IMO, the only system to keep a hospital system is to have "Single Payer"

[CK_John]

based around Medicare. A hospital system that serves all equally and provides for all needs of reproductive health.

The insurance system is not about health.....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. why would a medicare buy in not work? allowing people who have employer sponsored care to keep it

and allowing those who want medicare to opt in?

a lot of countries have two tier systems and have excellent hospital care and health care overall.

[CK_John]

2. Most countries are smaller than California in size and GDP, we need a

a system for all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. Why? Most of us with employer benefits are happy with what we have

And those of us who aren't can get Medicare coverage

Why pretend that more choice is not a good thing

[Lordquinton]

5. That is a very interesting exchange

"we need a system for all."

"Why?"

[R B Garr]

6. I think I see the problem.

Your representation is not at all what that exchange said.

[Lordquinton]

12. Isn't it?

There is a disconnect in the conversation, and that really underlined it.

[R B Garr]

16. The disconnect was in unilaterally shifting the exchange to include

only what your bias is.

[Lordquinton]

19. Or excluding the other bias?

The exchange was very simple and telling.

[R B Garr]

27. You summed up an exchange. The problem

is that you left out parts of it, so it wasn't really a summary.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. this is how it went "ONLY ONE SYSTEM WORKS"

no, there are many systems across the world that works. Tell me why you only think one system works.

then a bunch of nothing and accusations.

[R B Garr]

29. Yes, that's exactly how it happened

It was just straight down the rabbit hole with misrepresentations.

You make the most sense. No reason people can't keep their own insurance.

[Lordquinton]

43. Yes, there were many accusations hurled

at people who push for single payer.

Here's the exchange in full:

"Most countries are smaller than California in size and GDP, we need a system for all."

"Why? Most of us with employer benefits are happy with what we have

And those of us who aren't can get Medicare coverage

Why pretend that more choice is not a good thing"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that only single payer works

when in fact a variety of things could work if done correctly.

Germany's system works differently from Uk which is different from France which is different from Switzerland. All of it works better than ours, but i hate the lying that has become 'only single payer works'

also countries have culture and ours is being paranoid about government takeovers, which is exactly why single payer may not work here.

I really don't get why we pretend away problems.

[Lordquinton]

11. I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that our current system works

It doesn't. It's horribly broken beyond repair.

What's the problem with pushing a new system? You're proposition is keeping this broken system but tweaking it a little bit, which has been done, an d hasn't worked.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. well one problem is pushing a new system is met with equal and opposite pushback

people who have employer sponsored plans will get mightily upset when we talk about taking away their care.

it will be incredibly cost prohibitive to match the type of insurance a large corporation offers

also, a medicare buy in would fix almost every problem we complain about without running into the single payer problems.

and it STILL remains intellectually dishonest to say that what i am proposing in any way doesn't fix the problem without causing brand new problems

[Lordquinton]

21. So a minority of people want to preserve their current coverage

while the majority will have a new, confusing system to navigate and get lost in. Having a universal system that covers everyone equally can only benefit everyone.

I'm glad you're in a privileged position to have such wonderful coverage, but please remember that is the exception, not the rule.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. in the US, 49% of people are covered under employee plans, 20% on medicaid and 14% of medicare

employee coverage is how most of us are ensured.

not a small minority.

[Lordquinton]

42. Can I see your stats on that?

And that those employee plans are all A+ plans? Cause I remember past employer plans and they all royally sucked.

Either way all those people would be covered equally and, as stated below by someone else, much cheaper than the bloated patchwork system we have.

[PoliticAverse]

52. "49% of people are covered under employee plans" - that's part of the problem...

that the government has created (originally via wage controls and now via tax policy).

Health insurance should not be tied to your employer.

[Demsrule86]

7. This is what Clinton tried...to move those with employer based insurance to single payer...it went

down in flames and still would in my opinion...a public option yes...a buy in for older Americans who are struggling with higher premiums yes...single payer for all ...no. It won't happen.

