I'm still not hearing what I need to about employers contribution to health care plans.

[brewens]

I think that's what people are thinking of when they say they are satisfied with the plan they have. As with my previous job, my employer covered 90 percent of my premiums. Of course I would prefer that over any plan that had me paying more for similar coverage. We need more details on how a national health care plan would not cost us more in taxes, and that would have to mean businesses pay the same share.

We get health coverage at work supposedly in lieu of higher wages. I'm pretty sure I heard Biden touch on that last night saying he wasn't going to just trust businesses to just fork over that money to employees if they get off the hook with a new plan. Fine. Lets not trust them. Tell us how you ensure that money goes to workers or into the health care system. It probably has to happen to make a public option popular too.

I'd say the public option needs to be good enough that workers will see it's a better deal than what they have from their employer. Maybe employers have to allow their workers to opt to have that money paid into the public option if they choose to switch. If private insurers can't compete and go under, fine with me. They may have to reduce rates, pay out more in claims, and settle for lower profits. That should make employers happy either way.

What I've been hearing makes it sound like we eliminate private plans and workers make up for all of that in higher taxes with MFA. That's never gonna fly. I think Biden even misspoke last night and said MFA would cost 32 trillion per year. Thanks Joe. That's not helpful.

[UniteFightBack]

1. Bernie was the one who said employers will give that money back to employees which is of course

absurd.

[brewens]

2. You'd think employers would be all for MFA if it gets them out from under that

huge expense. They must know there is no way they will get to just pocket all that. Anyone discussing MFA or the public option needs to tell us more about that.

[thesquanderer]

3. Bernie's plan legally REQUIRES it *IF* health care was part of a negotiated union contract.

The essence of it is that, if something (in this case the MFA plan) prevents the employer from providing something he was contractually obligated to provide, he must then provide something else of equal value. So it could be more pay, or presumably alternate benefits (say, increased vacation). The employer cannot use MFA to avoid giving the employees the value of what they negotiated for, they cannot put that money in their pocket.

OTOH, if it's a non-union shop and there is no negotiated legal contract, I don't think anything covers that.

[UniteFightBack]

5. Ok well most people don't belong to a union. nt

[thesquanderer]

4. re: "more details on how a national health care plan would not cost us more in taxes"

Sanders has never said it would not cost us more in taxes. What he said was that any increase in taxes would be offset by decrease in other costs (i.e. premiums, deductibles, copays, things not covered). But yes, more details are needed.

[Demsrule86]

6. It would cost us a fortune and literally hurt those over 65 ...medicare is not free for seniors and

still only covers 80%. ...hard to implement too. Build on the ACA. I think biden will be the nominee because of MFA which is a good thing...people don't want it much.

[thesquanderer]

8. re:"hurt those over 65...medicare is not free for seniors and still only covers 80%"

MFA is not literally the same as the existing Medicare plan simply expanded to cover younger people. That's the double-edged sword to the name "Medicare For All" -- the name is good because people are comfortable with the concept of Medicare (more so than if it were called, say, "Single Payer For All" ), but it's also bad because some people assume it's exactly the same as what Medicare is today, which it is not. It is broadly similar in concept, but reading the plan, there are also significant differences. For example, if something is covered, it is covered 100%.

[Demsrule86]

10. Ridiculous to have two plans ...one for younger and one for seniors who will rise up and

re-elect Trump...I like what I have and do not want MFA. If Something is covered...if being the operative word...not liking the plan at all...my employer subsudizes our insurance plan...now I pay more taxes for most likely less coverage...and the roll out will be awful...no thanks...EW gets my vote in a general but not in a primary. Fix the ACA and use it via a public option to cover those not covered ...do not give the GOP an opening like this.

[thesquanderer]

11. It won't be two plans. MFA will be for everyone. For seniors...

...it will replace what they have with the new plan, which covers more than Medicare does today. So, just one plan, not "two plans ...one for younger and one for seniors" -- rather, an improved medicare that covers everyone.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. It will strengthen Medicare. Make it better.

Combine the risk pools and unburden Medicare from only covering statistically sick and old people. Flood the system with young healthy premium payers.


We already have two plans! One for old sick people that the government covers because private insurance won’t. And one for young healthy people that for profit insurance extracts massive profits from while you are young - and then lays you off on the government when you get sick.

It’s a stupid and unsustainable system.

[brewens]

7. That's what I had in mind when you mention the offset. Yes there would be taxes, but our overall

cost should not be more anyway they work it.

[Ron Green]

9. Base the employer's MFA tax rate on the difference between the CEO's pay

and the entry-level worker’s.

[Gothmog]

12. Speaker Pelosi-There's no need to reinvent health care -- just improve Obamacare

I agree with Speaker Pelosi https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/nancy-pelosi-no-need-to-reinvent-health-care-improve-obamacare.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

Democrats should focus on making improvements to Obamacare instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with “Medicare for All,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday.

“God bless” 2020 Democratic presidential candidates putting forth Medicare for All proposals, Pelosi said in an interview with “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. “But know what that entails.”

Pelosi’s thoughts on how to improve the nation’s health-care laws appear to align with those of former Vice President Joe Biden, who in his 2020 presidential bid is calling for building on provisions of Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act.

“I believe the path to ‘health care for all’ is a path following the lead of the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi told Cramer. “Let’s use our energy to have health care for all Americans, and that involves over 150 million families that have it through the private sector.”

[GulfCoast66]

13. The French healthcare system is often held up as the best in the world.

They got there due to the same conflicts we are having.

It is definitely not MFA.

Read about. It’s the only system we have a prayer of getting using the ACA to get us there.