Ezra Klein is such a blight on this party.
It's pretty important to note M4A's polling drops enormously when people learn it eliminates private insurance.What? That's not what M4A does. Anyone who wants to buy into private insurance can still do so. It stacks with Medicare and a lot of people currently have both.
It's pretty important to note M4A's polling drops enormously when people learn it eliminates private insurance.
I do think a public option would be easier to pass but it needs to not be dicked over by catering to private insurance.Public Option is literally just M4A but you have to pay a premium.
What? That's not what M4A does. Anyone who wants to buy into private insurance can still do so. It stacks with Medicare and a lot of people currently have both.
I do think a public option would be easier to pass but it needs to not be dicked over by catering to private insurance.An honest public option will drive the private insurers out of business, except for low-volume edge cases. Public and private options basically have the same real cost of doing business (mostly keeping fraudulent claims and the like under control with a reasonable error rate).
An honest public option will drive the private insurers out of business
I will never understand why people are so attached to private insurance. Literally ask they do is try their hardest to deny as many claims as they can do they can rake in more profits.
That's fineFeature, not a bug, etc. etc.
People have negative views of the healthcare industry as a whole, but they tend to like their own insurance plans.People badly need to be educated out of this stupidity.
Sanders proposed bill? The Medicare for All Act?
People badly need to be educated out of this stupidity.
I'm sure it's because most people are covered through their employers, and thus don't see the double-digit % premium increases each year.
It's completely unsustainable.
HR 1384 right? Yes. Private Insurance sticks around but acts as a supplement to Medicare and offers to cover things Medicare does not such as abortion.
That's not "sticks around." That's "almost completely abolished except for a few other cases."How is it "completely abolished"?
If they thing they want is stupid then they are being kinda stupid.
How is it "completely abolished"?
It's literally usable in all instances where someone who already has both can be used today.
what happens to about 18 percent of the workforce?
"People who don't want what I do are just stupid" is a mindset the Left really needs to break out of. The vast majority of the country does not favor a complete end to nearly 18 percent of the US workforce.Supporting private health insurance as it exists in the US is objectively stupid.
Yeah, price controls would be far superior and there's a lot of issues with the industry that should be fixed. Most people still like their healthcare plans and don't much value shakeups. The ACA raised taxes on wealthy people to pay for poor people's healthcare and got excoriated for it, let alone what it did to end junk plans.
What is this 18% figure and where is it from? I find it hard to believe that 18% of the US workforce works specifically in the private health insurance industry.Perhaps it's 18% of the economy by dollar volume. Now that is perfectly believable, and if so it's just another sign that major reforms are desperately needed.
Supporting private health insurance as it exists in the US is objectively stupid.
Most reachable people simply don't know better, so education is the key. Of course you don't lead with calling people stupid.
And that elimination of 18% of the workforce is just nonsense. Even if private health insurance is eliminated, the resulting public system will still need people to do legitimate functions like claims processing etc., which is almost all of that 18%.
But there would be nothing in a public system to support the obscene compensation of health insurance executives and the obscene profit margins these companies have. Elimination of these is most definitely a feature, not a bug.
What is this 18% figure and where is it from? I find it hard to believe that 18% of the US workforce works specifically in the private health insurance industry.
Define "supporting private insurance as it exists." Most people don't like the industry. They do, however, like their plans and wish to keep it.
Here in New Zealand we have a robust public option which people quaintly call "no insurance." Lots of people get their own private insurance which is way the fuck cheaper than in the US.
This is meaningless, because for most people their plans are provided by their employer. Of course they like their fringe benefits, and have no conception of the obscene cost of the system because they are't directly paying for it.
Mindless resistance to change is absolutely what to expect, and has to be planned for.
Common sense. Every legitimate function performed by a private insurer will also have to be done by a public insurer (claims processing, fraud reduction, etc.).
Citation?
Common sense. Every legitimate function performed by a private insurer will also have to be done by a public insurer (claims processing, fraud reduction, etc.).
