcd]

46. That doesn't answer the question.

How will Med for All be funded?

Who wouldn't want Med for All.
But how do those proposing this as the HCare America needs & wants be funded?

If this question cannot be answered then its just another big empty campaign promise to get your vote.
And damned are we going to be fooled AGAIN?

Show us the policy plan written as to the details of this great idea.
If there isn't one or if it is "yet to be determined", then stop selling another big empty promise.

Last time this was sold the public, the truth of how it was to be funded was kept quiet & when it was revealed, it became unreachable & suddenly no one had an answer how to make it palatable.



Who's idea is this anyway?
They owe it to the public to present policy papers on how it will be funded, implemented & passed thru legislation.

If those serious questions cannont be discussed or presented, then whomever is promoting it this time around cannot be all that serious either.

Dont tell us we're going to get free stuff without telling us how it will become reality.
We've had enough lies from politicians who have nothing but popular campaign bull shit oneliners, and nothing of substance behind them..

[area51]

53. Folks might want to take a look

at the PNHP website.

[lapucelle]

55. There's also great informatio at MedicareForAll.org

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

http://www.pnhp.org/hr676

[progressoid]

152. +1

[lapucelle]

54. You can read the full text of The Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Bill

(HR 676) at the congress.gov website. The bill includes funding details and currently has 122 co-sponsors.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/text#toc-H87F6F4A93DE34DF5B9F91798A4C464A7

[Wwcd]

59. So this bill is actually John Conyers' Bill HR 676

HR 676 is the John Conyers bill, not the Sanders bill.
So why is the article linked in the OP crediting Sanders?

He seems to be given credit for a lot of things he had little to do with.
There's seems to be an ongoing pattern.

Well thankfully we have posters here who actually do fact finding rather than believe anything Media prints if it fits their own narrative.

We have to be extremely diligent this time around, considering the massive amount of fake news we were fed during 2016.

Thanks for making this clear & giving proper credit where due.

The bill was sponsered by John Conyers..HR 676

[Hassin Bin Sober]

104. You know Conyers resigned, yes?

[Wwcd]

107. Of course. Doesn't change the fact that it was His original proposal.

Because he resigned means what?
Someone else gets to claim his work as their own with no credit to who originated the Proposal?

So what?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

110. You know Conyers was a Congressman and Sanders introduced a Senate version?

Also, you know Conyers didn't invent Single Payer?

How does this credit thing you are proposing work?

[Wwcd]

114. You know Sanders has never credited Conyers for his original proposal.

That's a bernie problem we have seen before.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. You know they did town halls together, yes?

I keep looking but I don't see where Conyers ever alleged Bernie stole his idea.

You still haven't said how you want this "credit" to be expressed.

I thought it was great they worked together on this while Conyers was still in office. I was a huge fan of Conyers.

Seeing these two working together in 2017 warmed my heart.

[questionseverything]

142. conyers and sanders are both great public servants

those are nice pics,working side by side

lotta peops on this site could learn from them

[R B Garr]

132. Yes, same with Al Gore and climate change. For the younger

generation, they might not know better... hmm

[Wwcd]

115. See post 113 to understand what I'm referring to.

Bye.

It has been Conyers bill before Sanders ever considered it popular.
Conyers was consistant with bringing it back.
Sanders, not so much.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10424329

[Voltaire2]

163. Im fine with the idiotic but hr 6xx dodge.

I get it. It isn’t the senate bill tainted by Voldemort. So long as these same people aren’t arguing that this bill is also too much or too expensive or not detailed enough or a distraction or all the other stupid arguments against our party actually standing for real reform.

Either version is fine with me.

[lapucelle]

113. Conyers introduced his Medicare for All bill in almost every session of Congress since 2003.

It's nice to know that a majority of Americans now support Conyers' ground-breaking legislation, and reassuring that HR 676 outlines funding provisions. We need a senate version of Conyers bill that includes detailed revenue sources. Pie-in-the-sky proposals won't cut it at this point.

Here's the proposed funding source for the Conyers' bill:

SEC. 211. Overview: funding the Medicare For All Program.
(a) In general.—The Medicare For All Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).
(b) Medicare For All Trust Fund.—There shall be established a Medicare For All Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.

(c) Funding.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to the Medicare For All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING.—Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of—

(A) vastly reducing paperwork;
(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a); and
(C) improved access to preventive health care.

(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.—Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/676/text#toc-HD5259AA5D7AD4EABBFF02B671B7D5836

[progressoid]

150. Um, I'm gonna just hazard a guess here. Maybe the author chose Sanders because he ran for President?

You know, national figure that the reader can identify -vs- disgraced, former House Representative that most people don't know.

