Tim Ryan: Democrats will 'lose 48 states' on a 'Medicare for All' platform

[left-of-center2012]

Democratic presidential candidate Tim Ryan on Wednesday called the "Medicare for All" proposals backed by other 2020 candidates a "potential disaster" for the party, doubling down on criticism of a policy he said would cost Democrats all but two states in next year's election.

The Ohio congressman devoted much of his rhetoric on Tuesday night's debate stage to questioning proposals from his more left-leaning counterparts to nationalize the nation's health system, a plan he said would take private insurance away from union workers who have sacrificed wages during negotiations in order to secure stronger health benefits. Ryan painted Medicare for All, championed most notably by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), as a losing issue across much of blue-collar America.

“I think we’d lose 48 states, and I’m having a hard time figuring out what the two states are we’re going to win if our lead message is, 'We’re going to confiscate health care from people,'” Ryan said. “Let’s focus on giving health care and getting health care affordable and accessible to people who don’t have it. That should be the message, not taking it away."

Other moderate Democrats have expressed opposition to Medicare for All and echoed Ryan’s fear that pushing such a policy would clear the path for defeat in 2020. Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney called the plan “bad policy” and said it “will just get President Trump reelected.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tim-ryan-democrats-lose-48-152030160.html

[NurseJackie]

1. Probably.

[lillypaddle]

20. Yep. nt

[Hekate]

31. Sad but true. nt

[ismnotwasm]

46. It's not a good idea

Its a damn slogan

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Medicare is one of the most popular programs weve ever had

With 70% support for medicare for all. It could put us closrst to winning 48 stayes than wr have ever been.

[left-of-center2012]

5. But ...

If you take away people's private health insurance,
a lot of folks are not going to be happy.

[Tiggeroshii]

9. They wont be happy wjen they lose it in the next economic downturn either

Just like they werent before.

[left-of-center2012]

12. socialism won't win in 2020

[Tiggeroshii]

13. Is Dennis's dad the new sarcasm tag?

[TSIAS]

40. Isn't that Danny DeVito?

Supporter of known socialist Bernie Sanders.

[DBoon]

10. make that "private insurers will spend hundreds of millions"

... to convince folks they would be unhappy

[Tiggeroshii]

14. +10,0000

[George II]

16. The only similarity between Medicare and "Medicare for All" is the use of the word "Medicare"

The two plans are completely different.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. It is expanding the program for its original intent

Obviously it is the same program.

[George II]

22. I'm not going to go around in a circle with you again (you bailed last time we did), but...

...BS' "Medicare for All" would eliminate private insurance companies, the same private insurance companies that administer a big part of the Medicare program in which I and all seniors are enrolled.

I've been on Medicare for six years, have never had to contact Medicare.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. If yesterday was any indication, the anti bernie/ warrens are losing this argument

And will continue losing it to common sense in the future.

[watoos]

32. I'm on Medicare,

and zero private insurers administer my health care. Maybe you are talking about a supplemental Medicare plan that has nothing to do with Medicare?

[Hoyt]

41. Nope. A private insurance company processes physician and hospital claims for services you use,

answers your questions, handles appeals if payment is denied, enrolls and disciplines providers, monitors quality and utilization, etc. That's traditional Medicare. Supplements, drug plans, Medicare Advantage are also insurance companies.

Give us your state, and I'll give you their name and what insurance company owns them if operating as a subsidiary like most.

[emmaverybo]

51. It's original intent was to provide medical care for people 65 and over whose life span, of course,

is much shorter than younger people, who do not need pre-natal or birth care, contraception, do not by and large have as many traumatic head injuries and GSWs as younger
counterparts, and will not give birth to premature babies on whom a large percent of health
dollars is spent because enabling them to survive is treatment and technology intensive. These are but a few of the many differences in the member pool.

However, in any case, Medicare and M4A are two different programs.

[lillypaddle]

19. Most people have no clue how Medicare works.

Unless they are on it. It sounds good, I guess.

