Republicans can't wait to debate Medicare for All

[DonViejo]

But the progressive Democrats clamoring for hearings on Medicare for All are embracing the calls from across the aisle.

By ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN 02/10/2019 07:03 AM EST

The only people more eager than progressive Democrats for hearings on Medicare for All are conservative Republicans.

GOP lawmakers, fresh off an electoral shellacking fueled in large part by health care concerns, are now trolling Democrats with demands for hearings on the sweeping single-payer bill set to be introduced this month. They're confident that revelations about its potential cost andelimination of most private insurance will give them potent lines of attack heading into 2020 — an election that President Donald Trump is already framing as a debate about "socialism."

“We should have the opportunity to have a hearing on a bill Democrats say they are for,” Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told POLITICO. "They’ve campaigned on it. Now, let’s find out what it is and what they’re promoting.”

“We’re going to pull the curtain back on Medicare for All so the American people can actually assess it,” added Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on House Ways and Means.

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/10/republicans-debate-medicare-for-all-1160681

[TCJ70]

1. It's like this is some brand new thing they've never heard of...

...before a couple months ago. “Find our what it is”? It’s Medicare for All, moron. The name says what it is.

[spanone]

2. They had no fears about the 'potential' cost of the tax scam, did they?

they think they're so fucking clever...

[uponit7771]

14. +1, this should be the retort and start off with republicans don't care about consequences

[kennetha]

3. Progressive purists are blinded by passion

If you don’t think that a complete reshuffling of the deck of the sort that Medicare for all would be will be hugely disruptive, you aren’t thinking. In the disruption there will be winners and losers. Those who stand to lose will resist strongly. Not all of the losers are evil rich people or evil insurance companies or drug companies. I know we like to tell ourselves that only evil people who don’t or shouldn’t count would lose. But that’s dishonest demagoguery. We have to better than that.

[riverine]

4. We'll see who stands by MFA when the CBO scores the tax increase that will go in the

Medicare tax box on our payroll.

Because Medicare taxes will still have to be segregated to keep the Trust Fund alive.

[Takket]

8. i hope the score also includes..........

the reduction from your paycheck for premiums as well as average out of pocket costs you won't be paying anymore.

I'm kind of stunned how many people think MFA means additional payments on top of everything they already pay.

[The Truth Is Here]

11. +1

I am in full support. No copays, no insanely high premiums and deductibles. Everyone shares the same coverage. All that, and it is in a form of tax that we pay annually. How simple is that? It just means more money in your pocket where it ought to be.

[Volaris]

5. Medicare buy-in available for a monthly premium (the public option)

It's medical insurance, the same as you would get from blue cross, right?

Why are they afraid of letting the government play in the free market? If they're correct , and Uncle Sam doesn't know how to run a business effectively, it will fail spectacularly, they will be proven right, and that will be that.

I'd say the answer is because they know that argument is bullshit, and it cannot be the case that We The People are ever allowed to even try and prove it.

[Farmer-Rick]

6. Funny how when other poorer countries instituted single payer or universal medical coverage

They didn't destroy their health insurance corporations. They still function just fine along side universal medical coverage.

I don't know what it says about the US that we can't provide the same medical care to our citizens that Mexico does.

By the way, Medicare for All is NOT free medical coverage. You have a monthly co-pay and 20% deductible.

[kennetha]

7. They had not built up a massive alternative infrastructure

which locked in a whole ream of stakeholders.

If you are unwilling to acknowledge that fact, you will not be prepared for the massive debate that is about to come.


Sanders proposal, by the way, OUTLAWS any private plans that directly compete with the government to provide services. Only role for private insurance will be to cover things like cosmetic surgery.


"it shall be unlawful for — (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act."

[Farmer-Rick]

16. Well Mexico didn't institute public healthcare until 2009

And they had, and still have, a massive private insurer system.

I'm not denying there are some massive healthcare Dinosaurs who are coming for Medicare for All with both guns blazing. But we all knew it would be a fight. We have enriched some mighty health care scammers and lazy capitalist who don't want the gravy train to end. They are NOT going to take this fight lying down. But so what? Let's fight.....again and again and again until we got what we need.

Did not know about Sander's proposal. Not sure that would make it through congress but who knows? You don't know until you try.

[Voltaire2]

19. Medicare for all proposals are not simply

extending the current Medicare system to everyone.

The house and senate bills: (2017-8) no deductibles or copays or any other hidden cost transfers to individuals.

[beachbum bob]

9. GOP will win this debate, what is needed as a stepping stone is the medicare public option

lets get the public option going as soon as possible, but nothing will happen until democrats control whitehouse and the senate too.


lets have the hearings for medicare public option NOW

[Freddie]

10. 100% agree

A robust public option - Medicare buy-in - can eventually morph into single payer. Calling for the immediate disruption of everything right now will be a disaster. Too many people have great employer plans and don’t pay much out of pocket. Repugs are salivating to use this point.
Yes in the long run single payer is the right way to go. But it needs to be brought on incrementally.

[riverine]

12. Senator Michael Bennett is on MTP right now endorsing the Public Option as a full solution

and is considering running for POTUS.

[kennetha]

15. The question is whether the Democratic Party

is on a pragmatic political course or on the course of moral crusade.

Moral crusaders reject incrementalism. Pragmatic politicians have to live and breath incrementalism.

[Farmer-Rick]

17. That is a false dichotomy

You don't just have those 2 extremes. There is middle ground. How about a moral pragmatic course? Or a pragmatic moral crusade?

Personally I think we should do a moral crusade then see what we can get. Then use pragmatism to accept or reject in increments or in whole pieces.

[Freddie]

18. Precisely

And if we want to WIN we have to be pragmatic.

[uponit7771]

13. +1