The relatively quick acceptance of the ACA shows why Medicare for All will win.

[guillaumeb]

For years the GOP campaigned on "repeal and replace". All we heard in the endless Bills submitted by the House, 60 or so if memory serves, was that the ACA was collapsing, and that the GOP had a plan.

We knew, of course, that the GOP had no actual plan for replacement, and no chance for repeal as long as they could not overcome a veto by then President Obama.

And then came 2016, and the stolen election, another stolen election, and the GOP would soon control all three branches of Government. So what happened? Repeal and replace was a disaster for the GOP, and now both parties are talking of strengthening the ACA. Why? Because people realize that we cannot return to the bad old days of 37 million with no healthcare.

That acceptance did not take decades to accomplish, it simply took the example of millions receiving healthcare for the first time. And those millions are in GOP controlled southern and western states as well as northern states.

Similarly, by titling the Bill Medicare for All, the Democrats are framing the issue in terms that are known and acceptable to all voters. Medicare is an American plan, and it is familiar and trusted by millions of voters for 50 plus years. People like Medicare.

Any talk of higher taxes must be met by Democrats with the fact that these higher taxes will replace what people are already paying in the form of insurance premiums. And Medicare operates on a lower overhead basis than does private, for profit insurance. And if Medicare is coupled with price regulation for drugs, as most other countries already do, there will be savings there also.

[zentrum]

1. The tax point is spot on.

This will end up being cheaper than the ACA for most people.

However since it eliminates private insurance, I'm really concerned that the huge insurance lobby and their henchmen in congress will make sure it can't pass.

[guillaumeb]

2. And the Insurance companies donate to politicians from both parties.

All of this Tea Party type nonsense about higher taxes ignores that fact that costs in countries with single payer are lower than the US.

[zentrum]

4. Egg-zactly. nt

[leftofcool]

3. That and the GOP is why it will stall

[guillaumeb]

5. But if people demand loudly enough, even the deafest politicians will hear the sound.

[zentrum]

7. Yes!

[zentrum]

6. It will stall forever..

...if we never ever begin the fight. If we lose the first round we get up and fight again. And eventually we get there. The alternative is a constantly threatened, expensive, for profit, health care system. It makes no sense.

Repugs never give up and fight and fight for their policies and slowly the needle moves in their direction.

Let's have some courage. Let's fight for it, damnit!

[guillaumeb]

8. Excellent response.

Reframe the debate and win the debate.

[Trust Buster]

9. This will make the likelihood of de-funding the ACA likely with millions losing insurance.

[guillaumeb]

11. Pure speculation, unsupported by evidence.

[Trust Buster]

14. Not unsupported at all. After repeal and replace failed, Republicans were beginning to seriously

Consider fixing the ACA. This move will chase them right back into their bunkers. The ACA will then die on the vine and millions will lose insurance IMO. Sanders' "the perfect is the enemy of the good" approach has never achieved anything during his entire career.

[guillaumeb]

17. Speculation.

The ACA can be "fixed" in the sense that the subsidies can be guaranteed, but this approach merely means that the fight will come up again in the near future. Medicare for All would end the fight and the GOP knows it. Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.

[Trust Buster]

19. It is not speculation. The ACA will die without a fix. There isn't a clear majority of Dems on this

Site supporting it. This is pie in the sky thinking that ignores those that will be severely damaged if the ACA is not fixed.

[guillaumeb]

21. What I said:

The ACA can be "fixed" in the sense that the subsidies can be guaranteed, but this approach merely means that the fight will come up again in the near future. Medicare for All would end the fight and the GOP knows it. The ACA can be "fixed" in the sense that the subsidies can be guaranteed, but this approach merely means that the fight will come up again in the near future. Medicare for All would end the fight and the GOP knows it. Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.


Fix it, but keep in mind that it will be a very temporary fix. And remember:

Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.

[haveahart]

10. Any words about what happens to the employees caught up in the private sector insurance companies?

[guillaumeb]

12. An argument for what exactly?

Should we legislate a certain level of profitability for Insurance companies?

[zentrum]

15. They'll work

...for the government just like all the workers who work for Medicare do right now. With Medicare expanding, they will need to hire lots of people. And they won't have to sit there all day figuring out how to deny coverage as they do now. Because the profit motive will be taken out.

Makes no sense to ask us to comprise our health so this group of people can have jobs. We gotta do better as an economy and as a democracy than that as an approach to employment.

[Bradshaw3]

27. What about the blacksmiths who lost their jobs

when automobiles replaced horses? What about those coal miners who lost their jobs to renewable energy? Or people who lost their jobs to NAFTA? It's always interesting how people worry about workers in certain industries but not others.

[ismnotwasm]

13. I think the first step is a public option within the ACA

We are using Medicare expansion for the ACA, and it's a success, but far from perfect.

