So I just heard Klobuchar say that Medicare for All would mean that

[dflprincess]

some massive number of Americans would lose their employer based private insurance. So why is this a bad thing? (Besides UnitedHealth Group being based in MInnesota & it would certainly take a well deserved hit)

I'm betting most Americans are fed up with high out of pockets and see a big chunk of their paycheck going to their share of the premium, while every year those costs go up and less gets covered. Those pushing for a national plan need to push back harder with the many failings of the current "system". Especially that having "coverage" does not mean you'll have access to care.

[MontanaFarmer]

1. You just can't unleash that much upheaval on people that fast.

I don't care if the policy is solid (it is), people will reflexively hate it if it upends their lives. I believe and always have that at this point in time, with things as polarizing as they are, MFA is a starting point for a debate/ negotiation that ultimately gets us to something achievable (ACA plus public option?). If you get a public option it's a short road (15 years) to MFA, as private insurance won't stand up to that competition. Obama/ACA laid the groundwork for this. If you start there now, people know it's not the evil socialist devil. If you insist on MFA straight away, you'll lose the election. Simple. Look at the polling.

[UniteFightBack]

2. This. nt

[dflprincess]

3. What people are afraid of is that it will cost more and be worse than the status quo

A strong case needs to be presented to them that neither of those assumptions are true. Most importantly, what their out of pocket cost will be.

I know very few people who like their health insurance it shouldn't be that hard to sell them on something better.

[MontanaFarmer]

5. In a vacuum, i agree.

But we're not operating there. Half the country, or more, was convinced that the public option-less ACA, a center- right plan, was a socialist government takeover of the entire health care system. Now tell me how, in our modern world, you sell something more "socialist" than the left-est version of the ACA, the one including a public option. I NV think it's an electoral loser.

[oasis]

4. Amy held her own. She spoke with confidence on the issue. nt

[MontanaFarmer]

7. 100% agree, I thought she was pretty effective all night.

She could have stood for some of that time wasted on hearing Delaney bloviate.

[pnwmom]

6. Right now private insurance is part of most people's compensation package.

No one is talking about what would happen to that money. Would companies then raise people's salaries by that amount?

And what about the fact that private insurance pays higher rates to providers than Medicare, so they are actually subsidizing Medicare. If all providers were forced to take the lower Medicare rate, what impact would this have on smaller practices and rural hospitals?

[Drunken Irishman]

8. It's a bad thing because a good amount of Americans are satisfied with their insurance.

I have employer based insurance and it's fantastic - from the dental to the vision. I am very satisfied with what I have.

In fact, most Americans with health insurance are satisfied with the quality of it.

[dragonlady]

12. Do you have deductibles and copays? Do you enjoy paying them?

Do you sometimes wish you could go to a doctor who is out of network for your insurance? Will you ever get a bill from a provider in the ER who was out of network? Are you sure you will always have employer-provided insurance until you are 65? If you lose your job and can't pay for insurance will you be happy with Medicaid?

[Drunken Irishman]

13. I'm content with what I have, yes.

[BlueTsunami2018]

9. Unless it's as good as what I have now, I'd consider it a bad thing.

My union provides us with top of the line healthcare. We pay a good bit for it but I’m extremely satisfied with the coverage. I’d be happy to pay a like amount for everyone to receive the same but I’m not so enthusiastic about having what I have removed and replaced with something that isn’t as good.

That’s what she’s talking about.

That’s why I’m more in line with the public option/Medicare buy in route than just eliminating private healthcare in one fell swoop. It needs to be done incrementally with eyes toward eventually becoming a national health service.

[nbsmom]

10. How many times do we have to hear how other first-world countries do it?

When the citizens of Canada, UK, France, Sweden, Germany get a cancer diagnosis, they can focus on their health and following their doctor's treatment plan... not worry about whether they can afford their treatment.

Even for people who are fortunate to have employer-sponsored plans, the current system still has huge gaps, which become apparent when your child has a congenital condition... if your family member struggles with mental health or substance abuse issues... or if you lose your union job because the company sends your jobs overseas...

There is no room for moderation... we should be DONE with any sort of profit motive in a system that TREATS PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK OR TRIES TO HELP PEOPLE GET HEALTHY.

[AllyCat]

11. My employer based insurance is crap.

And I work in a hospital. And we are unionized. I’d love to lose it But even at DU many still love our health care “industry” that only serves the wealthy.

[Indygram]

14. Why is it a bad thing? Because people WILL die.

For millions of rural Americans, small rural hospitals are already at risk due to not making enough money to operate and come out even. These hospitals will close down and less people will go to school for so many years to only be paid the bare minimum rates for government run insurance plans. The medical research required to cure diseases will be hurt. There MUST be competition for ANY industry to thrive. Just having the CHOICE of a good and really affordable government plan FORCES private insurers to be competitive and offer better options simply because the people don't HAVE to choose from a bunch of sub par plans. If they don't do that they won't be able to compete.

And finally...if you put 100% of the healthcare of people into the hands of the government there is nothing stopping Republicans from killing it when they are in power again and leaving us all with NOTHING at all.

Single payer will re-elect Trump.

[Thunderbeast]

15. I want SOMEBODY to address the drivers behind our expensive medical industry!

We have to face some uncomfortable truths. Our healthcare system is not efficient because the incentives are wrong. My local hospital opened a beautiful new cancer wing. The brass and mahogany interior was spectacular. When my wife had minor surgery, she was given a blanket that plugged into the wall to fill with warm air. We later learned that Medicare paid $1,000 for the use of the magic blanket for 45 minutes.

I don't mean to be mean and callous when I say this...We CAN NOT AFFORD every medical technology that science and pharmaceutical companies offer. One pharmaceutical company is now offering a genetic therapy to save lives of infants from a rare genetic disorder. The price for the miracle? 2.1 Million dollars. Their rationale is that their product costs less than the more expensive therapies and care that it replaces. While this may be true, we MUST look at reasonable pricing through a different lens. Our therapies need to become much less expensive to deliver.

We must also make more humane and rational decisions about end of life care. We currently spend a huge percentage of our health care dollars in the final weeks of life...often to prolong suffering.

This all comes down to addressing the "third rail" of the health care debate; Rationing. Currently, rationing decisions are made largely by insurance companies. A more deliberate conversation must be had about what is affordable, what is humane, and what is compassionate.

George Will once noted that every dollar spent on curing sick people is a dollar that is not available for building communities that enable healthy lifestyles. Perhaps more parks and recreation programs are a better investment in healthy lives than "hail Mary" attempts to prolong (for a short time) the suffering of those who will die soon anyway.

I want the candidates to start talking about keeping Americans healthy in a way that is sustainable by the economy. That involves MUCH MORE than debating how the accounting works.

While many people in the workforce have employer or union based coverage, we need to understand what impact this model has in the global economy. Other countries do not couple health care payment systems to employment. This places American labor at a disadvantage. None of the candidates are addressing this fundamental issue, and are letting Republicans frame the issue...Never a good thing.

Transition will take time. The ACA was a good start, but it has been gutted by the courts, and is still in jeopardy. One promise of the ACA was to build evidence for best practices in order to bend the cost curve. Still much work to do.

[elias7]

16. I have had insurance companies or plans thru employer frequently

Anthem BC/BS, Harvard Pilgrim, etc. Each year, premiums go up, deductibles go up, our group changes plans to get best fit. Haven’t had to change docs. I’d gladly lose this shit if 1) I could get something stable and 2) everyone could be covered..