[PoliticAverse]

51. No, Clinton's 1993 plan was not "single payer".

It actually mandated large companies provide their employees insurance.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

[WoonTars]

17. And if you're unemployed? Or your employer doesn't offer a plan?

I'm not happy with the benefits i get. I'm not happy with the deductibles and the annual maximums, and the annual out of pocket bullshit. It should be free for all, you know, like other civilized countrues in the world.

I'm happy you like what you have, but just because you had lunch doesn't mean world hunger is over...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. can you not read till the end of a paragraph? did my whole point about medicare buy in

not register?

really?

[Lordquinton]

22. BUY in

How about we eliminate the whole buying aspect and just have everyone universally covered? No registrations, no means testing, just covered.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. We can automatically enroll those not covered under employee plans

that allows for a 2 tier system and choice

[Lordquinton]

36. Why not just a 1 tier system?

Why should some people have inferior care?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. Which system is inferior in your hypothesis?

[Lordquinton]

41. You said there are two tiers

I'm assuming one is better, therefore the other in inferior.

[Voltaire2]

45. no obviously both are better than each other, it is a moebius strip of tiers.

by the way, my employer health insurance sucks more every year as the copays and deductibles and underpays and restrictions mount up. Plus the sticker price "cost" goes up every year too, at a rate far exceeding inflation. But better not fix that. Too risky to replace it. Instead lets do another hodge-podge mashup of medicare medicaid mandates subsidies and baked in profits for a totally useless "insurance" system.

[Lordquinton]

47. Why should corporations be forced to cover their employees?

Let's remove that burden entirely and everything will improve. I'd love it if a grocery store checker could see a doctor if they have a cold, next we need to fight for their right to take time off without loosing everything.

[WoonTars]

28. No one should have to buy anything...that's the whole point.

I'm struggling to see how you can't seem to grasp that basic concept.

BTW, thanks for the personal attack. Stay classy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. Oh because implying I'm fed therefore I don't care about the starving

Was not a personal attack? Lol

[WoonTars]

31. No that was suggesting you were talking from a position of privilege...

...as opposed to your suggestion that i was stupid.

But you knew that...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. Yeah because implying people don't understand policy

Because of their position of privilege is not a personal attack. Who believes this shit?

[WoonTars]

33. I didn't say that either.

Did I? I didn't suggest you didn't understand policy, i simply suggested that you were talking from a position of privilege. Which you were. That was my point.

YOUR point was a personal attack because you suggested i was stupid.

You have a nice comfy health plan that you like. Fabulous. Many, many, many other people DON'T.

That was my point.

Single payer gets rid of that problem. For everybody. Not sure why this hasn't been a 'carved in stone' plank for the Dems since forever.

[Voltaire2]

54. It used to be. It was why Ted Kennedy rejected

Bob Dole's version of the ACA back in the 80s. Then *something fundamental* changed in the Democratic Party.

[Control-Z]

4. You're right.

"The insurance system is not about health..."

However, I personally believe the country will have to wean itself off of the insurance system. Too many jobs would be lost in that industry for them to let us switch over to Medicare for all. Well, that would be their voices reason. Which is valid. But really it would be share holders and CEOs who would be leading the band.

If done right, a public option might allow a transition into Medicare for all to happen at a faster pace than fight for it all at once.

[Demsrule86]

9. Or we may end up with a system similar to Switzerland where there are still insurance companies

combined with tight spending controls.

[Lordquinton]

15. There is literally zero need for insurance companies

They are busy work factories that funnel money upwards, so why should we keep them around?

[MiddleClass]

10. The two-tier system, would solve most issues with minimal disturbance

And more importantly, from this point in time is the most suitable, doable.

That's tied with reducing Medicare to 55, would offer massive protections financially to a vulnerable group, Medicare is optional. Once you're still working today.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. exactly

[Lordquinton]

23. Two tier?

So some people get to just hope they don't get sick? How about one tier?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. do you even know what two tier systems are? there are MANY ways to achieve universal health coverage

single payer is only one way

Firstly, these things are different things.

You can get universal health coverage without single payer. For example, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium get universal health care/coverage through insurance mandates.

Secondly, a lot of countries that have universal health coverage have dual systems.

