Here's what I don't understand about the question on "outlawing" private insurance.

[CTyankee]

That question was asked of all of our primary candidates: would you as president support outlawing private insurance? (or similar wording) and asked for a show of hands.

I hope all of our primary candidates would rephrase that question as follows: if your need is related to your health you would be covered. If you mean care that is primarily for enhancement of your looks, e.g. breast enlargement, facelifts, etc., you would pay for it yourself. So a surgeon or dermatologist whose whole practice is devoted to enhancements would have to adjust his/her practice accordingly.

Isn't that the best way for our primary candidates to proceed? The way this question is asked, though, makes it look like Dems will take away your primary care doc or your specialist in whatever medical need you have.

Tell me if I am missing something, but we are losing bigly on this issue and we have to establish some clarity on it.

[dawg day]

1. In most countries with national health insurance, I think--

private insurance is allowed, like for elective surgery, or to get better accommodations when hospitalized. It's not a big deal-- most people will go into public option, and most employers would be glad to pass on the enormous expense of subsidizing insurance to the government. This will be hard on the insurance companies and investors, no doubt, but lots of industries have become obsolete in the past.

[CTyankee]

2. But this is killing us in the polls. It makes us out to be completely out of touch with the needs of

the people and the pukes are playing it up.

[Hortensis]

60. Sanders' plan is extremist and unpassable of course,

even for Democratic voters once they get a good look. So of course the RW has weaponized it.

[oldsoftie]

8. I know in England you can buy health insurance.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Employer provided health insurance was an outgrowth of wage freezes in WWII

Employers could not offer more money for critical positions during WWII, due to the government mandated wage freezes. so, creatively, they began to search for ways to offer employees more, without violating the government imposed wage freezes.

Now, 60 years later, employers offer health care and life insurance as golden handcuffs; stay with us, and you're protected. Leave and you're on your own.

This is why we need single payer health insurance; to take away this enslaving tool from corporations. So that we can change jobs without consequences.

[redstateblues]

51. MFA is a losing stand. Repealing Obamacare is Political suicide

[msongs]

4. outlawing is a perjorative word. cancel or eliminate would be a bit more neutral nt

[CTyankee]

5. Yes, it is a loaded word, which is why the networks used it. I thought it was strange when I first

heard it. I would rephrase the question and say "If you want or need health care, it will be covered. If you are looking for cosmetic work it would not be covered since it would not be health care, altho it would still be available."

So what's the problem?

[thesquanderer]

7. Are you sure you heard the word "outlaw" on the networks?

(I mean, other than maybe out of the mouth of a right wing pundit.)

The word used in the debates was "abolish."

And what hasn't been made clear that the only thing tentatively being abolished is coverage that duplicates what is covered by medicare. Coverage would be available for anything left uncovered. Which then also moves the debate into the territory of exactly what should be covered, where is another area where there is room for different perspectives.

[oldsoftie]

9. But people who are happy with what they have arent going to trust govt to replace it.

People already dont trust government much as it is. Then we have the mistake of "If you like your doctor..." And thats what these people will think of.
But make a system that people on insurance will envy and THEN they'll voluntarily start dropping it

[CTyankee]

10. Perhaps I did. I remember being somewhat shocked to hear it.

Here I am a bit confused. I had already gotten coverage under Medicare when Obamacare came in and nothing changed and I went on being my primary care doctor's patient.

So what was the point of the question to those candidates? To me it seemed the press was trying to infer that if you had coverage you liked these candidates would take it away. I don't understand that.

[thesquanderer]

36. 2 things: You were already on Medicare, so Obamacare didn't really affect you, and...

...yes, the point of the question was that some candidates' plans would mean people would not necessarily be able to maintain the exact same (non-medicare) coverage they currently have. Even if the new coverage is better overall, people are afraid of any possible downsides and often just don't like change (and maybe worse, change imposed by the government). The biggest concern is that they won't be able to keep their doctor (just as today, people who hit a certain age and transition from private insurance to medicare may need to switch doctors, because not all doctors take medicare).

One principle of "medicare for all" and abolishing any directly competitive plans is that, with no other insurance available, there would no longer be many doctors who would not take medicare. It's easy today for a doctor to say, "we take lots of insurance, but we don't take medicare" and still have a very large pool of potential patients. If that option were not available, those same doctors would either have to take medicare or just tell people they don't take any insurance at all, and in that latter case, it would be hard for many doctors to maintain a practice. So for all intents and purposes, MFA means that, unlike today, doctors will almost all take medicare as a matter of course.

