Medicare For All: Popular....Until People Know What It Could Mean

[jamesrodom]

Medicare for All: what does it mean? Where did the term come from?

Being a cynic on matters such as these, and also having observed over the years the debate on health care financing policy, I have an idea.

"Medicare for All"--the term, that is--was coined to exploit the universal familiarity with, and popularity of, Medicare. We're sometimes told by members of the far-left that it's popular, but polling suggests that what's really popular is the term itself. When people learn what it could mean, like being forced to relinquish your current private insurance, or increased waiting times for appointments, support plummets.

And it's assumed Medicare for All is synonymous with single payer. Yet Medicare as it currently exists goes hand-in-hand with private insurance; it doesn't cover everything, so most people need a supplemental policy to cover the remainder.

A basic level of health care should be a right. Obamacare attempted to address that, but with Democrats controlling the Senate and the House, a simple, lousy public option couldn't even be included. What the hell makes Medicare for All proponents think that such legislation would have a snowball's chance in hell of even being introduced--much less passed--in a Mitch McConnell-controlled Senate?

 

[Helix]

So let's have real first world single payer.

 

[RetiredUSN]

So let's have real first world single payer.

20% tax increase to the poor? That's not going to happen.

The middle class will foot the bill all over again to spread the wealth just like the ACA.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So let's have real first world single payer.

Lets have "free" housing and college too (as individual "rights"). The problem, of course, is how do providers of "free" housing, medical care and/or college get paid? Once that little detail is worked out then how (e.g. specific tax policy) does that supporting funding get into federal government hands?

The easy part is saying let's do "it" - the hard part is defining "it".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Medicare for All: what does it mean? Where did the term come from?

Being a cynic on matters such as these, and also having observed over the years the debate on health care financing policy, I have an idea.

"Medicare for All"--the term, that is--was coined to exploit the universal familiarity with, and popularity of, Medicare. We're sometimes told by members of the far-left that it's popular, but polling suggests that what's really popular is the term itself. When people learn what it could mean, like being forced to relinquish your current private insurance, or increased waiting times for appointments, support plummets.

And it's assumed Medicare for All is synonymous with single payer. Yet Medicare as it currently exists goes hand-in-hand with private insurance; it doesn't cover everything, so most people need a supplemental policy to cover the remainder.

A basic level of health care should be a right. Obamacare attempted to address that, but with Democrats controlling the Senate and the House, a simple, lousy public option couldn't even be included. What the hell makes Medicare for All proponents think that such legislation would have a snowball's chance in hell of even being introduced--much less passed--in a Mitch McConnell-controlled Senate?

Yep, the easier (yet far from easy) part is defining a new federal program which costs about $3T (more?) per year - the hard part is how to (at least) double federal tax revenue without having the "middle class" foot the bulk of the bill (directly or indirectly).

 

[RetiredUSN]

Lets have "free" housing and college too (as individual "rights"). The problem, of course, is how do providers of "free" housing, medical care and/or college get paid? Once that little detail is worked out then how (e.g. specific tax policy) does that supporting funding get into federal government hands?

The easy part is saying let's do "it" - the hard part is defining "it".

Isn't it amazing how liberal college institutions exploit their students with these outrageous tuition costs, and then the students demanding that everyone else pay for it.

 

[Fletch]

Medicare for All: what does it mean? Where did the term come from?

Being a cynic on matters such as these, and also having observed over the years the debate on health care financing policy, I have an idea.

"Medicare for All"--the term, that is--was coined to exploit the universal familiarity with, and popularity of, Medicare. We're sometimes told by members of the far-left that it's popular, but polling suggests that what's really popular is the term itself. When people learn what it could mean, like being forced to relinquish your current private insurance, or increased waiting times for appointments, support plummets.

And it's assumed Medicare for All is synonymous with single payer. Yet Medicare as it currently exists goes hand-in-hand with private insurance; it doesn't cover everything, so most people need a supplemental policy to cover the remainder.

A basic level of health care should be a right. Obamacare attempted to address that, but with Democrats controlling the Senate and the House, a simple, lousy public option couldn't even be included. What the hell makes Medicare for All proponents think that such legislation would have a snowball's chance in hell of even being introduced--much less passed--in a Mitch McConnell-controlled Senate?

I think 'Medicare for all' loses its appeal once those with good, employer provided health insurance realize that they are part of the 'for all.'

 

[ttwtt78640]

Isn't it amazing how liberal college institutions exploit their students with these outrageous tuition costs, and then the students demanding that everyone else pay for it.