[Demsrule86]

94. We are not paying for it now. Many folks still have employment insurance which is what doomed

Clinton care in the 90's. We would need large payroll tax increases which would hit the middle class the hardest. I don't believe that those sort of taxes will be possible. A public option first and then we go from there.

[George II]

101. No we're not. People think that Medicare for those 65+ is "free", it's not....

....it hasn't even been free for those paying into it for decades.

There are currently 44 million people on Medicare, about 15% of the entire population. No one has a single practical suggestion about how to pay for the additional 85% if there was "Medicare for all".

[ucrdem]

52. Kaiser: "Democrats are divided"

The Kaiser piece makes no mention of Sanders but does say that "Democrats are divided on what they want Democrats in Congress to focus on: improving the Affordable Care Act (46 percent) or trying to pass a national health plan (48 percent)."

This is worrisome because it suggests that support for the ACA is beginning to waver under the assault it's receiving from all sides. And if Trumpsters succeed in killing it there's a 1,000% chance that whatever replaces it will be worse, no matter what it's called.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-march-2018-prescription-drug-pricing-medicare-for-all-proposals/

[Demsrule86]

63. Nothing will replace it.

[ucrdem]

137. Exactly.

And they've come perilously close to succeeding more than once.

[Vinca]

56. I think one problem with the current system is that it's way too complicated.

Every year a person has to make decisions about what coverage they need and how much money they're willing to gamble (deductibles) that they don't get sick. Access to medical care should just be there. Period. You shouldn't need an insurance interpreter to tell you whether you are or are not covered for a noncosmetic procedure.

[Wwcd]

66. Obamacare in it's original form was well written. By the time the GOP got done chopping it up &

..setting it up to fail, it was far from its original plan.

That's why we have to stop letting Republicans get elected.
They destroy everything good that the citizens could have.
Because they are there to satisfy their investors. The investors who got them elected want a return on their money, and its just never going to be for the good of the citizens of this country.

Stop electing Republicans.

[Wwcd]

67. Why is Business Insider crediting Sanders for a bill that was sponsored by John Conyers?

And why has Sanders himself never credited Conyers' HR 676 bill?

Not once.This was not Sanders concept it belongs to John Conyers.


See Link at post 54.

[IronLionZion]

76. Bernie introduced the Senate version of it

Conyers is responsible for the original version in the house back in 2003

On 13 September 2017, in the aftermath of his 2016 presidential campaign in which single-payer healthcare was among the core tenets of his platform, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the "Medicare-for-all Act of 2017" (S. 1804), a parallel bill to the "United States National Health Care Act" (H.R. 676) that was introduced by Rep. John Conyers in the House.

Notably, Sanders had introduced a similar version of the bill in 2013, but that year he had received the support of zero of his Senate colleagues in the form of co-sponsorship. This time, his 2017 version attracted sixteen Democratic co-sponsors besides himself.

[Wwcd]

80. Conyers had 121 cosponsers. It is Conyers that shoulld be credited.

The original bill was his.
Give credit

[IronLionZion]

82. I did give credit.

[Wwcd]

85. Yes thanks. Why did I have to point out the original Conyers bill to bring the truth to this page.

This is typical of Sanders.
That's also a fact.

[Wwcd]

83. So why is he touting it as his own concept? It's not.

[Demsrule86]

95. I know and the bill lacked information on how it would be implemented, how much it would cost and

how it would be paid for leaving the impression for many that it will be free healthcare which it won't.

[Wwcd]

98. That's the big red flag when falling for the "too good to be true" free stuff promise.

Its never free.

Careful of those attractive oneliners that never address the reality of the true cost.

[George II]

73. Even though Sanders has proposed "Medicare for All" in 2016, and again since then....

....his proposal has never included a practical way of paying for it, something that will pass both houses of Congress.

[Demsrule86]

96. Yeah, I believe there is not way to get it through congress. You would need 60 votes which we won't

have in 18 and it is unlikely in 20.

[Mountain Mule]

102. K&R! nt

[Ron Green]

120. A single risk pool equals a health care system. Multiple risk pools

equal an investment scheme.

We have enough investment schemes. We need a health care system.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

121. Yep.

"But it's too expensive!!!!"


No, it's too expensive to pay into for profit private insurance your whole life and then, when you are old and sick, get laid off on a government program that only cares for old sick people.

We can't sustain an insurance system that separates the old and sick in their own pool while the for-profit system extracts all the profit when we are young and healthy.

[Ron Green]

129. DU has become apologetic for cowardice in many ways,

and we see some of it in this thread.

[George II]

134. Is Medicare as it is today "an investment scheme"? No.

We currently have "a health care system", you just don't like it.