No mass turn over? No loss of benefits and compensation? No mass layoffs for cost cutting? Full government protections, seamless takeover in nationalization?I never said it would be easy.
You're going to need to be a little ready for that and the major negative publicity, because the media will run around three zillion stories of people being fired in a government takeover
No mass turn over?
No loss of benefits and compensation?
No mass layoffs for cost cutting?
Full government protections, seamless takeover in nationalization?
47th administration notwithstanding, government jobs tend to be incredibly stable.We're not talking government jobs as they exist, we're talking a private industry being nationalized.
The benefits are now baked into law and provided by the government. Unless you mean stuff like pensions which basically nobody has anymore these days.
This is the same as your first question. The people who are cut because of the reduced workload can find that their jobs have been moved into the government OR a more likely scenario is that they stay exactly where they are and the government starts contracting private insurance companies to process Medicare claims on behalf of the government.
Seamless? No. There will be disruption but in the end overall I expect it to be a net gain of jobs as the uninsured, now insured, will create a much greater volume of claims than we have currently.
Without any loss in quality? Because this will increase expenditure heavily, too.
So we do have private companies or we don't? Are they allowed to offer duplicate coverage or aren't they?
One thing we're seeing now that nobody wants to discuss....we're seeing the Federal government weaponize even measures like the Consumer Finance PRotection Bureau and slash federal employees. Not sure what would keep a federal insurance program safe from them either at this juncture
I checked and I was wrong. Sorry, closer to 10 percent. Bureau of Labor Statistics18% seemed insane, but I'm not sure how you're getting to even half that now. The numbers I see say just over 900k workers as direct Life and Health Insurers, just over 1 million working for Insurance Agencies and Brokers, and nearly 383k in other insurance related fields and activities(everything from drivers to repair personnel, IT, etc).
Quality is determined by the provider, not the payor. BCBS doesn't get you a better hospital than Medicare. It gets you the exact same hospital at 5x the price.
Yes we still have private companies. Duplicate coverage is not permitted today. You use Medicare first, then when you get the bill, your private insurance pays for what Medicare didn't cover. And it's also useful for things Medicare just doesn't cover at all. The private companies do not go away. They do shrink in size but those employees will have transferable skills to a M4A claims system.
Those are largely things that are under executive responsibility in the first place. A law cannot be so easily subverted. Trump would never sign this so it's pointless to talk about it specifically now but once it actually gets implemented it will become incredibly popular. Look at the UK's NHS as an example. How many UK politicians advocate killing it?
Sanders proposed bill? The Medicare for All Act?I don't mean this as an attack on you, but I think this is a manufactured issue with M4A. It's seldom clear whether people are talking about a specific bill or just the concept of expanding Medicare to all. I think any honest polling and discussion has to start by defining exactly what is meant by M4A.
I don't mean this as an attack on you, but I think this is a manufactured issue with M4A. It's seldom clear whether people are talking about a specific bill or just the concept of expanding Medicare to all. I think any honest polling and discussion has to start by defining exactly what is meant by M4A.
The Netherlands has similar. Everyone has to get insurance, but they're price controlled and regulated heavily.
No its not. The New Zealand is like the UK where everyone is enrolled in a public option and there's private insurance available if people want it, but most people don't bother with it because the public option is cheap and easy to use and a lot of stuff like surgery is free.The UK isn't public option. Healthcare on the NHS is just free at the point of service aside from dentistry and opticians, with a flat 9.90 for any prescriptions. This applies to all citizens and settled residents. Those on more temporary visas will pay an NHS surcharge as part of their visa, but will not pay anything at the point of use. Emergency care and stuff like ambulances are always free for those who need them.
The Dutch and Swiss systems are AFAIK everyone has to get mandatory private insurance that is heavily subsidized by taxes. Basically Massachusetts I guess.They're also heavily regulated, which is why they still work pretty well.