[customerserviceguy]

27. It scares the snot out of me

to think that in about a year, I'm going to have to choose a Medicare Advantage plan, or none at all. I know there are lots of companies out there offering advice, but I highly suspect it is all self-serving. Right now, I have the luxury of being a covered domestic partner on my lady's retirement medical insurance, which is not too bad.

[watoos]

33. If you are reaching Medicare age,

just refuse to take it. I bet you can't because your private insurer won't still cover you.

[customerserviceguy]

35. I've read that doing that gets expensive.

Other than going to my local hospital's financial office, and asking people there which companies they find easiest to work with, I really don't know where else to turn for objective information.

[emmaverybo]

52. AARP offers many articles. So far, the organization has made no recommendation about

healthcare programs in the election cycle, just provided some key facts.

If you opt for Medicare, you will need a supplemental plan for complete coverage.

[customerserviceguy]

56. Hmm, my lady

joined up with AARP, maybe I'll look at the magazines they send her. Thanks.

[DeminPennswoods]

60. There's a financial penalty attached to doing that

waiting to enroll in Part B.

[Progressive83]

54. Would be they happy be then end. Most likely

but that isn't issue. The issue is can you convince people that they will like taking away the insurance they think they like(most people never get sick enough to really use it) to give them something entirely new. I think that's a very tall order, MFA who want it polls much better than forcing everyone in a MFA system.

[Kurt V.]

3. a little dramatic.

[RGinNJ]

4. Tim who?

[paleotn]

6. blue dogs live!

[HerbChestnut]

7. Tim must be a little salty after last night.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+wrote+the+damn+bill

[qazplm135]

8. I'm skeptical of the real appeal of M4A

but losing 48 states is a ridiculously hyperbolic statement.

[oasis]

11. MFA is DOA.

[FBaggins]

15. Which two would we win?

Might be going through a job change next year... would like to know where to move.

[lapfog_1]

18. He is wrong...

With either Sanders or Warren with M4A...

We win CA,OR, WA, HI, NY, MA, VT.

toss ups are Delaware and Maryland and Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and possibly the rest of New England and possibly Colorado.

Only because people hate Trump.

We lose everywhere else.

not good at electoral math, but I don't think that puts our person in the WH.

[FBaggins]

25. That would be under 200 EVs

Even counting all of New England and all tossups.

I doubt that it would be even that bad... but I agree that it would be a damaging position to run on.

And... since there's zero chance of passing it... I'm not sure what the point would be (other than winning the nomination)

[jcgoldie]

26. Seems you're not very good at math either

Are you just making this crap up? Hillary Clinton won Maryland by 27 points and thats going to be a tossup? Come on, this thread is ridiculous.

[lapfog_1]

28. I'm very good at math - actually make a living with it.

But go ahead and put all of my toss ups into a solid win column.

Where do we find the rest to win the election?

Ohio? Michagan? Wisconsin? Iowa? (or anywhere in the rust belt or the midwest)... the south? Maybe West Virginia... or even Virginia? The Carolinas?

After the repukes paint us as socialist who want to end capitalism? A modern Soviet state? (yeah, I know, that's really ironic since the current pResident is a pawn of the Soviet dictator of Russia... but trust me, they will do that)

[jcgoldie]

30. I mean your argument based on pragmatism may be right

Maybe medicare for all is a bridge too far but parroting the hyperbole of blue dog republican talking point Ryan doesn't do it any justice.

[lapfog_1]

34. I'm not... I stated in the title that "he is wrong"

and he is... and if someone can show me how we win against Trump (who just boosted the economy for another year maybe by forcing the Fed to cut interest rates) by running on a M4A central platform... I could switch from Biden.

Realistically, a long time ago (right after the 2016 election), I stated that I wanted to see new democrats take the lead... and that I hoped that 4 people would not run in 2020... Hillary, Sanders, Warren, and Biden (who was my candidate in 2008 cycle until it became clear that Obama was going to overtake Clinton). Only Hillary has stayed out this cycle... the other 3 are running... but I worry that Biden will not excite young voters... and I worry that Sanders and Warren can't win against Trump and the coming Russia vote hacking and the "socialist" label.

