Democratic naysayers are dead wrong on Medicare for All

[HerbChestnut]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/opinions/democrats-wrong-to-criticize-medicare-for-all-sachs/index.html

(CNN)The American political debate over health care is absurd. Americans pay twice as much as any other nation for health care, and then are told daily that they "can't afford" to switch to a lower-cost system very similar to those of Canada and Europe. If President Donald Trump and the plutocratic Republican party were the only ones carrying this ridiculous message, it would be understandable. Yet this message is also coming from media pundits aligned with the Democratic Party and the most conservative wing of the party.

Let's be clear on the central point. Medicare for All, as first proposed by Bernie Sanders and endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, is affordable precisely because it is cheaper, much cheaper, than the current system.

Pleasantly surprised to see this on the CNN homepage. Enjoy.

[redqueen]

1. I'm not a 'naysayer' because of the cost - but because of Congress. nt

[Celerity]

4. +100000

[LonePirate]

8. Democrats in Congress won't pass something unless it's supported by their voters.

So, strongly support MFA and help Congress pass it! Don't blame Congress when you can take action to help it pass.

[redqueen]

10. I'm to blame because republican lawmakers from Texas won't vote for M4A?

[Perseus]

22. Correct, and step 1 is to stop passing those memes around

What memes?

1. That many people love their current shitty for profit insurance, no they don't, republicans and the insurance industry made that meme up.
2. That Congress will not pass M4A. Yes they will if they know it will being them votes.

Because all politicians are such whores, when they see that their constituents support, want M4A they will understand that unless they support it they will loose those votes, they will then make a U-Turn to support it, but if what they hear from their constituents those memes then we are all in trouble.

The fact is that most of the country want M4A, that is a fact.

[boomer_wv]

60. Translation

If you don't live in wonderland with the Queen of Hearts and the Mad Hatter, you are a naysayer.

[Kurt V.]

2. fact. we can do this

[at140]

53. MFA will be cost effective! It's easy to see why....

MFA transfers Billions from profits by for profit private insurers to Medicare account.
MFA saves Billions for doctors because every doctor has to employ 2 or more people to deal with private insurers.
This money does not go directly into Medicare account, but it will go into pockets of everyone who pays doctor bills.
MFA transfers Billions in wages earned by employees of private insurers.
MFA transfers millions in executive bonuses of private insurers.
MFA gives Medicare enormous power to negotiate hospital charges, doctor charges, pharmaceutical prices.
Again this money does not go directly into Medicare account, but it will go into pockets of everyone who has medical bills.
In other words, the cost for medical patients goes down significantly compared to current system.

[LonePirate]

3. Some Dems insist on paying the "freedom tax" that accompanies private insurance "choice"

I'm not sure why they want to pay it; but I am sure they have their reasons.

[Eko]

5. some naysaying.

1. Just about impossible to get it to pass.
2. If we did somehow get it passed then the backlash would be huge. Look at the backlash we got from the ACA. One could argue that is how we got Dump.

[LonePirate]

6. So we shouldn't try to pass anything that might generate backlash? Heck, that's every possible bill.

I wish we had more FDR types in our party who liked to dream big.

[Eko]

7. Strawman.

I also wish we had more FDR types in our party who wouldn't resort to strawman.

[LonePirate]

9. No, some Dems prefer progress and change. Some Dems want to leave things alone.

I am in the former camp. Which one are you?

[Eko]

11. Yes, Strawman.

Nowhere did I say "we shouldn't try to pass anything that might generate backlash". Pretty much the definition of strawman. As for your question some things I like staying the same and some things I want to change. One thing I can think of that I want to stay the same is my name. I like my name, you may not like yours and hence want to change it so you can be progressive but Ill keep mine.

[LonePirate]

13. You specifically implied there would be backlash and it would lead to another 45.

That is the same as explicitly saying we shouldn't try to pass it. You're simply trying to obfuscate your opposition to MFA (for whatever reason) and you're cloaking it in the fear of backlash and another 45.

[Eko]

17. Yes, it, it, it.

A singular thing as opposed to "we shouldn't try to pass anything that might generate backlash". That is why it is a strawman.

[LonePirate]

19. Except there is backlash for everything - MFA, climate change, guns, voter rights, etc.

If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Your opposition to MFA suggests you are opposed to everything because everything generates backlash. What bills do you stand for exactly? Renaming post offices and schools after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?

