General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMedicare for All Loses Momentum Among Democrats
https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/01/medicare-for-all-loses-momentum-among-democrats/Wall Street Journal: Now, enthusiasm for the proposal is waning as supporters face pointed questions over how it would workand how it would be paid for. As a result, more candidates are backing intermediate measures, including optional buy-ins to government-run coverage that are likely more attainable in the short term.
Net support for a single-payer health system among all registered voters fell from about 30% in November 2018 to 12% in February.
brooklynite
(93,867 posts)A Medicare buy-in option is a far better next step
Vinca
(50,170 posts)$10,000 for insurance premiums and another $5,000 for deductibles and co-pays?
stopbush
(24,378 posts)A Medicare opt-in for a family of four would cost them $540 a month ($6480 a year) in premiums at the current rate. Thats for basic Medicare, which does NOT include coverage for prescription drugs, etc. Many Medicare patients purchase additional insurance through private insurers to have more-comprehensive coverage than Medicare now supplies. The same would be true for a family of four.
As far as any increase in taxes, the current payroll deduction paid by 100% of employees raises enough $ to support the 19% of Americans - mostly seniors - currently on Medicare. If, say, 50% of Americans opted in to Medicare, payroll taxes would need to rise at least 250% for 100% of workers to cover the expenses of the program based on current levels. One imagines that would not sit well with people who elected not to opt in.
forthemiddle
(1,373 posts)People forget that $135.00 per person, per month is Part B outpatient coverage only. Who knows what Part A will cost. At this time it also does not include ANY pregnancy, childbirth, or pediatric care.
still_one
(91,962 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)what the premium would be with a buyin to Medicare. It should be better than private insurer premiums and, over longterm, lead to a better system. But it will not be nearly as cheap as people want.
MichMan
(11,789 posts)To think people from day 1 would be covered for the same $135 per month is not realistic.
Nanjeanne
(4,878 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Nice try, Big Insurance.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Affordable health care is a very popular idea.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)No momentum has been lost, theres simply a full government to take care of too. Jeez, have a hearing and 'whoop, guess you went serious'...
DontBooVote
(901 posts)No momentum has been lost. Indeed, Democrats have unveiled several proposals in response to this and healthcare and insurance companies are taking it very seriously as they ramp up their anti-Medicare For All campaign and lobbying efforts. And momentum is only growing amongst The People for this popular idea.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)Any healthcare policy is so complicated most American's can't understand it and it can't be reduced to a 30 second commercial except where the GOP calls it "Socialism" to scare the hell out of the uneducated electorate. We have such a short attention span these days it will be hard to show the uneducated and short attention span voter the benefits of this type of policy.
We have to do it at some point or people are going to be dying in larger numbers than they are now for lack of healthcare. Bankruptcy will be rampant, even more than it is now and it is already pretty bad.
I don't know what the answer is when the GOP uses social and religious issues to divert attention from the things that really matter to most Americans.
BluegrassDem
(1,693 posts)Americans are conservative about health care changes. Clinton lost the House in 1994 and Obama lost it in 2010 because of it. And Republicans lost the House in 2018.
Health care laws should be done incrementally. You can't pass a bill stating that everyone who has insurance through their job will lose it and will go to a government system. Even though I wouldn't mind it, most people will flip out. And the attack ads and commercials will be relentless. The Medicare buy in is more practical and unlikely to cause a big blowback. I don't know why our Dems are falling over themselves to endorse such a radical change. History should be a guide.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Doremus
(7,261 posts)Genuinely curious.
Medicare buyin let people over a certain age, say 55 years old buy into Medicare as they would buy health insurance. It also allows people with no Social Security or Medicare credits to buy in if they are over that age (55).
Medicare for All basically replaced health insurance for everyone, regardless of age with Medicare, allowing any adult to buy into Medicare.
An idea situation would be to get Medicare Buyin working and over time gravitate to Medicare for All as cost and savings and coverage synergies are realized.
ooky
(8,885 posts)specifically how. "Medicare for All" sounds flashy, but without details it scares a lot of voters, and raises unrealistic expectations in other voters. I don't see why we don't just focus first on our PLATFORM of "affordable health care for all" and then set our first priorities on those who currently don't have access to affordable health care, like the chronically ill who still can't afford their treatments and medications, and/or anyone who's medical expenses are exceeding a certain percentage of their overall income. Let those who need it now buy into it now, or approve them for Medicaid, or something. I think that would be a great first step. Those who have good health care on company plans don't need to be included right away and that might help hold down the costs, plus make people less uneasy about the changes that are coming. And using the word "choice" in all our proposals and speeches would be a big help in alleviating fear in voters.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)Support for (any progressive program) is down, WAAAAAY down.....
Yeah, they wish.
theophilus
(3,750 posts)believe that a "Medicare for those who want is" buy in should be arranged. This would put people in over time and incentives could be provided to encourage younger folks, etc. The fact that it would not be tied to jobs would be a winner for many as long as the benefits were anywhere near comparable. Go for it, Dems!
theophilus
(3,750 posts)Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)Why the hell are Democrats so bad at messaging? Medicare For All should be a no-brainer.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)Everyone who has health insurance is paying for it either directly or indirectly in the form of lower take home pay. Put that money towards MFA and it should mean more spending money for the average American.
I'll have to admit, I haven't studied the details of the various plans. I'm guessing that smarter people than I have worked out these procedures. The important point to remember is that it should save the average American several thousand dollars a year. I'd sure like Congress to take a serious look at it before pushing it aside.
MichMan
(11,789 posts)What says that other employers are going to raise wages by the same amount they were paying for health care?
Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)As for companies no longer needing to provide a health care benefit, you're right. They could very well not pass on all the savings to the employee. But then your beef should be with the employer and not the MFA program.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)I have had that myself, so if you were to have asked me at that time what I "currently pay for insurance," the answer would be nothing.
And, yes, smarter people have worked out the costs, and they are nothing to shake a stick at. The idea that the average family is going to save thousands of dollars a year is not born out in some non-partisan studies. More likely, the average American could well be paying close to 40% of their income in Medicare and FICA taxes were we to adopt MFA. We will be in line with what taxes are in Europe to support these programs. Let's be honest about that and make the case for it, rather than pretending we're all going to get covered for free.
Most people I hear touting MFA are not even aware that each Medicare patient pays a monthly premium of $135 for BASIC coverage - no prescription drug plan, no catastrophic coverage, etc. That all costs extra, right now. A family of four on MFA would pay $540 a month, or $6480 a year for MFS. And again, no coverage for prescription drugs, etc. That would be extra.
MichMan
(11,789 posts)before they are eligible for any coverage
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)vacation time a pension or 401K.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)pay.
MichMan
(11,789 posts)No one has any idea right now
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)a few off the top of my head. If we were all covered under a single payer system the double dipping for medical coverage would end. No need for medical liability coverage on our auto insurance policies because we would already be covered. No need for medical liability coverage on our home owner policies because we would already be covered. No need for medical liability coverage for businesses like slip and fall or workers comp because we would already be covered. And on and on. The savings on the whole would be astronomical. The greedy insurance industry will not give up this cash cow without an all out fight. If people realized just how many times we pay here and there for medical liability coverage for a single event that only one insurer will have to payout for, they would demand single payer. But most people aren't aware of where and when they are already paying for it.