One thing that everyone can agree on is the concept of universal healthcare. What we are not agreeing on, is how to get there. I pointed out in another thread that Medicare currently only pays to for one chronic condition--that chronic renal failure. The history behind this is interesting, and something that can be examined. (I work in Transplant, including renal Transplant)

Right now it feels like government reimbursement is a little as possible. Healthcare is incredibly complex, from coding, bundling, Fee for service, HCAHPS, to staffing ratios and outcomes measured by patient satisfaction (which can be incredibly annoying) to outright Medicaid/Medicare fraud. The infastruture for Medicare for all is NOT there to make any transition simple OR easy.

So some other things to agree on; something must be done, healthcare is a human right, even profits that are good for the economy should be weighed against the question are they also good for the populace?

[guillaumeb]

16. Yes, a public option in the form of enrollment in Medicare

is one way to get there.

And the Medicare gaps were designed to be there. Medicare could have been designed to be a more comprehensive system, but Insurance companies donate heavily to US politicians.

[ismnotwasm]

20. The reason chronic renal failure got in

--I have never actually verified this, I heard it from a speaker at a conference--is when hemodialysis was new, lobbyists in Washington implied it be a cure for kidney disease. Which of course is in no way true. People dealing Hemodialysis funding ALSO thought people would mostly be able to dialyize at home--instead we have dialysis centers everywhere.

All health care workers are feeling the dollar pinch, and the best of us are working hard to waste less, do more, be most cost effective at the same time providing excellent care

[guillaumeb]

22. Excellent points.

I do not think that anyone blames healthcare workers. But we should blame the Insurance companies that drain so much from what is spent on healthcare.

And, as I have said in another post:

Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.

[Hoyt]

26. Not so fast

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-election-2017-jeremy-hunt-conservative-win-health-service-a7722461.html


https://www.canadian-nurse.com/en/articles/issues/2017/march-april-2017/the-conservative-leadership-hopefuls-where-they-stand-on-health-care

There's plenty more. But with that comment, I'm for universal coverage. But we better be prepared for what is going to be necessary to make it work (as California, Vermont and Colorado recently discovered).

[guillaumeb]

30. From the second link,

even among conservatives, except for a celebrity businessman, (sound familiar?), there is support for single payer.

[Hoyt]

34. Your earlier post was that even foreign conservatives supported of national health plans. Links show

that is not true.

[guillaumeb]

36. I did not say "every single conservative in every country" supported single payer.

SO no, in the strict sense of literally meaning every single politician, it is not true. But that was not my meaning, and I trusted that people would read it as I intended.

Just as I am certain that one could find individuals in countries with single payer who are personally opposed to it, but the point is that after single payer is instituted, people can see that it works better than a profit-centered system.

[Hoyt]

39. The articles are about major conservative parties and candidates. You can still support single payer

here; but, it's irresponsible to ignore the issues that will arise.

[guillaumeb]

40. We all know how the GOP will frame things.

But we must point out the facts and hope that repetition will work. Given that surveys already show bi-partisan support for a Medicare for All type system, one hopes the momentum is on our side.

[Hoyt]

41. Overall, 33% of the public now favors a single payer approach to health insurance.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

I support it too, but I'm not blind to the issues.

Heck, 33% support Trump too.

[white_wolf]

18. Would Medicare or Medicaid be better as a public option?

I'll admit to being ignorant of both systems aside from one being for the poor/disabled and one being for all seniors. Is Medicare a better program in terms of coverage?

[ismnotwasm]

23. Medicare because Medicaid is income based

But in any Medicare for all scenario, I think the programs would have to be combined. This has already started in a way, one central agency is in charge of both prograns

[pnwmom]

24. Yeah, right. It only took 30 years or so. n/t

[guillaumeb]

25. I was speaking of the ACA.

And, it bears repeating to mention that:

Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.


Single payer works better than the US system. An Inconvenient Truth for the GOP. (With apologies to Al Gore)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Quick?

7 years of Democratic electoral defeats is quick?

[guillaumeb]

31. Another issue entirely.

[Bradshaw3]

29. I'm 63 and never thought I would see legal marijuana in my lifetime

You could list many other issues like gay marriage that turned much, much more quickly than most expected. People are sick (no pun intended) of our fucked up healthcare system. People might be surprised how soon this could be accepted, even if turning it into reality is going to take some mountain moving.

[guillaumeb]

32. Agreed. An avalanche also starts out small and slow.

It is all about presenting the issue because, as you say, people know how bad the US system of paying for healthcare truly is.

[Bradshaw3]

37. And I can't believe they want to go back

to the old "system".
Nobody thinks this is going to happen overnight. Bernie has supported fixes to the ACA and Stabenow's Medicare at 55. Those are steps along the way that also help people until we get a true public healthcare system.

[guillaumeb]

38. Agreed. And it is moving the goalposts to the left, instead of constantly shifting to the right.

The GOP has been very successful at shifting the goal posts since 1968.

[tblue37]

33. And Medicare doesn't have CEOs skimming obscene salaries off the top. nt

[Hoyt]

35. But it sure has providers that do that.