General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLiberals Provide Ammunition Against Single-Payer
>"On August 2, The Nation published an article by Joshua Holland, Medicare for All isnt the Solution for Universal Health Care, chastising Improved Medicare for All supporters because, in his view, the single payer movement has failed to grapple with the difficulties of transitioning to a single-payer system. The article, which doesnt quote anyone involved in the movement for Improved Medicare for All, begs a response because it shows what liberals opposed to single payer believe. Holland dredges up the same arguments used to keep single payer off the table during the creation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He even dusted off a few that were used to try to stop Medicare from coming into existence in the 1960s. And then he attempts to distract single payer supporters away from supporting Improved Medicare for All and settling for something less, as was done successfully in 2009.
The first error that Holland makes is confusing the term Medicare for All as meaning that advocates would simply take the current Medicare system, with both traditional and Advantage plans, and expand that. This is why it is important to use the phrase Improved Medicare for All. As outlined in HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, the new system would be based on the current Medicare system, which is already national, but it would be a single public plan that is comprehensive in coverage and does not have out-of-pocket costs or caps. It would ban investor-owned facilities and ban private insurers from selling policies that duplicate what the system covers. A single system is the simplest for patients and health professionals because there is one transparent set of rules."<
>"When Medicare was enacted in 1965, more than 50% of seniors were uninsured and the rest had some form of health insurance. Without computers and without a national health system in place, all 19 million seniors were enrolled in the first year (almost twice as many as were enrolled in the ACA in the first four years). At present, the United States has Medicare infrastructure in place and all practicing health professionals have a National Provider Identifier issued to them by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). When the new Improved Medicare for All system takes effect, enrollment will be very simple because there is only one plan that is universal and paid for up front though taxes. All health professionals will be in it. Every person could be sent a card, much as CMS does now for people who are turning 65. For those who do not receive a card, HR 676 has a solution when they present for care at a health facility, they are assumed to be in the system, are treated first and then are enrolled in the system afterwards."<
>"Throughout time, every great social movement has been told that it was asking for too much. Advocates for workers rights, womens rights, civil rights, etc., were labelled as unreasonable radicals wishing for some pie-in-the-sky change that cant be achieved. Holland is doing the same to the single payer movement. Dont fall for it. We have the resources in the US to have one of the top healthcare systems in the world. We have health policy experts who have helped to design excellent systems for other countries. Single payer is a proven solution, unlike the plans being proposed by the Democratic leadership."<
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_provide_fraudulent_cover_for_saying_no_to_single_payer_20170808
Bladewire
(381 posts)Common sense will make this law at some point
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that of securing the incomes of families now dependent on jobs in the private health sector.
Sure, some will shift into medical billing for the new single-payer, but many will be abandoned. To sell something as revolutionary as (Improved) Medicare For All, we need to consider not just health care or health insurance, but the entire rest of the economy.
One assumes that a Citizen's Wage should be part of the debate.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)People should NOT expect that single payer would get enacted in a process similar to how the GOP tried to ram Tr*mpcare through.
This would be an enormously difficult task almost certain to fall short of the expectations of those expecting a full-blown single payer within one legislative session. Logistical challenges, paying for it--lots of painful decisions between the concept and the reality.
What would make a lot of sense is an incremental expansion--expand Medicaid upwards in terms of income eligibility and expand Medicare downwards in terms of age eligibility.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . to me, there shouldn't BE such a thing.
You don't support a worldwide recognized human right, a right that several million citizens and dozens of countries don't politicize, GTFO of this party and join the Libertarians or Republicans with that pre-20th century bullshit.
It's the reason why I'll never forgive or forget insurance conglomerate-fattened assholes like Joe Lieberturd for screwing America out of multi-payer. My kid's access to the health care he deserves sets precedent over some Paleolibertarian white male's "privilege" argument.
world wide wally
(21,742 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)to the hilt..
Single payer, the time has come..