[mr_lebowski]

21. He is lying. It's not 'taking away health care' from anyone ...

It may involve taking away private insurance, but it's most certainly not taking away 'health care' from anyone. The idea is to give health care to everyone.

That being said, I agree it's a losing issue, politically, in 2020.

'Adding a Public Option to the ACA, like it was always meant to have' sounds about 100X better. Even 'Medicare Buy-In' in about 10X better.

'Medicare for All' is going to freak out damn near every Senior in the Country They will be led to believe they're getting cheated out of what they paid for their whole lives, which is now going to be shared with everyone even when they've not paid. Which means they'll get LESS care.

It also screams out 'Your choice/freedom will be taken away'

I.E. calling it 'Medicare For All' will be interpreted as 'this IS your only option ... it is FOR ALL!' ... by way too many people ... who won't like the idea.

It is A LOSER. Period.

[left-of-center2012]

23. "It may involve taking away private insurance"

Yep. They're taking away your private insurance and giving you whatever Washington wants to give you.

[Backseat Driver]

29. What is the definition of the

Medicare for all. Our candidates can’t seem to define how it would work other than to cite disadvantages in other areas and decry the supporters as Socialists.

[watoos]

36. They should have kept the terminology,

Single payer. Medicare for all is misleading. What Warren and Bernie are proposing isn't really Medicare for all, it's better.

Wow, this thread is chock full of Republican talking points.

I live in Pa. and am on Medicare. I can go to any hospital in Pittsburgh I want, as a matter of fact I am going to UPMC soon. Highmark insurance is the big insurance carrier in Pa. and it was feuding with UPMC. I could go to UPMC in network but people on Highmark couldn't. I think they may have come to an agreement but private insurers are in the business of making money, not providing health care. The administrators of Medicare only need to break even.

[Backseat Driver]

49. Well, I just don't understand all these imaginary alternative ways to insure everyone...

I support expanding Medicare for the basic healthcare it does cover at 80%. Why can't folks then choose supplemental policies that would provide what their situation requires from private insurers or under a public option of ACA to cover that remaining 20% from which persons can still go bankrupt. Add in an annual medical health card of about $1000 for OTC needs to include supplements, vitamins, small devices like braces that use of same can be balanced out through Federal taxes whether or not one is eligible for the long-form deductions.

Lots of different cafeteria-style policy choices above and below those available for public option in terms of deductibles and co-pays, and script contraceptives including morning-after, perhaps even with/without abortion coverages and transgender surgeries and "special" mental health requirements for same. Perhaps the same choices could be done for drug, dental, vision, and hearing policies, and for new technology procedures like stem cell treatments and CBD treatments that have proven effective with diagnostic status changes triggering eligibility to purchase. It is the patient's choice that matters.

That should certainly please everyone, maybe not perfect, but definitely better, and the insurance workers could keep their jobs administering these policies for compliance, but passing payments and claims, through to the single payer, Medicare. Such would also definitely reveal better stats regarding how persons use their policies and medical health cards to access and purchase various therapies. Get writing those policies, insurance underwriters!!!

Oh yea, cap those executive salaries and drug price escalations on pharmacy best practice stuff like epi-pens and insulin; require mandatory research as a percentage of revenue.

[Backseat Driver]

50. Oh yeh, and another thing...

They need to make the government return the SS funds they "borrowed" with interest to restore stability and longevity of that retirement augmentation. Younger and healthy seniors and the early disabled now suffer under antiquated algorithms of benefit analyses that contribute to the growth of poverty. Furthermore, uncap contributions; zillionnaires need pay more or continue to pay in, no matter, though I'm not sure at what point of either gross or net earnings. The wealth gap in this country is unconscionable.