[Eko]

21. Wow.

Here, let me bold and underline it. "If we did somehow get it passed then the backlash would be huge."
There, now you can stop bringing up positions I have not taken.

[Eko]

23. Sigh, I realize even my last post wont explain it to you.

"Democratic Party has lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats since President Obama entered office, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower."

"President Obama entered the White House with his party touting a 60 seat majority in the Senate and 257 seat majority in the House. Democrats now hold a 48* seat minority in the Senate and 194 seat minority in the House -- a net loss of 12 and 64 seats respectively."

"The midterm elections delivered significant blows to Congressional Democrats. In 2010, Democrats lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House, costing them the chamber. In 2014, Democrats lost another 13 seats in the House and a staggering 9 seats in the Senate; this time losing them the Senate and completing a Republican takeover of Congress."

https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democrats-suffer-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/291/

[LonePirate]

25. So we shouldn't improve health care for all Americans because we might lose some elections?

I disagree wholeheartedly with your premise that we should not trade power for improving lives. That's a rather heartless position you're promoting there.

[Eko]

30. You are the champ at strawman.

9 years now we have not been able to get much done because of the backlash from passing the ACA. Look at all the damage that has come from republicans being in control. Passing MFA would be at least as damaging to our party ensuing republicans controlling our country for another long stretch where they can do way more damage. Making the ACA, which has now become somewhat favorable, better and staying in office where we can continue to do good is in no way trading power for improving lives. It is smart policy that helps American lives in more ways than just health care. Instead you want to get MFA and then imo let the republicans control our country, water down mfa if not cancel it, and continue to wreck our country. Thanks but no thanks. I am all for MFA, but I realize what we can do compared to what I want to do.

[TwilightZone]

12. "Some Dems want to leave things alone"

Making improvements to the existing program isn't "leaving things alone".

I can't recall any of our candidates ever stating that the ACA is perfect the way it is and shouldn't be improved upon.

[LonePirate]

14. Tinkering with ACA is like throwing a shot glass of water on a five alarm fire. It's a time waster.

[beastie boy]

24. Are you equating ACA to a five alarm fire?

I don't think this is what you meant. Perhaps a different analogy would clear things up.

[LonePirate]

27. If millions of Americans without sufficient health care is not a five alarm fire, then what is?

[beastie boy]

34. Tens of millions of Americans without sufficient health care.

That was a pre-ACA five alarm fire.

So you meant what you said about ACA.

[Volaris]

28. Leaving shit 'that "works"' alone, is the paleo definition of conservatism.

Like you, I'm in the FORMER camp. At a minimum, I want a public option medicare buy-in. I'm already paying for Medicare. Charge me an extra fifty bucks a month over that (that I WONT MISS cause I wont see it), and let me go to the goddamn doctor when I need.

Additionally, there is NO SUCH THING as MFA or National Healthcare, that does NOT include both Dental and mental care.

Just my 2 cents.

[Thekaspervote]

38. Your assumption is wrong! There is no democrat that doesn't want to see everyone have health ins

none.

If you have a magic wand and can make the gop either a. Go away. B. Be responsible/reasonable then please....proceed

To call democrats naysayers, or centurist or whatever the label of the week is just divisive

[LonePirate]

42. What's divisive is cowering to the GOP and not even trying to implement change.

The GOP will not accept any change so to pretend that placing a band aid over a bullet wound (tinkering with the ACA) will solve the country's health care problems is naïve at best.

[beastie boy]

48. I see you prefer drama and hyperbolae to rational debate.

Ok, in your own language, convince me that M4A has a snowflake's chance in hell of being passed in a bipartisan Congress. Not introduced, but passed. Sure you can keep trying until you turn blue, but using an analogy you may find familiar, that would be like pouring a shot glass of water over a six-foot thick cement wall. Or placing a pretty picture of a band aid over a six foot thick wall. I don't know how effective you think that will be.

[LonePirate]

49. If the GOP will oppose everything, then I prefer pushing a real solution instead of a half-measure.

If you think MFA has no chance of passing, then the half-measures have no chance of passing.

[beastie boy]

50. Ummm... ACA had passed. Ten years ago. Despite the GOP opposition.

Try telling tens of millions of Americans who have benefited from it that it was a half-measure.

And that was a really lame attempt at convincing me that M4A can pass. It's as if you are not even trying.

[betsuni]

56. Congress passed the ACA with a public option, couldn't get the votes in the Senate.

The problem was that there were exactly 60 votes, meaning every one of those Senators had a veto.

