Warren says she will soon release plan to fund 'Medicare for All'

[Chomsky]

This better be, "Medicare for all who want it!"

There's no reason to force us into this. Just make it an option. I'm fine with that. I might even consider it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This better be, "Medicare for all "who want it!

There's no reason to force us into this. Just make it an option. I'm fine with that. I might even consider it.

I think making it an option for businesses to buy into is indeed the way to go. The insurance industry is too big and employs too many people for any sort of fast transition.

I could see some deal of "agree to pay x in taxes instead of paying y to private insurance, just sign here" or something along those lines.

 

[Chomsky]

I think making it an option for businesses to buy into is indeed the way to go. The insurance industry is too big and employs too many people for any sort of fast transition.

I could see some deal of "agree to pay x in taxes instead of paying y to private insurance, just sign here" or something along those lines.

I'd like it to be a public funded option, like the current Medicare & Medicaid. That's Buttigieg's plan, and I like it (way before he proclaimed it).

 

[Surrealistik]

This better be, "Medicare for all "who want it!

There's no reason to force us into this. Just make it an option. I'm fine with that. I might even consider it.

Buttigieg's plan is lacking compared to MFA. Just a couple of the reasons:

A: Govt is likely to be stuck with the worst risk pool, given that all the high cost, high risk enrolees will inevitably end up on the public option, while private insurers will endeavour to retain the healthiest, and lowest cost enrolees by contrast, leaving little to balance out the risk assumed by the govt plan.

B: It provides a high priority target for the still existent private health insurance sector to deliberately hobble and sabotage the public option as competition by having lawmakers pass toxic legislation such as the Orwellian titled 'Medicare Modernization Act' that prevented Medicare, but not private insurers, from negotiating drug prices.

C: You still have a fragmented payer market with all the attendant inefficiencies, especially the massive administrative bloat that comes with present billing complexity. Moreover, because govt is not the singlepayer, its negotiating power, while still significant, is substantially lessened. The ability to limit and reduce costs versus singlepayer is likely to be dramatically and adversely impacted by both factors and health spending per capita is almost certain to remain well above norms in the developed world.

D: Proposals like Buttigieg's aren't friendly towards the poor and working class versus MFA, and moreover involve considerable subsidy and giveaways to private health insurers.

 

[Cardinal]

Here’s the issue though only the sickly are paying that $16000 every year. Just for instance I pay about $1,600 a year and my employer pays $5000 or so. So why would I see paying an extra $6400 as a good choice?

That's addressed better by Vox:

What happens to employer-sponsored insurance?

Bottom line: Democrats are split over whether expanded Medicare should make space for employer-sponsored plans — or get rid of them completely.

About half of all Americans get their insurance at work — and Democrats’ various health care plans make different decisions about whether that would continue.

Currently, the American health care system provides employers with a big incentive to provide coverage: Those benefits are completely tax-free. This means companies’ dollars stretch further when they buy workers’ health benefits than when they pay workers’ wages.

This, however, creates an uneven playing field. Fortune 500 companies get, in effect, a huge federal subsidy to insure their workers, while an individual who doesn’t get coverage through their job and makes too much money to receive subsidies under the Affordable Care Act doesn’t see any advantageous treatment under the tax code.

Medicare-for-all (Senate and House): Both the Medicare-for-all plans would make the biggest change and eliminate employer-sponsored coverage completely. Under these options, all Americans who currently get insurance at work would transition to one big government health care plan.

Medicare for America: This plan does let employers continue to offer coverage to their workers so long as it meets certain federal standards. At the same time, it would give employers an alluring, simpler option: stop offering coverage and instead pay a payroll tax roughly equivalent to what they currently spend on health coverage.

As to how alluring that plan would be, that depends a lot on how generous Americans consider this new Medicare program to be. Premiums would be capped at about 10 percent of a household’s income, while lower-income families would pay less. Out-of-pocket costs would be capped at $3,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family, with less affluent families again receiving a break. The great unknown is how quickly those benefits pull people away from their work-based coverage into the new Medicare program.