That is how "fairness" works.

 

[marke]

Medicare for All: what does it mean? Where did the term come from?

Being a cynic on matters such as these, and also having observed over the years the debate on health care financing policy, I have an idea.

"Medicare for All"--the term, that is--was coined to exploit the universal familiarity with, and popularity of, Medicare. We're sometimes told by members of the far-left that it's popular, but polling suggests that what's really popular is the term itself. When people learn what it could mean, like being forced to relinquish your current private insurance, or increased waiting times for appointments, support plummets.

And it's assumed Medicare for All is synonymous with single payer. Yet Medicare as it currently exists goes hand-in-hand with private insurance; it doesn't cover everything, so most people need a supplemental policy to cover the remainder.

A basic level of health care should be a right. Obamacare attempted to address that, but with Democrats controlling the Senate and the House, a simple, lousy public option couldn't even be included. What the hell makes Medicare for All proponents think that such legislation would have a snowball's chance in hell of even being introduced--much less passed--in a Mitch McConnell-controlled Senate?

When the citizens of a state are forced to buy insurance from the government, that is a tax, just like SCOTUS ruled in Obamacare. It looks like healthcare taxes will be quite high if the socialists finally have their way.

 

[marke]

I think 'Medicare for all' loses its appeal once those with good, employer provided health insurance realize that they are part of the 'for all.'

Politicians lie when they promote universal or government healthcare as free or inexpensive. Sadly, practically nobody seems to focus on the real truth that government healthcare will cost Americans far more than their costs would be if they had no healthcare and simply paid their own medical bills out of pocket. That's what I did for the first 43 years of my adult life. Buying insurance will cost more for most than simply paying the medical costs out of pocket. There is no other mathematical possibility.

 

[Fletch]

Politicians lie when they promote universal or government healthcare as free or inexpensive. Sadly, practically nobody seems to focus on the real truth that government healthcare will cost Americans far more than their costs would be if they had no healthcare and simply paid their own medical bills out of pocket. That's what I did for the first 43 years of my adult life. Buying insurance will cost more for most than simply paying the medical costs out of pocket. There is no other mathematical possibility.

Thats true. Health insurance should cover only the catastrophic. I have homeowners insurance that is quite affordable. Yet it doesnt cover the cost of mowing the lawn or replacing the water heater or changing a light bulb. If it did cover those things, it would be unaffordable. Just like health insurance is.

 

[jamesrodom]

So let's have real first world single payer.

If I were designing a new health care system from scratch, it would be single-payer. But that's not happening; we're dealing instead with a system whereby, for the last 70 years, most have gotten their health insurance through their employer. That's been a far from perfect system in a number of ways: it hasn't kept pace with the changing nature of employment, and many others have fallen through the cracks.

The health care safety net needs to expand, but the entire system doesn't need to be replaced in order to bring that about. Don't fix what ain't broke.

 

[Helix]

20% tax increase to the poor? That's not going to happen.

The middle class will foot the bill all over again to spread the wealth just like the ACA.

In reality, it will work like it does in countries which score higher on quality of life indexes.

 

[Helix]

Lets have "free" housing and college too (as individual "rights"). The problem, of course, is how do providers of "free" housing, medical care and/or college get paid? Once that little detail is worked out then how (e.g. specific tax policy) does that supporting funding get into federal government hands?

The easy part is saying let's do "it" - the hard part is defining "it".

The hard part is getting the unconvincible naysayers out of the way of progress.

 

[Helix]

If I were designing a new health care system from scratch, it would be single-payer. But that's not happening; we're dealing instead with a system whereby, for the last 70 years, most have gotten their health insurance through their employer. That's been a far from perfect system in a number of ways: it hasn't kept pace with the changing nature of employment, and many others have fallen through the cracks.

The health care safety net needs to expand, but the entire system doesn't need to be replaced in order to bring that about. Don't fix what ain't broke.

I'd argue that paying far more than anyone else for similar care isn't ideal.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The hard part is getting the unconvincible naysayers out of the way of progress.

That is true of any proposed new federal program. I would prefer (as in accept and vote for) adding a public option to allow folks to "buy into" the current (PPACA) "expanded" Medicaid. What must be decided, of course, is how that would be funded - specifically, what would be the annual per person premium charged for that optional "buy in" and how much would be added (subsidized) by federal/state funding?

 

[jamesrodom]

Thats true. Health insurance should cover only the catastrophic. I have homeowners insurance that is quite affordable. Yet it doesnt cover the cost of mowing the lawn or replacing the water heater or changing a light bulb. If it did cover those things, it would be unaffordable. Just like health insurance is.

