Since "Medicare for all" tests poorly what about this

[CTyankee]

"Medicare that works for you"

After all, this is what voters want. They want Medicare but they don't like the way the pukes describe it, as health care subtracted from you and given to somebody else (or not at all).

If we flunk the Medicare test with the voters, we lose. And I am sure we can do it right and win.

[fescuerescue]

1. What does that mean though?

how is that medicare different than the other medicare?

[CTyankee]

3. Now you have described the problem: how to explain it.

We have to be able to explain it, not obfuscate on it. I get the sense that the voters are pretty passionate about this and they want a plan that works for them. We have to present our plan as doing that.

[Mike 03]

2. Why can't it simply be "Medicare if you want it?"

I'm not really clear on why it has to be Medicare for all. I'm not against it, and I'm supporting a candidate that's for it. I just don't understand why Medicare for All is better than Medicare if you want it?

[CTyankee]

4. Then, of course, we have a problem with "branding."

It's hell to pay if we can't describe what we are supporting.

[Mike 03]

5. I like your idea. But people who already have insurance will

immediately say, "What works for me is what I have" or something like that.

I'm not that bright, but I would understand a candidate saying, "Under my plan if you don't have insurance you can buy into Medicare."

[CTyankee]

7. Yes. Whatever happened to that?

I think it was advocated by one of the candidates in one of the debates but I can't remember who it was...

[Mike 03]

9. Maybe somebody on DU could give a tutorial on health insurance.

I don't even understand the difference between a "public option" and buying into Medicare, or the difference between Universal health care and Medicare for all. Somebody here probably knows this stuff cold.

[area51]

23. Not an expert,

but generally the physicians' group PNHP is a good place to start in finding out info.

- PNHP's stance on a public option.

- Medicare for All policy details

- single-payer FAQs

[Mike 03]

24. Thank you!

This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

ON EDIT: This makes a very strong case for Medicare for All, no public option or incrementalism. It's very powerful and worth thinking about.

Second, a public option would be funded by premiums and co-pays. It would essentially be another regressive tax, least affordable to those in the greatest need. Only the sickest of today’s uninsured would join, driving public-option prices up higher and becoming a “high-risk pool.” Insurance depends on a mostly healthy pool of patients to balance the sickest. Whenever you turn that on its head, it goes down in flames.

Uh-Oh.

[kacekwl]

6. Got a nice ring to it.

That way we aren't forcing dreaded socialist healthcare on anyone. Face it people like Obama care as long as it's not called that.

[questionseverything]

8. medicare is socialist healthcare for those over 65

[CTyankee]

11. But...but...we can't say "socialist health care" or we'll scare voters...

at least according to the repukes.

So we have to figure out a way to get ahead of this. We know it's coming.

Ya know, here's a thought: since Trump wants to have more people from Denmark (e.g.white) come here, why not have a Danish person explain what her/his health care really looks like. It can be simple and straightforward. Like a little video.

[kacekwl]

20. Sorry , for the sarcastically challenged

[TreasonousBastard]

10. What's wrong with simply "Universal Health Care"? By...

any means possible.

[CTyankee]

12. I like that. I hope that is tested with likely voters.

[kacekwl]

21. Also good.

[rickford66]

13. Make Medicare optional but

Have an open enrollment period every five years. Keep your employer health care plan if you wish and hope you still have a job for five years.

[questionseverything]

16. we need to get the responsibility for employees healthcare off employers backs

if we did the economy would truly boom

by letting private insurance suck up the money from the young healthy people we make caring for the old expense people harder

[rickford66]

31. Democrats aren't making these obvious points.

They're letting the MSM steer the debate.

[questionseverything]

33. another obvious thing...control costs

[KY_EnviroGuy]

14. I prefer "Healthcare for All".

That divorces the discussion away from any of Medicare's ills.

Start it with a breath of fresh air and people will be more likely to listen and participate in the discussion.

And, no matter what you call it, it is not socialism because doctors do no become government employees and I'm sure insurance companies will have some hand in it.

KY.........

[CTyankee]

15. My understanding is that Great Britain has that but the rest of Europe does not.

[questionseverything]

17. medicare has it's own problems

the 80/20 split could easily bankrupt a family

[calguy]

18. How about this?

We re-endorse the very popular ACA and build upon it to restore what the republicans have taken away make it even more popular. Why do we want to reinvent the wheel when we already have a good Democratic program on the books?

[kacekwl]

22. The best idea yet.

Also is my idea.

[questionseverything]

27. restore the penalty? the aca leaves out a lot of working people

being self employed I am not sure what income will be

so I plugged in 42 grand with family size and get a policy for free but 7 grand per person deductible

then I tried 52 grand, lol seriously making 10 grand more that I would owe ss tax and income tax on the cost was $1500 a month for same policy or 18,000 a year....how the heck does that make sense

no one did the actual math on the aca, they couldn't have

pols talking about the public option make me feel like Charlie brown with lucy and that football

[calguy]

28. That's one of the parts that need to be fixed

The more peoole in the pool the cheaper the ratws. Republicans did their best to limit the number of people in the oiils.

[questionseverything]

32. if you think campaigning on reenstating the penalty is a winner

I have a bridge to sell you

[maxsolomon]

19. Healthcare is not what will GOTV.

"Trump has to go" will GOTV.

We're not going to be able to put that program in place, and if by some miracle we do? 2010.

[TwilightZone]

25. Nope.

Health care got out the vote in 2018. It will do so again in 2020. If it's all-Trump-all-the-time, we will lose.

"Midterm exit polls: Health care is top issue for voters"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516

[maxsolomon]

26. I cannot fathom why. It's a wonky issue with no clear solutions.

People voted on bullshit issues in 2016; they will again. They always do.

[GulfCoast66]

29. Respectfully disagree. It's what won us 2018.

[maxsolomon]

34. I think "Fuck Trump" won us 2018

Healthcare policy is nice in the Primaries, but the nominee will need a simple message that American flibberdigibbets can understand, and "one of these 3 complicated plans that the GOP will scream 'Comnyzm' about from here to eternity 2020" is not it.

We're facing literal Fascism here.

[GulfCoast66]

30. Jesus, it not that complicated. Americans don't agree on the system they want.

But they do agree everyone deserves affordable healthcare and no one should go bankrupt due to healthcare issues.

So tell them that is what we will work to provide!!

Details are for congressional committees. Even if we win all 3 branches there is no way to tell what a final Healthcare bill will look like. And it won’t happen in one single congressional term.

Americans are not afraid of aspirational goals. On the contrary they like them.

If our message is we will find a way to provide affordable healthcare for all Americans we will win. Perhaps in a landslide. Details that will never become a reality just muddy the water.