Poll: Just 13 percent want 'Medicare for all' if it means end of private insurance: from The Hill.

[PatrickforO]

Follow the link, read the thing, and then I'll furnish a more appropriate headline.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

Funny how the media, which is corporate owned, really doesn't report the truth, does it?

Let me furnish another, more accurate headline:

71% of Americans want some form Medicare for all.

So, what's the deal? Why the faux controversy? Simple: higher ad revenue. By the way, The Hill is actually a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc., which is owned by Capitol Hill Publishing, Chairman James A. Finkelstein. Now, apparently Finkelstein owns a limited partnership, non-publicly held, that invests in media. Here's more:

James A. Finkelstein is Founding Partner in Pluribus Capital Management LLC Mr. Finkelstein was one of the founding partners of Avista Capital Partners in 2005. Mr. Finkelstein is an experienced leader in the media industry and focuses on private equity investments in the field. He formally served as Chairman of DLJMB Global Media Partners through June 30, 2005. For 19 years, he served as President and CEO of the National Law Publishing Company (presently American Law Media). Mr. Finkelstein received a B.A. Degree from New York University. He also has an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from Hofstra University. Mr. Finkelstein currently serves as Chairman of the Boards of InvestorPlace Media, Thompson Publishing Group, and News Communications, the Publisher of The Hill and Marquis Who’s who. He also serves as a Director of Star Tribune and WideOpenWest. Mr. Finkelstein has previously provided consulting services with respect to investments for DB Capital and Veronis Suhler Stevenson. He formerly served on the Board of Directors for the Legal Aid Society and on The New York University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Board of Overseers.

So there you have it. Capitalism at its best.

[Kaleva]

1. As Medicare only covers 80% of costs, one still needs supplemental insurance coverage

[at140]

2. I want protected healthcare for all...but is immediate Medicare for all possible?

Every American must be protected from going bankrupt due to medical bills.
My wife is undergoing cancer treatment since March, and she has been billed $504,000 so far.
Without health insurance from employer, she would be homeless by now. She will go on Medicare this year. No one should be in that situation of going bankrupt due to healthcare costs.

Getting back to Medicare...

I have been paying Medicare taxes since 1966. I paid those taxes for 39 long years before joining Medicare. So now I get 80% of my hospital bills covered by Medicare AFTER meeting the deductibles.
Every senior who gets Medicare has paid Medicare tax all their working years until reaching age 65.

Now take case of a 22 year old worker and a 42 year old worker.
The 22 year old has paid very little for Medicare taxes.
The 42 year old has paid about half in taxes compared to seniors currently on Medicare.

We all know Medicare balance sheet is already under stress.
So will someone explain how do we handle Medicare for all effective immediately?

How high the Medicare tax will be jacked up for current workers?
If a phase in method is initiated, how will it work? As they say, devil is in the details!

[marybourg]

4. The first Medicare recipients - like my parents, born in 1910 and 1920 -

hadn’t paid in at all. Slightly younger people paid in for a short while before becoming eligible. If we really wwant everyone to have healthcare, we’ll find a way.

[PatrickforO]

6. Simple. Get rid of the giant Republican tax cut for billionaires and

corporations, and raise taxes to the level required to pay for the coverage. At the same time, allow the government to step in and negotiate prices with pharma and healthcare providers.

Same way the UK does it.

Now, I'm of the mind that the best bet is allowing a public option, where you can go on Medicare if you want, or you can keep your present coverage.

Either way, we all will still need to be able to purchase supplemental insurance to cover the gaps in the Medicare. You've got to cover that Part B 20% and the Part D.

And, if we really wanted to do it right, we could repeal the Federal Reserve Act and go back to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution and have Congress create and run the Central Bank, which would take over from the Fed in controlling money supply. That's how Lincoln financed the civil war, you know. The bankers never forgave him.

[at140]

12. Do you think congress would repeal the obscene tax cuts

And if congress did that would Trump sign the repeal?
I don't either is possible until we get a new president in 2020.
So Medicare for all is not possible at the present time.

To keep it fair to the seniors who have paid Medicare tax for 4+ decades,
To become eligible for Medicare, I don't understand how young workers who have paid very little in Medicare taxes should get the same Medicare benefits as the seniors. Is fairness important in your desires?

As for the Federal Reserve, I am in favor of replacing it with a government bank which would have the oversight of elected politicians, instead of the private Federal Reserve which has no congressional oversight.

[Rebl2]

3. I only

want Medicare for all as long as we can still get supplemental insurance. Medicare doesn’t cover your total medical costs-only 80% of your medical bills. That’s why you see so many supplemental insurance commercials. I take a biologic medicine and I don’t believe Medicare will pay for it. The insurance I have now pays the majority of the cost-12 thousand dollars for 12 shots. My co-payment went up this year for the first time in a few years. Luckily I can afford it for now.

[David__77]

5. Medicare can be revised to cover 100% and not 80%.

...

[appalachiablue]

9. In the 80s Reagan broke up Medicare to give 20% to private insurers.

And it can go back to that, 100% coverage.

[Igel]

7. So you're saying that one poll is accurate and the other not?

Just because you like one and don't like the other?

Both are perfectly accurate. It's the very real, accurate, existing contradiction that's unacceptable.

Most polls that are politically "important" break this way. During the ACA most people like the idea of the ACA, in general. As soon as you start getting specific, support dropped. Some couldn't accept this provision or that provision; for some, the ACA wasn't expansive enough. Took a while before support for the overwhelmingly popular law to break the 50% mark. (Yes, it requires a radical redefining of "overwhelmingly popular," but they're just words.)

My favorite poll was where about the same number as you cited liked "Medicare for all." And then, later, when told that Trump supported "Medicare for all" the level of support dropped below 50%.

It's. A. Rorschach. Test.

[PatrickforO]

8. Missed my point, there Igel.

This is ONE poll, not two. I just gave the results a better headline after looking at the spreadsheet with those results.

So it isn't the POLL I didn't like, you see, it is the reporter's misleading headline about the poll.

But just one single poll.

[Gothmog]

10. Great polling

[Politicub]

11. Then keep Medicare Advantage plans in place

Problem solved.