You're citing opposite extremes; there's a big middle ground in between. Many health conditions wouldn't be considered "catastrophic", yet they're far more significant and serious than whatever would be the health equivalent of mowing the lawn or changing a light bulb.

No universal health care plan would cover cosmetic surgery. It wouldn't cover private hospital rooms unless clinically necessary.

 

[Fletch]

You're citing opposite extremes; there's a big middle ground in between. Many health conditions wouldn't be considered "catastrophic", yet they're far more significant and serious than whatever would be the health equivalent of mowing the lawn or changing a light bulb.

No universal health care plan would cover cosmetic surgery. It wouldn't cover private hospital rooms unless clinically necessary.

A plan that offers a copay for a doctor visit is the equivalent of homeowners insurance helping cover the cost of mowing your lawn. There are many improvements that are costly as hell that arent covered your home insurance. Try replacing your roof or repaving your driveway or replacing your flooring or cabinets.

 

[Helix]

That is true of any proposed new federal program. I would prefer (as in accept and vote for) adding a public option to allow folks to "buy into" the current (PPACA) "expanded" Medicaid. What must be decided, of course, is how that would be funded - specifically, what would be the annual per person premium charged for that optional "buy in" and how much would be added (subsidized) by federal/state funding?

A public option could be an on ramp. I thought that should have been the minimum goalpost of the ACA.

 

[Greenbeard]

"Medicare for All"--the term, that is--was coined to exploit the universal familiarity with, and popularity of, Medicare. We're sometimes told by members of the far-left that it's popular, but polling suggests that what's really popular is the term itself. When people learn what it could mean, like being forced to relinquish your current private insurance, or increased waiting times for appointments, support plummets.

Beefing up the Affordable Care Act is more universally popular (even among Dems) and ultimately is the consensus Dem position.

Thats true. Health insurance should cover only the catastrophic. I have homeowners insurance that is quite affordable. Yet it doesnt cover the cost of mowing the lawn or replacing the water heater or changing a light bulb. If it did cover those things, it would be unaffordable. Just like health insurance is.

If only health insurance had deductibles.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A public option could be an on ramp. I thought that should have been the minimum goalpost of the ACA.

That "on ramp" (a means to deal with "the poor") is all the "insurance" reform that is needed.

PPACA was not about to offer any subsidies that were not deemed essential to it's passage or to demand that 'private' medical care providers become either public or non-profit. PPACA was "sold" as a means to let "the poor" have affordable (meaning heavily or completely subsidized) medical care insurance while keeping that from requiring a massive tax increase.

PPACA also did other scary (and unconstitutional?) things like define different labor law protection for those working for "large" and "small" employers and (sort of) mandated the individual purchase of a specific 'private' good/service by those who would not be seen as "victims" (thus the "hardship exemption") of such crazy (unfunded mandate) federal (tax?) law.

 

[Helix]

That "on ramp" (a means to deal with "the poor") is all the "insurance" reform that is needed.

PPACA was not about to offer any subsidies that were not deemed essential to it's passage or to demand that 'private' medical care providers become either public or non-profit. PPACA was "sold" as a means to let "the poor" have affordable (meaning heavily or completely subsidized) medical care insurance while keeping that from requiring a massive tax increase.

PPACA also did other scary (and unconstitutional?) things like define different labor law protection for those working for "large" and "small" employers and (sort of) mandated the individual purchase of a specific 'private' good/service by those who would not be seen as "victims" (thus the "hardship exemption") of such crazy (unfunded mandate) federal (tax?) law.

I found it to be an unnecessary compromise with the uncompromisable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I found it to be an unnecessary compromise with the uncompromisable.

I agree and PPACA was the result of only demorats "compromising" with fellow demorats and, of course, industry lobbyists. The hardest to sell part of M4A proposals is the requirement that all medical care services/goods providers become public or non-profit and that 'private' medical care insurance becomes illegal.

 

[Helix]

I agree and PPACA was the result of only demorats "compromising" with fellow demorats and, of course, industry lobbyists. The hardest to sell part of M4A proposals is the requirement that all medical care services/goods providers become public or non-profit and that 'private' medical care insurance becomes illegal.

I don't support making supplemental insurance illegal as long as basic insurance covers everything essential.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't support making supplemental insurance illegal as long as basic insurance covers everything essential.

In insurance which lacks any (user paid) premiums, deductibles or co-pays is not "basic".