Al Franken: "Still, the math was the math, and it forced us to make some tough compromises. A handful of moderate-to-conservative Democrats were opposed to the public option, which would have increased competition in the insurance market. Gone. Some floated the idea of lowering the age for Medicare to fifty-five. Hmmm. Not a bad idea. Makes both pools healthier ... . Okay. Let's do it! But then Joe Lieberman announced on 'Face the Nation' that he was against it. Gone."

Now that the ACA has been around for so long and is popular, if Democrats can just get those 60 votes the ACA with a public option is certain to pass. If they can't nothing will be passed.

[Demsrule86]

57. Some Dems understand that nothing can be accomplished without winning an election and know we

shouldn't run on unpopular issues that will cause us to lose-especially when there is no chance of passing legislation...some Dems understand how Congress works and the presidency and unless you win these branches, you get nothing. Some Dems understand that Trump is a threat to our Republic and his reelection will destroy the progressive movement for a generation.

[Sherman A1]

15. It can be done, it will be done

And it must be done. Yes, there will be a transition period, Yes, there will be hiccups, but the current system is unsustainable.

[frazzled]

16. Well, it's an opinion piece, and the views are those of the author

It may be cheaper for some, but that is a great unknown on many levels at this point. And mileage will vary for different people.

If you take Medicare as it stands today, it wouldn't, for example, be cheaper, much cheaper, for a situation such as mine. I found this out just the other day when we had a meeting with a retirement/financial planner. When it came to the line he had proposed for annual expenses for health care in retirement (which would be Medicare), I was rather shocked to see a number that was double for what we currently pay under an employer's plan for no-deductible, 100% coverage (minus minor specialist copays). And believe me, that insurance was tested through a year-long bout with cancer where no procedure or hospitalization was questioned and 100% was covered.

Now, of course I know that the employer is paying that other half, and supposedly, under Medicare for All the employer will purportedly contribute into a pool of support that is equal to what they pay now (though how that number will be arrived at is totally unclear, as are the supposed revenues that are predicted to offset all the costs--many reputable economists have commented on the vast uncertainty of those monies in their own op-eds).

The point is, we have to look right now at how people view this, from a political standpoint. For some who currently trust their insurance, the uncertainty seems a very big risk; even for some who are not so happy with their insurance, the risk factor remains a question. For those who must buy from the private insurance pool with no subsidy from the government, it probably sounds like a risk worth taking. The problem is, of people who are currently insured in a private or government program, about 56.0 percent have some kind of employer-based insurance; those already on Medicaid or Medicare represent 19.3% and 17.2%, respectively; another 4.8% has military coverage. Only 16% use direct-purchase coverage, and of those, 87% receive some kind of subsidy under the ACA. It is probably that 13% of people in the private market (as well as the totally uninsured) who are most receptive to the sweeping, all-at-once MFA plan.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying that there are reasons people are not fully confident in it, and reasons that some politicians are taking a more graduated stance to achieving that goal over time.

But a single op-ed is a bad place to get any information.

[George II]

20. NO one has ever fully detailed what the actual overall cost is. No one.

[George II]

18. How can we tell if we can afford something if the details of how it's funded and....

...what it will ultimately cost remains an unknown?

[Docreed2003]

51. +1

[stopbush]

26. Questions for those who support MFA:

1. Current Medicare beneficiaries pay $135 per-person, per-month in premiums. What would the cost in monthly premiums be under MFA for a family of four?

2. Currently, 100% of workers pay a tax on their income to help pay the Medicare benefits for the 19% of the population that currently receives Medicare. How much will that tax on income need to increased to cover 100% of the population as opposed to 19%?

[George II]

55. Don't hold your breath.

[PatrickforO]

29. Excellent op ed! Thank you for the link. I'm bookmarking this.

We will all be a LOT better off, materially better off, with Medicare for all.

[Gothmog]

31. I agree with Harry Reid

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

39. Harry knows!!

[BuffaloJackalope]

40. Just forget that it would save $5T over what we have now. At least.

If we started from scratch and someone tried to push for the system we have right now - they'd be tarred & feathered & run out of town on a rail. Justifiably so too.