[Ron Green]

166. We have several systems, only one of which, the VA, is a real socialized one.

You’re telling me what I don’t like, without really understanding what I’m talking about. I pay into Medicare but don’t use it much because my care is from the VA. That may change soon because Trump seems to want to turn my system into investment schemes.

We all get sick or hurt; we all ought to be in the pool.

[George II]

168. We're a country of 325+ people. No system will be perfect for everyone.

[MichMan]

133. Neither Vermont or California could find a way to get it done

Two of the most progressive states, one big and one small, couldn't find a way to make single payer at all feasible

[George II]

135. "Single payer" is a buzz phrase that I suspect not many people advocating for it knows what it is.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

136. Vermont is too small.

California could have pulled it off if it wasn't harpooned by "friends"

Either way it's not going to work at 100% potential without federal involvement

[George II]

141. You obviously didn't research the reason why the California proposal was, in your word, "harpooned".

[SunSeeker]

144. Yep. CA single payer lost for the same reason VT single payer lost.

No politician wants to commit political suicide pushing for a 12-15% tax on the middle class to fund it.

To make up the balance, Californians could expect to be on the hook for up to $200 billion in additional tax revenues, likely through an added payroll tax they would share with their employer and which could be as much as 15 percent of their income, the report said.

 http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/tns-california-single-payer-price.html

[SunSeeker]

143. Single payer did not lose in VT because VT is "too small."

It was because no politician, including Bernie, had the guts to support the 12% tax on the middle class needed to fund single payer. All of the politicians were happy to push the single payer enabling law in Vermont and it passed with flying colors. But the single payer FUNDING law never got off the ground once they had to come up with actual numbers and the 12% tax figure was determined. THAT is how single payer died in VT.

12% is also about what you would have to tax the middle class nationally for Medicare for All. Even though more than 12% of most middle class people's income goes just to pay for health coverage, let alone deductables and co-pays, no politician has the guts to defend such a tax. Because they know it is political suicide. That is why Bernie left the funding mechanism out of his Senate version of Medicare for All. The original Medicare for All version (HR 676 - Conyers) does provide for funding mechanisms/taxes, but even that bill does not detail how much the tax will be.

[DFW]

145. I sure hope we do NOT mimic the system here in Germany

It functions relatively well, especially if you're part of the top 10% that pays up front and tries to get reimbursed from your private insurance afterward. That formula doesn't work for me because the quote I got from German insurers was €30,000 (over $36,000) a year, and they are allowed to take pre-existing conditions into consideration here.

My wife is insured with the 90% of normal mortals here. She was scheduled for a colonoscopy procedure last Tuesday, as she has some hard-to-get-at beginning polyps, and seeing as how she has had cancer twice already, we don't want to give anything the chance to grow, once it is discovered. I was supposed to take her in last last Tuesday at noon.

At 10:00, the clinic called to say they had had several emergencies, and so had to postpone her procedure. She said, OK, fine, she would come in Wednesday morning. Oh, no, they said. They had nothing free for over a month. We said WTF? She is a two time cancer survivor, and cannot risk waiting. They said they had lots of free time on May 1. My wife asked if the jerk on the phone was aware that May 1st was a national holiday in Germany? Oops. No, he had forgotten that (by comparison, an American is more likely to forget July 4th than a German is to forget May 1). Well, then you moron, then WHEN? Maybe May 2. MAYBE??

I don't know if she can talk them into postponing someone else who is not as cancer-prone, but I know a certain uncaring bureaucratic asshole at her clinic that has not yet heard the end of this.

[SunSeeker]

146. But do a majority of Americans support paying 12-15% of their income to pay for it?

Until that question is asked, these polls are worthless.

[tonyt53]

151. THIS is the question that was not included in the poll. I was thinking this same thing.

Sure, most people want it, but most aren't willing to pay for it.

[George II]

153. Suuurrre, no problem. They can pay for it with the massive tax cut they're getting!!!

[SunSeeker]

155. And their Walmart bonuses!!!

[Kaleva]

154. Medicare For All isn't a single payer system as it covers 80% of costs

The patient is responsible for the remaining 20%.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

161. You know we can always up the benefit amount and it could still be called Medicare.

In fact, that's what I've seen proposed.

The current coverage amounts are irrelevant. Except that it makes the case at how silly our system is. I remember explaining our system to my neighbor's mom who was visiting from England. The look on her face when I explained the difficulty my partner's mom was having, to maintain coverage, was priceless.

[WyattKansas]

162. Any country that leverages debt against those who have medical problems...

Is a sadistic country that taxes and penalizes those with medical problems. Until people start calling that out, nothing will be done about maximum profits to those who have a hand in ensuring more profits. Yes, this country does tax and penalize those with medical problems! #1 USA my ass!