Medicare for America makes another policy decision that would erode employer-sponsored coverage: It automatically enrolls all newborns into the public program. That means a new generation of Americans likely won’t get coverage through their parents’ workplaces — and would assure the Medicare plan a constantly growing subscriber base.

Medicare-for-all: The design and costs for Democratic health care plans - Vox

One important point is the MFA and employer provided health care are not mutually exclusive. Another point is that you are employed you have great coverage, which kind of gets to the heart of what's wrong with the current system: it works well for one half of the country, and absolutely terribly for the other half.

 

[Cardinal]

This better be, "Medicare for all who want it!"

There's no reason to force us into this. Just make it an option. I'm fine with that. I might even consider it.

I would like to sign on with that position, not the least of which is because not providing that option is simply politically unfeasible. Kamala Harris already learned that a long time ago.

You also see those same jitters in this thread by people with employer coverage who are wondering what the hell's going to happen to them. Whatever Warren's plan ends up being, she would be wise to remember that people have been given reason to fear the Federal government under Republicans taking away their coverage for the last three years. She would be smart if she didn't give them reason to be afraid of Democrats too.

 

[CaughtInThe]

just take Medicare away from older Americans.

 

[upsideguy]

I can hardly wait. Should be a laugh. She's virtually dumb as a rock about economic and financial matters, although she has a good command of Progressive Poppycock in those fields.

Though she has a superior command of such matters then the current buffoon in the White House, who tried to sell us on the notion that he was their great businessman. 'No one knew healthcare was so complicated.'

I hope she finally mentions that the middle class is getting a big fat, burdensome, tax increase. I'm sure they'll love it.

I think Post #2 was referring to this kind of logic... taxes are not inherently bad when they provide good services.

 

[Bullseye]

Though she has a superior command of such matters then the current buffoon in the White House, who tried to sell us on the notion that he was their great businessman. 'No one knew healthcare was so complicated.'

So, your whole argument is "Yeah, but Trump"?

 

[upsideguy]

So, your whole argument is "Yeah, but Trump"?

Sorry, let me rephrase. Elizabeth Warren has superior command of the issues over the current guy. And, I will go one more step. She has far more command of the details of her policy proposals than likely anyone running, on either ticket.

 

[noonereal]

Good. She's incredibly intelligent and competent policy, especially in regards to economics and finance. I figured it was a matter of time.

and she will get TRump reelected.

I am thinking we need Hilary resurrected and I hated her for decades.

 

[Chomsky]

Buttigieg's plan is lacking compared to MFA. Just a couple of the reasons:

A: Govt is likely to be stuck with the worst risk pool, given that all the high cost, high risk enrolees will inevitably end up on the public option, while private insurers will endeavour to retain the healthiest, and lowest cost enrolees by contrast, leaving little to balance out the risk assumed by the govt plan.

B: It provides a high priority target for the still existent private health insurance sector to deliberately hobble and sabotage the public option as competition by having lawmakers pass toxic legislation such as the Orwellian titled 'Medicare Modernization Act' that prevented Medicare, but not private insurers, from negotiating drug prices.

C: You still have a fragmented payer market with all the attendant inefficiencies, especially the massive administrative bloat that comes with present billing complexity. Moreover, because govt is not the singlepayer, its negotiating power, while still significant, is substantially lessened. The ability to limit and reduce costs versus singlepayer is likely to be dramatically and adversely impacted by both factors and health spending per capita is almost certain to remain well above norms in the developed world.

D: Proposals like Buttigieg's aren't friendly towards the poor and working class versus MFA, and moreover involve considerable subsidy and giveaways to private health insurers.

A] So what? That's how it currently is with Medicaid & Medicare. These programs are publicly funded, not premium based. I think you might thinking in terms of the ACA premium based system, where in that case I would agree.