[Thekaspervote]

41. Links please

[BuffaloJackalope]

45. From that notorious extreme-Leftist socialist rag - Business Insider:

That study going around on Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan comes with a big catch — the US would actually be saving money overall on healthcare
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

and

Medicare for All Would Save Money—And Lives
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/19/medicare-all-would-save-money-and-lives

and

The Medicare for All Cost Debate Is Extremely Dishonest
Biden and Buttigieg get to avoid the cost debate, though their own proposals, if successful, will almost surely cost as much as Sanders’s.
https://prospect.org/politics/medicare-for-all-cost-debate-is-extremely-dishonest/

[ehrnst]

61. About Business Insider - not a conservative publication:

It's left of center

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/business-insider/


Common Dreams is a Bernie Fanzine, and Prospect Magazine isn't a neutral journalistic source either.

If you want to claim that conservative or politically unbiased sources are confirming your point, you should find some that do.

[zentrum]

46. The thing is, either you're

...going to put your money into a central pot that gives you more health care and ditto for everyone else, or you give that money to a private profiteer who wants to limit your care.

[myohmy2]

32. wrap it...

" Medicare for All, as first proposed by Bernie Sanders and endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, is affordable precisely because it is cheaper, much cheaper, than the current system. "

...say no more, I'll take it...

[stonecutter357]

33. What is a Democratic naysayers ? fucking with my health care is absurd.

[BeckyDem]

35. Sadly, someone wanted to shut down this thread.

Kick and recommend.

[Hoyt]

36. What if in this environment, Public Option with increased subsidies gets us to goal faster?

If running on MFA means GOPers win in 2020 — which is highly likely — we’ll be further from goal. If a PO works like we think, 75% of people will take it within 5 years. Going to MFA, will be easy at that point.

[Gothmog]

37. Support for a public option has been increasing, and for Medicare-for-All has been decreasing

Link to tweet

[zentrum]

43. Well done. Thanks.

[PufPuf23]

44. "Medicare for All is affordable precisely because it is cheaper,

much cheaper, than the current system".

Medicare for all cuts out the useless private insurance companies based on the corporate profit model.

Look at all the examples of modern industrial countries.

[Demsrule86]

58. I don't believe that.

[James48]

47. Simple fix. Let people VOTE

Tell the country- starting in January 2021, the government will make Medicare for All available under the following conditions:

1. Your state must vote on whether to adopt it. If they vote YES, it goes into effect six months later.

2. You must be covered under it for a year before you can move to another state. If that state has adopted it, you can keep it. If not, you can purchase it fir the going rate, or go without.

3. If you are in a state that doesn’t vote fir it, then you are out of luck. Period. If you move to a new state that has it, you have to pay in for a year before coverage begins.

In a short time, the majority of states will have it.

Those that don’t, well, let them figure it out on their own. (Texas.)

[Demsrule86]

59. That will never happen... can we please be serious?

[loyalsister]

62. um

Elections are run by counties in my state. Are you saying that someone who lives in a rural county in MO where healthcare access is already limited should have less access if their neighbor voted against it? Keep in mind this is a person who lives in a farmhouse that they inherited and staying there keeps their cost of living affordable. Are you saying the are required to move into a place with higher cost of living where they will pay rent in order to have access to healthcare?

[dansolo]

64. Arguing for M4A by making it not universal?

I though I had heard everything. This is honestly the most offensive, selfish proposal I have ever heard. Let me guess, you live in a blue state.

[dawg day]

54. Why don't we present it this way: One party wants you to have access to health insurance...

the other doesn't.

One party is committed to expanding health care.
The other is committed to repealing what we already have.


The rest is DETAILS. We'll work it out! What's important is that all the Democratic candidates are dedicated to providing insurance and healthcare access to everyone, and how that will be accomplished will be worked out.

All this wrangling and arguing and dissing are counterproductive. Elect a Democrat, and there will be good health care insurance available nationally for a good price, and it will be paid for, and it will be cheaper and better than what we have.

That's why I'm against all these debates. All the arguments and quibbles make disagreement too important and annoying. I bet poll numbers for Dems as a whole go down because we have to watch good candidates arguing for two hours.

Eyes on the prize... The Democrat who wins the nomination and wins the election will have some good health policy that will be better than what we have, and no matter what, it will be a long and complicated process getting it accomplished.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. Some of the early naysayers

are beginning to sense a shift and that shift is gradually moving towards M4A, likely achieved in phases.

It takes time to soak in. But it IS soaking in.

That's why there have been recently been more favorable articles. Drip, drip, drip ....

[Uncle Joe]

65. It is a good article if one reads it but a shame the video couldn't match up with the column.

Thanks for the thread HerbChestnut.