[nycbos]

37. He is not wrong

[elocs]

38. Medicare for All is a great fantasy without any explanation of how it would become law.

What's the point of running on a healthcare program that will not have a chance to become law? The Affordable Care Act barely squeaked through when Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
If Medicare for All was forced upon all the American people and it was not a great success out of the gate then Democrats would pay the price exactly what happened with ObamaCare.
Do we really think there will be a Democratic president from now on along with Democratic control of Congress?

For most Democrats right now the most important thing is to defeat Trump because if that is not done you can kiss all the rest goodbye for a long, long time if ever.

[sacto95834]

42. Dream Big....

[elocs]

43. Then why not be honest with people and admit it's a dream?

With little to no hope of passing. Or don't they deserve such honesty?

[sacto95834]

47. When you set goals for yourself...

Do you tell yourself it's not possible, it's all make believe?

[elocs]

48. I know the difference between a dream and reality.

If a dream is not possible, I let it go.

You dodged my question: If Medicare for All is a dream with no chance of being passed into law, then why not be honest and admit it?
Or at least give a realistic explanation of how it will be passed and made law.

[sacto95834]

58. It's a goal...

No different than Medicare, Social Security, militarizing to fight WW2 or sending someone to the moon. All pipe dreams I'm sure in your eyes. But we would be a less rich a society if we didn't have leaders with vision to think bigger.

I will admit not all goals are reached, compromise sometimes happens. But at least try; start the negotiations with the goal. If you don't try you'll for sure never get.

I do believe one day the US will have Medicare for All. It's impossible to be the only 1st world country that will allow it's citizens to die because they cannot afford health care.

[LincolnRossiter]

64. Other developed nations, including Germany, the UK, France, Canada, the Nordic Nations etc...

Have options for individuals to purchase and maintain private insurance--in addition to publicly-funded systems. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but it looks like every nation with a robust universal system allows for the purchase of private supplemental insurance.

So what's the problem?

[UniteFightBack]

45. We need more realistic people speaking out and pushing back. Thank you. nt

[calguy]

39. We won't lose 48 states

But we WILL lose.

[UniteFightBack]

44. I agree. nt

[Thekaspervote]

53. The gopeeee would luv for Dems to run on m4a. I can here the hyperbole now

It’s socialism.. 50%+ Americans against the idea

It will raise your taxes, and no amount of talking points from the left will weaken it.

You will loose your employee ins

And, yes there’s how the dem will pass that into law...

Get idea, that does not yet work

[Progressive83]

55. MFA for all who want it should be the party's position

the needle on universal healthcare has moved significantly that single payer is in the conservation and no longer a fringe position is huge. But poll after poll shows forcing people to change is not very popular and I doubt you can move the needle enough in year for outright MFA

A new Marist/NPR poll tested support for both “Medicare for all that want it — that is, allow all Americans to choose between a national health insurance program or their own private health insurance” and “Medicare for All — that is, a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance.” “Medicare for all that want it” polled at 71 percent. Medicare-for-all that replaces private insurance polled at 41 percent. Supermajority support becomes a minority position.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/29/8910387/medicare-for-all-insurance-private-abolish-bruenig

[in2herbs]

59. There's an appellate decision pending that just might declare the entire ACA as unconstitutional.

What are the supporters of the ACA as a model going to latch onto as their alternative when/if that happens?

[highplainsdem]

61. He might be overstating it, but in general he's right that it would be hard to sell in the GE.

"Medicare for anyone who wants to join that plan" is popular.

"Medicare for everyone and you lose private insurance even if you like it" is nowhere near as popular.

[Garrett78]

62. That's a wild exaggeration, but it's coming from someone who is desperate for attention.

Bye, Tim.

[elocs]

63. If that happened, and it was shown that support for MfA was a reason,

nobody who supports Medicare for All would ever admit that it had anything to do with the loss.
A loss of that magnitude reminds me of my very first presidential vote for George McGovern when I was 20. I'd rather not go through that again although 1984 with Mondale was horrible as well.