B] Perhaps. But I'll cross that bridge if & when we get there.

C] Why would the government not be single-payer? It is now in Medicare & Medicaid, even with the insurance companies involved.

D] Why not? The poor & economically disadvantaged can opt-in if they so chose, like they can now with Medicaid & Medicare, except with mine & Buttigieg's plan there would be no means testing. That's even better!

But the biggest deal is it will be a lot easier and possible in political terms to provide a publicly funded option that is ... well .... optional.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Elizabeth Warren has superior command of the issues over the current guy. And, I will go one more step. She has far more command of the details of her policy proposals than likely anyone running, on either ticket.

I can certainly agree that Warren has issues.

 

[jimbo]

Warren will have to thread an awfully small needle for this. She'll have to...

a)overcome the ridiculous narrative that paying an additional, say, $8000 in taxes is somehow worse than paying $16,000 in premiums, deductibles and copays, and simultaneously...
b)avoid giving Republicans the soundbite that she will raise your taxes, which is of course what all the fuss is really about.

She will raise taxes. That's a given.

 

[Mach]

I hope she finally mentions that the middle class is getting a big fat, burdensome, tax increase. I'm sure they'll love it.

Who do you think has to pay off the deficit due to the cooperate/wealthy tax cuts Trump handed out? Everyone. But the top wealthy...you do know they mostly just pay cap gains when all is said and done right?

You guys.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This better be, "Medicare for all who want it!"

There's no reason to force us into this. Just make it an option. I'm fine with that. I might even consider it.

The major problem with the "opt in" idea is that funding the required (massive?) subsidies is not optional.

 

[Cardinal]

She will raise taxes. That's a given.

Yeah, no ****. And that will be less than the premiums, copays and deductibles.

 

[Bullseye]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Elizabeth Warren has superior command of the issues over the current guy. And, I will go one more step. She has far more command of the details of her policy proposals than likely anyone running, on either ticket.

Wanna buy a bridge? :lamo

 

[jimbo]

I would have to see the proposal to know that. If could, at least, be partially funded through something other than a payroll tax, for example.

Whether it's payroll taxes, taxes on drinking water, or new taxes on those who already pay most of the taxes you cannot give more people more stuff without a revenue stream. Especially if it gets filtered through the government.

 

[Surrealistik]

A] So what? That's how it currently is with Medicaid & Medicare. These programs are publicly funded, not premium based. I think you might thinking in terms of the ACA premium based system, where in that case I would agree.

B] Perhaps. But I'll cross that bridge if & when we get there.

C] Why would the government not be single-payer? It is now in Medicare & Medicaid, even with the insurance companies involved.

D] Why not? The poor & economically disadvantaged can opt-in if they so chose, like they can now with Medicaid & Medicare, except with mine & Buttigieg's plan there would be no means testing. That's even better!

But the biggest deal is it will be a lot easier and possible in political terms to provide a publicly funded option that is ... well .... optional.

A: In otherwords, it amounts to a huge subsidy of private health insurance profits at the expense of the public sector; privatizing gains and socializing losses. This is unacceptable now, and it will be unacceptable then.

B: And cross that bridge we shall. We have done so in the past, and we will certainly do so in the future. Present issues with plutocracy and the disproportionate influence of the rich aren't abating; they're getting worse.

C: Having healthcare paid for by the private sector and public sector is not singlepayer by definition; it's multipayer, and because it's multipayer, we will likely end up with a far less cost effective solution due to the payer market remaining fragmented, which means vastly more administrative complexity and cost, and less negotiating power for the public option.

D: Of course it's better than the status quo, but that is an obviously and glaringly low bar; it isn't better than the alternative, and I most certainly do not like the idea of providing massive public subsidies to private companies, whether directly or indirectly.

