Definitions are important here. I believe strongly that healthcare is a human right and I believe in universal healthcare. I remember well the difficulty in getting the ACA passed and volunteered for 2 years to spread the word and help people sign up.
I am a Medicare patient and it is great but it’s not cheap. You still pay a premium for doctor care, it only pays 80% and you must have a secondary plan plus Part D. It’s more expensive than people realize.
I suggest we use the phrase Universal Health Care for All so that folks don’t get confused. I just hope there is a way to get it passed. That means a significant Dem majority
My sister and BIL are on Medicare, and what they find the most expensive is their secondary plan. Maybe that could be the opening for M4All. The other thing is, ANY health insurance is going to be expensive if its focus is on older people, who are much more likely to need healthcare. The only way to make any insurance affordable is to have it cover everyone -- the sick and the healthy alike. (I do like your idea of calling it 'Universal' instead!)
It’s cheap compared to private insurance. I was paying $1,200/mo with private insurance 3 years ago, before i hit 65, and god only knows what that premium is today. Medicare, supplement, and Part D are less than half that monthly cost, and the deductible is a fraction.
Trump, of course, is planning to end the subsidy for Medicare Part D premiums. I think now, people have to worry about a change towards universal healthcare and then a Republican in the WH/House/Senate messing it up.
I, too, pay a lot more for Medicare for myself and my husband than I did on my employer plan, but wouldn’t premiums decline under M4A by adding a huge number of younger, healthier people to the pool?
Dan- you leaned heavily on the moral argument of human right. The reality is the the private health care industry is unsustainable as it is currently funded. We spend more than any other country and have worse outcomes. It is breaking the bank for families and the government to subsidize private insurance. I know families that now pay 30 grand a year with the subsidies gone. The questions here are interesting. But still not accurate. The reality would be a mix of private and public. No OECD country eliminates private health insurance. It is not paid for by only taxing the wealthy. But what is does guarantee is never facing medically bankruptcy. That would be a question on a poll. Do you support a government system that would replace most private insurance where you could never face medical bankruptcy due to lack of coverage? The politics of this is the lanes. Do you run one Bernie lane or Chuck Schumer lane. Running in Bernie’s lane is M4A. You can’t waver as it is motivating and taking in power of the rigged system. Abdul is showing as the leading in MI and not moving to the center he can keep his poll numbers up. We will see if this strategy works for winning the primary. Trump has destroyed Obama care. There needs to be something new. The Schumer lane have not offered an alternative that I am aware. You don’t like Abdul’s plan. What is your plan?
Hi Dan. Curious what you think of Senator Andy Kim's recent proposal for Medikids? Government-funded healthcare to cover ALL kids, no income test. I think it's brilliant, as a policy and politically. Thanks for sharing your view if you have one!
Yes, of course! But this is a way to move more gradually to universal coverage, and how much better it is than private insurance (which, as Dan says, people are reluctant to give up.) In addition, I know a lot of parents without coverage whose mental and financial well-being would be significantly improved if their kids were covered, even if they remained uninsured. It's a way forward.
You kind of left Ossoff hanging there. Why did he oppose M4A in 2020? Does he still oppose it? You led with him, then failed to explain his reasoning or to challenge the description of him as “smug.” The Far Left is already beginning to target him as insufficiently progressive; we should try not to help them. (If I missed references to him after the lede, i apologize.)
"...those people mostly want their health care made cheaper and better, not replaced outright." Do those people understand that private health insurance is not going to be made cheaper or better, because private health insurers are under no obligation to do so?
As someone who has good (Kaiser) insurance through work but also helps to care for my elderly father who is on Medicare I feel like I have a decent understanding of how they both work and I have to tell you, once you figure out how to navigate Medicare it’s very good, as good as what I have for a fraction of the cost.
No one likes change, which I think is at the center of many of the ‘I like my current insurance’ people but a slowish move to M4A, which would be inevitable because that’s how the government rolls, with the option of private coverage, would help people come around.
Healthcare workers, however, are a different story and the insurance industry is extremely powerful. Huge headwinds remain unless (until) a lot more elected representatives get on board.
You hit the nail on the head with one of the central objections. People always prefer what they have now, whether we’re talking insurance or congressional representatives. I think it’s the biggest obstacle we face.
As this post indicates most people can’t define M4A. It’s a slogan that effectively communicates the sentiment that healthcare is a human right. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment but am dubious that M4A is the panacea Americans crave.
I’m an incrementalist and a moderate. My preference would be to forbid private health insurers from being for profit businesses and offering the public the option to elect into Medicare.
Healthcare should not be tied to employment. The cost of private insurance makes it very hard for individuals to start small businesses. I was pregnant in 2013 when the law firm I was working for went out of business. They were not paying the premiums and tried to lie to me about it. It worked out that I was covered but only because I exposed their lie before I was due to give birth. We need a universal, portable healthcare system. One that won’t bankrupt Americans.
Medicare for All and supplementary private insurance are not incompatible. Many Medicare recipents have both--the latter either funded by employers/former employers or by themselves.