[Demsrule86]

21. It is the same thing...it is madness to run on MFA.

[redstateblues]

52. Political Suicide

[emmaverybo]

55. +1

[Demsrule86]

57. I really like Biden's plan...and I think most primary voters who want to win will too.

[Demsrule86]

73. Exactly...consider what happened to Clinton care... we lost the House and the Senate...and that was

just for tying to take away work insurance...

[BlueWI]

71. It's not madness.

It's a difference in opinion on what system works best. Many Democrats support MFA. Why not advocate for what makes sense to you and Biden, but respect differences rather than oversimplify and fear-monger?

[Demsrule86]

72. It is not about a difference of opinion...it is clearly what the voters will do...and that is

not elect us...MFA will make us lose the 2020 general...taking away work insurance is a deal breaker.

[BlueWI]

74. In 2016 voters elected a racist whose platform was

repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump's health care stance was a vague policy with no detail whatsoever. And yet, he won.

This fact alone indicates that public opinion is far more complex than you are making it out to be. Obamacare cost us Congress in 2010 and won us Congress in 2018. It all depends on how effectively the campaign builds support for its policies.

Oversimplified views of public opinion are a pattern for our party and have cost us elections. We should be asking ourselves why the candidates supporting MFA have strong support among Democrats - none as high as Biden's individual numbers, but at least a 12-20% portion for Harris, Sanders, Warren. IMO it's the clarity and the boldness of MFA that makes it poll reasonably well, even among Republicans, and that's a clue to how a campaign for health care reform should be run. The Biden campaign realizes this and has rolled out its proposal using a game-changer rhetorical approach.

Our party loses when policy proposals sound like half measures. We need to modernize our communication based on the actual state of public opinion. If we had done that in 2009 we might have gotten the public option then instead of 10 years later, still trying to get what party moderates took off the table way back then.

The fear-mongering over MFA needs to stop. Of course Republicans paint MFA as scary socialism - they did that with Obamacare too! We have to be build public support for any proposal. That takes creative thinking and an accurate view of public opinion.

There are genuine differences within the party and within the country on health care issues. If Biden wins the nomination we can all advocate for his plan in the general. Meanwhile, it's better to respectfully debate the genuine differences of opinion on health care policy among Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

75. He promised to improve healthcare...with something better...but the polls are clear...and

medicare is expensive It is a political loser when folks are told workplace insurance goes away...and not a great idea to to begin with IMHO...I have used it for my sis in law...and there are limitations and problems. We have the ACA it can be improved and costs regulated...we can do it much easier than starting from scratch which makes no sense...MFA couldn't pass the house today and it won't anytime soon...never mind the Senate. We can reach universal care with the ACA and that is the goal.

[guillaumeb]

6. One can purchase private insurance in Canada.

But everyone is covered for medical care.

And even many workers with employer provided insurance discover its limitations when they actually have to use it for things more complex than regular care.

[CTyankee]

11. What do you mean by "things more complex" than regular care? I don't understand...

[guillaumeb]

12. I was a Federal employee.

And everyone "knows" how good the insurance is.

My special needs son received PT, OT, and Speech Therapy for 2 years, and needed more, but BC/BS decided to deny further care after 2 years.

The pediatric neurologist wrote letters insisting on the need for the therapies, but BC/BS would not agree.

At that point, our option was to pay the $135/hour current rate, or hire an attorney, or settle for the 3 hours per week of school provided group therapy.

The doctors, therapists, and the hospital all told us that BC/BS did this to every patient needing therapy.

And that is one story of many that shows that insurance companies, even non-profits, put money before patients.

[CTyankee]

14. That needs to be improved, obviously. It is terrible what your family went through.

As retirees, we pay for medigap coverage. It is affordable to us and we are not rich. I would trust that all of our potential candidates will have heard your story and so many stories like it and will see this for an urgent need that must be remedied.

[guillaumeb]

15. Agreed.

My opinion, based on my reading and listening, is that if people were allowed to buy into Medicare, those with substandard plans and probably others as well would do so.

Yes, the market for private insurance would shrink, as it did in Canada as the provinces rolled out single payer, but the outcome would be better for all of us.

[George II]

13. Unfortunately people aren't aware of how private insurance companies are an integral part...

...of the existing Medicare system. No private insurance companies and Medicare would crash.

A big part of the administration of Medicare is handled by private insurance companies, who have been contracted by Medicare to do so. The price to private insurance to do it is much cheaper than Medicare doing it themselves.

