I was thinking the other night that "Medicare for All" could be rebranded

[Thav]

One of the main attacks is that "zomg you'll be forced off your beloved and holy private insurance!"

I think a workable solution would be to simply open up Medicare to anyone, and not touch the current private insurance system. Let the markets work itself out. Rebranding this "Medicare for Anyone" and put it on the ACA marketplaces. Of course, private insurers don't want this as they'd have to compete against it.

[Rockhead]

1. Public Option

Used to be used a lot, I hope they go back to that terminology.

[Thav]

7. That's a possibility too.

Just get away from the "all" word. "Option" is nice since it implies a choice.

[lark]

2. This is Mayor Pete's proposal - Medicare for all who want it.

Rich and union members might not want it so can stay where they are.

[sagesnow]

3. Good idea.

Medicare for Anyone - anyone who wants and needs good basic coverage. I like it.

[MaryMagdaline]

4. Yes. This is the way to do it.

I support the public option and let the market do the rest.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. Call it "Healthcare for All".

Free very basic health coverage for all members of the public including current Medicare recipients.

Then, layer Medicare enhancements for seniors on top of that, taken out of SS payments as done now (but less cost).

Others can buy layers of enhancements via private insurance.


KY.............

[Thav]

6. It's the "all" word that people are fixating on

Opponents are using this word to attack the plan, creating FUD amongst those who like their private plans.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

9. Not taking away private plans. Just removing the ground floor of those plans.....

and thereby reducing the cost. I think we need to focus on the need for basic no-cost coverage for everyone, then working people can still buy additional private coverage. We can do that by emphasizing the statistics of millions currently without the basics and how that negatively affects society and the economy.

Emphasize how their salaries should increase as the coverage they buy would then be less expensive. Cost of basic coverage to the taxpayer should be very low, considering the resulting huge pool of users. Whether we currently have enough practitioners to support that or not is another issue....but we damn well should have in the future.

So, it becomes and issue of how it's framed for public consumption. Just ask the ones doing the bitching how they expect the guy making $10 an hour doing their lawn or cooking the food in their favorite restaurant to pay for any significant medical issues.

Regardless, you're right that many will still bitch 'cause Faux News and Limbaugh and the insurance industry said so.....

Our problem may well be that we don't have funding for a huge independent media blitz not connected to any political campaign that's needed to get the message across.

[DURHAM D]

8. Agree about re-branding.

Seniors hear Medicare for All and think:

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT...it is not particularly good coverage.

[Greybnk48]

10. How about "ObamALL Care!

Just being a smart-ass. I strongly agree that we need to come up with a better name. NOW! As I recall, everyone really liked the names "Medicare" and "Medicaid" from the get go back in the 60's. Branding really matters.

[area51]

11. The physicians' group PNHP has good information on their website.

Here's a page on the public option and a bit more about the policy details on single-payer.

[katmondoo]

12. With Medicare you will need a supplement, only pays 80%.

Without a supplement It took me 3 years to pay off my hospital and doctor bills.

[CTyankee]

16. "hubby and I are in our 70s and have AARP for supplement. Expensive but worth it...

then came along all my dental problems, which happens when your teeth get old. Now I am seeking out a plan that does the supplement and includes dental. Dental insurance alone doesn't pay. I had it one month and my dentist's office said "Get rid of it. You pay in more than you get out."

[Baltimike]

13. Sheeeeeeeeeeet, call it "TrumpCare" and they'll go for it. nt

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

14. One problem will be that often the Medicare reimbursements

are much lower than those from the private insurances. Which is one reason why a lot of doctors don't take Medicare. Those reimbursements need to be at a realistic rate, or people who switch without research may find themselves without any doctor to go to.

[elocs]

15. The Democratic Party likes to portray itself as the party of choice

and then when you tell people they will have no choice as to whether they want Medicare for all and must give up their private insurance, that doesn't sit well.

But the odds are small to none that Medicare for All would ever become law and no candidate who supports it will explain how that would realistically happen.

[forthemiddle]

17. They would still have to overhaul Medicare to make it work

Today, Medicare does not cover Obstetrics, or Pediatrics among other things. They don’t have to, yet outside Geriatric care, those are the two most expensive things insurance can cover for the general population.

In order to make Medicare for Anyone to be attractive they would need to add those services. Also, unless subsidized I can’t imagine the premium being free for the hospital (Part A), and $135.00 for Part B.

I don’t think until both options are scored (Medicare for All vs Medicare for Anyone), we can have an honest debate. And unless it is Medicare All, I don’t think we will be changing the tax codes to pay for it.