Definitions are important here. I believe strongly that healthcare is a human right and I believe in universal healthcare. I remember well the difficulty in getting the ACA passed and volunteered for 2 years to spread the word and help people sign up.
I am a Medicare patient and it is great but it’s not cheap. You still pay a premium for doctor care, it only pays 80% and you must have a secondary plan plus Part D. It’s more expensive than people realize.
I suggest we use the phrase Universal Health Care for All so that folks don’t get confused. I just hope there is a way to get it passed. That means a significant Dem majority
My sister and BIL are on Medicare, and what they find the most expensive is their secondary plan. Maybe that could be the opening for M4All. The other thing is, ANY health insurance is going to be expensive if its focus is on older people, who are much more likely to need healthcare. The only way to make any insurance affordable is to have it cover everyone -- the sick and the healthy alike. (I do like your idea of calling it 'Universal' instead!)
It’s cheap compared to private insurance. I was paying $1,200/mo with private insurance 3 years ago, before i hit 65, and god only knows what that premium is today. Medicare, supplement, and Part D are less than half that monthly cost, and the deductible is a fraction.
Totally agree. You get a lot with Medicare. My daughter pays a similar price for almost no care.
Trump, of course, is planning to end the subsidy for Medicare Part D premiums. I think now, people have to worry about a change towards universal healthcare and then a Republican in the WH/House/Senate messing it up.
I, too, pay a lot more for Medicare for myself and my husband than I did on my employer plan, but wouldn’t premiums decline under M4A by adding a huge number of younger, healthier people to the pool?
Dan- you leaned heavily on the moral argument of human right. The reality is the the private health care industry is unsustainable as it is currently funded. We spend more than any other country and have worse outcomes. It is breaking the bank for families and the government to subsidize private insurance. I know families that now pay 30 grand a year with the subsidies gone. The questions here are interesting. But still not accurate. The reality would be a mix of private and public. No OECD country eliminates private health insurance. It is not paid for by only taxing the wealthy. But what is does guarantee is never facing medically bankruptcy. That would be a question on a poll. Do you support a government system that would replace most private insurance where you could never face medical bankruptcy due to lack of coverage? The politics of this is the lanes. Do you run one Bernie lane or Chuck Schumer lane. Running in Bernie’s lane is M4A. You can’t waver as it is motivating and taking in power of the rigged system. Abdul is showing as the leading in MI and not moving to the center he can keep his poll numbers up. We will see if this strategy works for winning the primary. Trump has destroyed Obama care. There needs to be something new. The Schumer lane have not offered an alternative that I am aware. You don’t like Abdul’s plan. What is your plan?
Hi Dan. Curious what you think of Senator Andy Kim's recent proposal for Medikids? Government-funded healthcare to cover ALL kids, no income test. I think it's brilliant, as a policy and politically. Thanks for sharing your view if you have one!
That sounds like a good idea, but kids' parents need to be able to stay healthy, too!
Yes, of course! But this is a way to move more gradually to universal coverage, and how much better it is than private insurance (which, as Dan says, people are reluctant to give up.) In addition, I know a lot of parents without coverage whose mental and financial well-being would be significantly improved if their kids were covered, even if they remained uninsured. It's a way forward.
Good points, Amy!
You kind of left Ossoff hanging there. Why did he oppose M4A in 2020? Does he still oppose it? You led with him, then failed to explain his reasoning or to challenge the description of him as “smug.” The Far Left is already beginning to target him as insufficiently progressive; we should try not to help them. (If I missed references to him after the lede, i apologize.)
"...those people mostly want their health care made cheaper and better, not replaced outright." Do those people understand that private health insurance is not going to be made cheaper or better, because private health insurers are under no obligation to do so?
As someone who has good (Kaiser) insurance through work but also helps to care for my elderly father who is on Medicare I feel like I have a decent understanding of how they both work and I have to tell you, once you figure out how to navigate Medicare it’s very good, as good as what I have for a fraction of the cost.
No one likes change, which I think is at the center of many of the ‘I like my current insurance’ people but a slowish move to M4A, which would be inevitable because that’s how the government rolls, with the option of private coverage, would help people come around.
Healthcare workers, however, are a different story and the insurance industry is extremely powerful. Huge headwinds remain unless (until) a lot more elected representatives get on board.
You hit the nail on the head with one of the central objections. People always prefer what they have now, whether we’re talking insurance or congressional representatives. I think it’s the biggest obstacle we face.
As this post indicates most people can’t define M4A. It’s a slogan that effectively communicates the sentiment that healthcare is a human right. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment but am dubious that M4A is the panacea Americans crave.
I’m an incrementalist and a moderate. My preference would be to forbid private health insurers from being for profit businesses and offering the public the option to elect into Medicare.
Healthcare should not be tied to employment. The cost of private insurance makes it very hard for individuals to start small businesses. I was pregnant in 2013 when the law firm I was working for went out of business. They were not paying the premiums and tried to lie to me about it. It worked out that I was covered but only because I exposed their lie before I was due to give birth. We need a universal, portable healthcare system. One that won’t bankrupt Americans.
Medicare for All and supplementary private insurance are not incompatible. Many Medicare recipents have both--the latter either funded by employers/former employers or by themselves.