----Government sponsors some amount of catastrophic healthcare and individuals can buy additional healthcare. (Singapore)
---- Single payer covers some part of healthcare, individual private health insurance covers the rest (France)

There are some countries that do get to universal health care through single payer, and these are Canada, UK, Scandinavian countries. However even with single payer rules vary by provinces in Canada and the UK.

We can argue about the best system, but arguing that single payer is the only way to get universal coverage or the only way other western countries do it is just wrong. Some western countries do single payer, other do dual system, and others do insurance mandates.

Sources

https://www.vox.com/cards/single-payer/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/12/08/universal-coverage-is-not-single-payer-healthcare/#680a046e36ee

https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
5

[leftstreet]

34. +1

"We can argue about the best system, but arguing that single payer is the only way to get universal coverage or the only way other western countries do it is just wrong. Some western countries do single payer, other do dual system, and others do insurance mandates."

I'm personally pro-single payer BUT the argument shouldn't be whether or not we 'deserve' healthcare. The argument should be HOW we secure healthcare as a right

[Lordquinton]

40. The argument then goes to who deserves better care

and the answer should be that we all deserve the best, and that's what we should fight for, not starting at an in-equality and arguing down from there.

[Lordquinton]

38. Still arguing that some people have to have inferior care

This isn't cable TV where you just don't ever watch the 50+ sports channels, this is people's lives, and they all deserve health care. Anything but a single tier means some people have inferior care. Why do you want that?

[CK_John]

44. IMO, due to 50 states that don't favor the same level of health care because of religious bias

and social bias, we have to offer a federal system that will give true basic health care and provide a hospital system with equal services for all.

[MiddleClass]

35. Medicare buy-in, or Medicare for all is not no healthcare

It's actually how Medicare works, when you reach 65 or get disabled you have the ability to buy in to Medicare, every American who reaches 65 has the ability to sign up.

During your working years, you are covered by employer-based coverage, that includes VA for retired military.

Medicaid is basically welfare, for the rest.

The public option would be sufficient healthcare for most people, but if a company is willing to pay extra for their employee, they should get extra coverage, things like private room, optional extras, doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. the public option would provide all the needed care.

Obama care subsidies would be applied to the public option, which is essentially would make it free for anyone under 3 times the median wage.

So why do you want to take away what people are happy with to get something you might be getting anyway under the 2 tier system.

An analogy, if the government gives you nice Honda Accord, why would you begrudge somebody paying extra for a Lexus?

Yes, it would be cheaper to have an absolute single-payer, but it would be unfair to those want to pay more for private room, or more

[Lordquinton]

39. The problem is that we're talking people's lives, not cars.

Your last line sums up the problem "Yes, it would be cheaper to have an absolute single-payer, but it would be unfair to those want to pay more for private room, or more"

You're so concerned about being "unfair" to rich people that you don't care about how unfair it will be to poor.

[MiddleClass]

49. I think that I understand your position, and actually agree with it.

Now, I am quite the socialist, but a realist above all and not a communist, that don't work for anybody.

I'm unwilling to make the perfect the enemy of the good,

What killed Hillary care was people like me with health insurance unwilling to pay more for less.

What killed Nixon care, was Kennedy wanting only single-payer.

Since 1968 Medicare was minimally expanded because of resistance to anything but single-payer.

By accepting the public option paid out like Medicare, you eliminate 80 percent of the people would be opposed.

You would also eliminate every provider, people work for them, which is probably another 10 percent.

So why not take 90 percent of the pie rather than holding out for the whole pie that would cause disruption

[CK_John]

46. IMO, employer medical care will be wiped out by 2020. There will be "gig" temp personal.

[Lordquinton]

48. +1

The whole "gig" system is being pushed heavily, it's like being a contractor but worse.

[CK_John]

50. IMO, the rural hospital system is about to collapse and Planned Parenthood

is the only health care is many places, if they have not run them out of town already.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Agreed.

And for once the majority of Democrats in Congress also agree with Medicare for All. It's time to stop pretending our current system is fair and can be fixed just because a percentage of people are satisfied with their insurance.