[Cha]

17. Thanks for your explanation, George.

[Lordquinton]

23. Still have that bridge for sale

Cheap and convenient.

[George II]

28. Medicare doesn't cover dental work.

[Lordquinton]

43. Most private insurance doesn't cover it either

Or vision. Why is it that these are excluded?

[LAS14]

67. Gee, then how could Warren and Sanders and (???) raise their...

... hands for eliminating private health insurance?

[George II]

68. Not to put them down, but as I've been saying for months (years?).....

Anyone who wants to eliminate private insurance companies as a byproduct of "Medicare for All" isn't fully versed in how the current Medicare system works.

[question everything]

16. I've always compared health insurance to education

All of us have to pay for public educations whether we have kids in school or not. We pay through our property taxes. Each parent, of course, is free to send his/her kids to private school.

Same should be with health insurance and poor sanders was ambushed in the last debate. Of course a universal health care will have to be supported by our taxes. As it is in all the countries that have them.

But each of us should be free to purchase private insurance.

The problems with that question was that, first, mentioning tax while running for office is a kiss of death and, two, we have been hearing so much of "freebies" - health care, college, busing, mortgage? that the idea of actually paying for something is a shock..

[TreasonousBastard]

18. I found the question ridiculous and the answers pandering, but...

nothing better is to be expected in that sort of format.

Was it really so long ago that we had the huge battle getting the severely compromised Obamacare passed? The idea, as with all such huge bills, was to start things rolling and build on it in the future.

And I suppose everyone's also forgotten that instead of building on it, there was an immediate attempt to destroy it, getting worse when we lost congress. And the destruction efforts continue to this day.

So, what makes anyone think we could possibly do something as drastic as eliminate the insurance companies that provide some measure of service for all those millions who have it?

On top of that, Medicare would require major revisions to work properly as a replacement.

Great rallying cry, I suppose, but just ain't gonna happen.

[ooky]

19. However we phrase it - its a terrible idea to tell

130 million people we are going to take away their employer based insurance and put them on something we can't explain how will work or be paid for. It will scare the hell out of a lot of voters who already like their health care. Seniors will also worry about how MFA will affect their Medicare.

We need to focus on everyone who needs health care or better health care options and leave the people alone who already have health care they like.

[Demsrule86]

20. That is not the issue,. People don't want to be forced on MFA and lose workplace insurance.

17% approval if private/ workplace insurance goes away. MFA won't be paased ...need 60 votes so running on it is foolish.

[elleng]

22. Much too much confusion on the health care issue,

perpetuated by EVERYONE 'the game.'

Has anyone listened to John Delaney's plan, and his reason for saying 'medicare for all is a bad idea?'

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/11/18220118/2020-presidential-campaign-medicare-for-all-john-delaney

[Recursion]

24. In Canada it is literally illegal to provide private insurance for a covered procedure

makes it look like Dems will take away your primary care doc or your specialist in whatever medical need you have

OK, but, here's the thing: that's exactly what we're going to do. If we want to give access to everybody, there are going to be people who lose their current doctor.

[Voltaire2]

25. How did you get from replacing your crappy

private insurance to taking away your doctor?

[Recursion]

42. Because we want to find a way for doctors to do 33% more work for 50% less money

We want universal access to healthcare? That means doctors start treating the 25% of the country that's avoiding treatments now. That's 33% more work.

We want to save money on healthcare? That means doctors need to make about 50% of what they do now, like in Europe.

If we change how and for what doctors are paid, doctors will see different people. We need to stop pretending this isn't the case. Lots of independent practices would end up going out of business and consolidating. Doctors will need to be incented to move from lucrative overserved areas to underserved areas. Lots of hospitals will need to close (we have way too many hospitals as it is). It's willful blindness to pretend that everybody will be able to keep the medical providers they have now.

[Voltaire2]

63. That's a lot of assumptions.

There is nothing in either the house or senate mfa bills that require doctors to be paid 50% of their current rates.

We do need more doctors. Oddly those horrible socialist hell holes of Europe for the most part have a better doctor per Capita ratio than we do.

I guess the for profit insurance companies are doing a really shitty job negotiating rates, which is odd, but heck it’s private sector work, we can’t expect any better.

[Recursion]

70. Yes, there is

There is nothing in either the house or senate mfa bills that require doctors to be paid 50% of their current rates.