That Buttigieg's proposal is perhaps more politically doable doesn't make it preferable or superior; lazy substantially flawed half-measures are of course more achievable than proper healthcare reform, but that doesn't mean we should opt for them.

 

[Chomsky]

I would like to sign on with that position, not the least of which is because not providing that option is simply politically unfeasible. Kamala Harris already learned that a long time ago.

You also see those same jitters in this thread by people with employer coverage who are wondering what the hell's going to happen to them. Whatever Warren's plan ends up being, she would be wise to remember that people have been given reason to fear the Federal government under Republicans taking away their coverage for the last three years. She would be smart if she didn't give them reason to be afraid of Democrats too.

Re: sign-on - Thanks!

Americans simply do not want to be stopped from using free-market health insurance, if they so chose. And I fully understand and support that view.

Medicaid is optional. Medicare is optional. There's no need to force this down our throats. To do so, will only cause political problems - big political problems - for the Dems. I promise you.

Buttigieg claims his (my) program's cost will be around the same price as the lost Corporate taxes from Trump's tax plan. He wants to pay for his plan by rescinding the Republican corporate tax cuts. If this is accurate, I think Buttigieg has an absolutely excellent mantra to run on.

I'll take Warren in political expediency, but more & more I'm really liking Buttigieg!

 

[Chomsky]

The major problem with the "opt in" idea is that funding the required (massive?) subsidies is not optional.

Everything has its price.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: sign-on - Thanks!

Americans simply do not want to be stopped from using free-market health insurance, if they so chose. And I fully understand and support that view.

Medicaid is optional. Medicare is optional. There's no need to force this down our throats. To do so, will only cause political problems - big political problems - for the Dems. I promise you.

Buttigieg claims his (my) program's cost will be around the same price as the lost Corporate taxes from Trump's tax plan. He wants to pay for his plan by rescinding the Republican corporate tax cuts. If this is accurate, I think Buttigieg has an absolutely excellent mantra to run on.

I'll take Warren in political expediency, but more & more I'm really liking Buttigieg!

That’s cool with me. It takes very little for me to ping-pong between Warren and Buttigieg anyway.

 

[Chomsky]

A: In otherwords, it amounts to a huge subsidy of private health insurance profits at the expense of the public sector; privatizing gains and socializing losses. This is unacceptable now, and it will be unacceptable then.

B: And cross that bridge we shall. We have done so in the past, and we will certainly do so in the future. Present issues with plutocracy and the disproportionate influence of the rich aren't abating; they're getting worse.

C: Having healthcare paid for by the private sector and public sector is not singlepayer by definition; it's multipayer, and because it's multipayer, we will likely end up with a far less cost effective solution due to the payer market remaining fragmented, which means vastly more administrative complexity and cost, and less negotiating power for the public option.

D: Of course it's better than the status quo, but that is an obviously and glaringly low bar; it isn't better than the alternative, and I most certainly do not like the idea of providing massive public subsidies to private companies, whether directly or indirectly.

That Buttigieg's proposal is perhaps more politically doable doesn't make it preferable or superior; lazy substantially flawed half-measures are of course more achievable than proper healthcare reform, but that doesn't mean we should opt for them.

A] It's not subsidizing the private insurance market. The private market would be private premium based, as it is now for insurance not purchased on the ACA exchanges. Essentially, the premiums are privately funded, free-market, and non-subsidized.

C] I'm a little lost here. Medicaid & Medicare (predominately) are paid for by the government. How is that not single-payer?

D] Besides the political expediency, I still believe a publicly funded option is the way to go. I can't see how or why we would stop Americans from purchasing a private product, if they so desire. Other countries' healthcare systems (UK, CA, etc.) do just as I'm suggesting. And it works fine, for them. I'm not sure what the problem is, here?

 

[Chomsky]

That’s cool with me. It takes very little for me to ping-pong between Warren and Buttigieg anyway.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at too. Looks like we're different brothers of the same mother, but don't tell Dad! :2razz: