Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[mvd]

1. Disagree completely. She is up there with Sanders for me

A lot of people already have Medicare, so it's not something that is not familiar. We are replacing and not taking away. It's also an improved Medicare that is envisioned. It may take take steps so as to not shock the entire system at once, but it is a very admirable goal. Repukes would call anyone socialist. It's the big ideas like Social Security that people say can't happen, but they do.

[kcr]

5. How is it taking anything away?

There would be nothing stopping anyone from buying insurance unless all the private insurance companies go out of business completely. But given private insurance companies exist in countries that provide universal health care, it's not a given that will happen. So, this just seems like a right-wing talking point akin to "death panels."

[Demsrule86]

27. Wokplace insuramce would be taken away.

[John Fante]

7. Giving people the the same, of superior, health insurance

=/= taking stuff away from people.

Social Security raised taxes at a time when America was still hurting economically, so it was much riskier than Medicare for all.

[safeinOhio]

25. I have Medicare and union health care.

Until I got Medicare my UAW health care was denying me all kinds of care and lots of co-payments. You might want to talk to those of us that had union/employer health care for years and how much better it is when you become eligible for Medicare.

[Demsrule86]

28. My son has uaw and it is goldplated..

He pays no deductibles and has great insurance. I don't want to go on Medicare. It will cost me more than my workplace plan and give less coverage.

[safeinOhio]

34. I've had gold-plated UAW care for 47 years.

Always have had deductibles and before I had Medicare I had been denied all kinds of service that now I get without a fight. Every time I went to the hospital with my UAW Blue cross/Blue shield I was denied and told it was not covered as it was not life threatening. Never happens with Medicare.

The big part is also how we lose auto worker jobs to countries that have universal health care. I worked for 30 year is a Detroit auto plant and we were always worried about plants going to Canada as the company did not have to pay for health care. Cost auto companies over $20k/year to pay for employ health care. Now the the Union will have a chance to recover that $20K and turn it into wages for the workers. Of course the Publicans never mention that.

[watoos]

41. Most employer insurance plans

stop when the employee retires, at least for the little people in the company.

[kcr]

2. You don't want to hear about polls?

Well, how did you hear M4A is a political loser? I'm guessing it must have been some kind of poll.

[Demsrule86]

29. They have done polls that show only 17 % support it when told

workplace insurance goes away. It is a political loser.

[safeinOhio]

36. How about when you tell them that

that $20K spent by the company for their health care and now be turned in to wages? Then talk to retirees that have had both and how you never go thru those denials you get from Blue Cross.

[brooklynite]

45. You can promise that how?

[DeltaLitProf]

4. Horse-pucky

Trump will call even the most conservative Democrat a socialist in wall-to-wall ads. And if she wins the election on a Medicare for All platform, then by definition Medicare for All will not be forced. That's how democracy works.

[cwydro]

6. "Demagogue that issue to death."

“Dukakis/Kerry her to death...” Wth?

Verbs can be your friends. Try them sometime.

[RDANGELO]

8. Here is the deal.

The great majority of people get their health insurance through through employers, and they are content with it. If you push everybody into medicare for all, you are going to have some angry people. It's not the socialism thing. If De Blasio or Warren get the nomination, they are going to have to walk it back, or they are going to have one hell of a selling job on their hands.

We are going to get there eventually: With the employer based policies the premiums. deductibles, and out of pocket payments keep going up. More employers are going to just stop doing it because it is a cost to their business.

[Voltaire2]

10. They are? They love copays deductibles

denial of coverage surprise out of network costs?

[RDANGELO]

12. Polls have shown that medicare for all is popular until people are told that it means that they lose

their current coverage. Then it goes under water.

[Voltaire2]

18. Push poll says what?

[RDANGELO]

19. It's a fact that a lot of people who like the idea of Medicare for all

don't know that it means they lose their current coverage.

[Ghost Dog]

44. With something far superior. Present coverage replaced

with something far superior, and that releases funds for more employment and higher wages.

[Voltaire2]

17. Hardly anyone has that.

Most of us have large premiums huge copays mystery out of network bills, large deductibles, an average of around 6000 per person in healthcare expenses.

[Demsrule86]

30. I pay very little.

[safeinOhio]

37. Here is the real deal

I have both. 80% of my doctor cost are covered by Medicare and another 10% is covered by my UAW/Ford Blue cross/Bluesheild. We get both.

[Voltaire2]

9. Lulzd.

The division between candidates in the pocket of the healthcare industry and those advocating for real substantive reform was clear.

[stopbush]

11. The big problem with MFA is that many people who have insurance through their employers

would end up paying a lot more for MFA.

The last 4 jobs I had, my employer paid 100% of my premiums. I could add my family members onto the plan. Sometimes, adding on was prohibitively expensive, so we went a different route.

I am going on Medicare in Sept. I will be paying $135 a month for Parts A &B. I will pay an additional $20 for dental/vision/hearing. Supplemental will cost me $0. So, I will be paying $155 a month. My wife is already on Medicare, paying $155 a month. So, our cost is $310 a month. If the family was on MFA, that would be at least another $310 a month for our two kids, or $620 a month just in premiums. Add to that the fact that the payroll deduction for Medicare would need to increase 400-500% on every working stiff in the country to cover 100% of patients - rather than the current 19% who are covered thru Medicare - and the added costs become very real.

Selling that to people who already have employer-provided insurance is a real challenge.

[msongs]

14. if you have such great care why are you dumping it to go on medicare? nt

[Demsrule86]

32. You don't have a choice. When you turn 65 insurance kicks you on to Medicare

Which is not as great as some think.

[watoos]

43. You worded that very nicely,

your employer doesn't cover you when you retire does he?

[Habibi]

20. I've been a contract worker for the last 4 years.

The agencies that have employed me offer extremely expensive insurance: high premiums, high deductibles, and co-pays – plus an “administrative” fee every month you’re enrolled. The last agency I worked for offered a plan that started with a $6000 deductible that didn’t even kick in until you’d been with them for three months. So my recent experience with employer-based health insurance is the opposite of yours.

I understand what you’re saying, though. I just wonder how many employers are as generous as yours.

[karynnj]

24. Why do you assume that employers now paying 100 percent of premiums will pay nothing toward medicare

Like you I am on Medicare. I am also retired from AT&T. Before I turned 65, my husband and I were on their plan where I paid part of the premium, had a deductible and paid a percent of many costs. Now, my husband and I are both on Medicare and we have a reimbursement account funded by AT&T that pays $2700 for me and $1500 for my husband toward medical expenses.

Our out of pocket expenses for medical, vision and dental, including Medicare premiums, medigap premiums, and all payments is lower than before we were old enough for Medicare.

For union people or management people, it is entirely possible that similar accounts will be offered OR their salaries will rise. I know that companies look at the compensation package as a whole when making an offer.

The big loser will be the insurance companies, not employees.

[Midwestocrat]

13. Agreed.

2018 was the year of the moderate suburban woman: they carried Democratic candidates from Salt Lake City to Oklahoma City to Kansas City to Des Moines to Charleston, SC. We'd be fools to ignore that.

[Raine]

16. I think so too. nt

[emmaverybo]

21. Americans want choice. Medicare4All could be the deal-breaker. Many ways to get to universal

coverage and still preserve choice.

[wyldwolf]

22. eh. I don't think she'll be the demnom, but not because of her policies.

[Funtatlaguy]

23. MFA is worthy of debate. She may have moved some

Bernie folks toward her last night.
Could help her in the primary.
As for the general, as important as this one issue is, the General is a referendum on Trump.
If the economy remains “considered string” it will be close no matter who our nominee is.
If there’s any perceived slippage, we win in a landslide.

[Demsrule86]

26. I agree. After I heard her message...i new she would not win a general.

This is what happens whem you run on deta8led policy...you give the otherside ammunition. I eould vote for het in a genetal but not the primary.

[iamthebandfanman]

31. Whats weird is

you can criticize another democrat and not get your post removed and a warning for breaking the 'no talking bad about fellow democrats' rule.
i seem to catch that wrap anytime i post something critical of someone else in the primary race.
weird how that works.

[True Dough]

35. You have one "hide" over the past 90 days

You're not doing that badly!

There are far too many juries summoned based on alerts over bashing Democrats, IMO. This is primary season and some DUers are faaaar too sensitive. They must read something negative about their candidate and immediately go into "hall monitor" mode.

I think the majority of people here are reasonable about constructive criticism being tolerated. No sense in having a discussion forum during a primary if we'll all forced to say, "Every one of the candidates is excellent but mine is the absolute best!" The candidates don't do that themselves when they're on stage for the debates!

[stonecutter357]

40. lol you have one hide !

[pansypoo53219]

33. most people do not pay attention til the convention, so....meh.

[Mike Nelson]

38. I somewhat agree...

… I like "Medicare for all - as an option" and I think those Dems running will have to stress the second part for the General Election. I can see her winning the nom with this message... she is a smart woman and knows how to reach the audience. She knows how to compromise and I think she will... the Senate will, hopefully, be Democratic - but they won't be full of people who agree with Warren. I think we would do better against Crooked Donald with a more "moderate" candidate, but I do think she can win. Of the more "left" candidates, Warren knows how to communicate the ideas.

[ms liberty]

39. Gee new member, you sound just like the ad that RW group is running

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[MFM008]

42. Whoa

Disagree.

[watoos]

46. Hmm, let's see,

Medicare isn't a great deal because its pool is comprised of old people and old people are prone to getting sick.

Medicare for all may be a bad way to word single payer health care. If Warren and Sanders are pushing for a single payer health care system like Canada where everything is paid for, that's a horse of a different color isn't it?