Yes, there is: Medicare. Medicare pays significantly less than private insurance. It works out to roughly a 50% pay cut if all reimbursement is done through it.

Oddly those horrible socialist hell holes of Europe for the most part have a better doctor per Capita ratio than we do.

We're about normal in doctors per capita in the OECD. The bigger issue is that ours make twice as much as normal, and are concentrated in lucrative specialties and geographical areas. They're going to need to spread out, and some specialists are going to need to become GPs.

[VarryOn]

69. I do wonder about the the supply of doctors under plans that greatly increase the number of insured

Not to mention the supply of nurses, lab technicians, and other healthcare workers.

Whatever ultimately gets passed, demand will certainly increase with more Americans and possibly others covered.

Hopefully, very smart people are thinking on how to increase the capacity of the healthcares ystem of all the players. And part of that is keeping the current workers ( e.g. doctors, nurses, techs, etc) and new ones for the future. Working everyone to death and hampering compensation wont help.

And no, I'm not employed in healthcare.

[eilen]

26. My current health insurance that I have through my employer

is better than Medicare-- Medicare covers 80% of costs so there is a 20% co-insurance. My insurance has a copay of about $30 for office visits to $100 on Emergency room visits (which is applied to my inpatient charges if admitted). I also have a 1% co-insurance. So no, I don't want M4A as a replacement. My employer currently pays half the cost of the policy. My policy covers me and my husband and costs us less than what my mother was paying for her Medicare A, B and D policies (and hers were subsidized as she was over 65).

Even ACA would cost me more because the ACA does not offer a family policy (or at least it did not when I checked into it when considering an employment move). Benefit packages are a large factor in deciding on employment.

I suspect many fellow employees where I work feel the same way. We all work for one of the largest employers in my town. I think that M4A should be offered to anyone who does not have access to employer provided healthcare. But I don't want my employer provided healthcare "abolished" or "outlawed."

[CTyankee]

27. But this makes your employer your health care financial provider and no wonder you like it.

But do you ever consider what your employer could do if it weren't in the health care provision picture at all? Two things to consider: having workers that have health care and in doing what they are in business for in the first place. If the provision of health care were in the hands of a MFA program set up federally and administered locally, that would then free up lots of the businesses' money to do what they do to do it better, instead of having to be a little health care provider and staffing health care benefits officers. They could hire more staff to do what the business what designed to do in the first place. It could pay their staff higher wages.

We have plenty of models everywhere that we could work from. Germany has a great public/private health care arrangement. In fact, every other country in the world has publicly provided health care. Why is that? Are there workers/population as a whole just plain stupid? Why haven't they adopted our system if it is so great?

[Demsrule86]

29. This is why i favor the ACA. MFA would be hugely disruptive and destroy our political chances and

Fail like Clintoncare.

[CTyankee]

31. Except that people like Medicare. That's the point of calling it Medicare for All.

No matter what we call it, the pukes will hate it and fight like hell to prevent it from ever happening. The PR on this is calling it something that the American people know and like: Medicare. How we tweak it after we get it will be another area to work in and we can do this. Fer gawd's sake we won World War II and put a man on the moon...

[MichMan]

38. People like Medicare because the premiums are low

That is because they are prepaid for 40 plus years before people are eligible to use it. We have no idea what premiums would cost for people to become eligible at birth.

Currently recipients pay $135 per month, but they also had been pre paying with every paycheck for 40 years. What if the premiums end up being $250 per month for someone 30 years old. For a couple that's $500 a month plus a couple hundred for each child.

Sure people with employer insurance that are happy with it could continue with it. Until their employer decides to drop it and tell everyone to take MFA.

Until we have some idea of what the premiums will be, it is difficult to judge the level of support by voters. I suspect that some % at this time that are in favor believe it will be completely "free" to them and paid for by others. Whether or not they support a plan that requires them to pay premiums remains to be seen

[CTyankee]

39. Every other country in the world has figured it out. And their populations don't want our system

of health care. Obviously, health care, paid by spreading the cost on the population as a whole, is the only way to do it. This isn't rocket science, as the saying goes.

[MichMan]

40. Most if not all have 15-20 % VAT

If that is what it takes, then OK

[CTyankee]

41. i presume that if they hate that VAT they would vote to abandon it and put in another system.

That none of them wants to do that speaks volumes.

[Demsrule86]

45. See that is the thing...the majority of folks don't like it if private insurance goes away...and for

good reason...it was never set up for all and will not work well...it is a bad idea. And has a no chance of passing in the near future but if GOP types shout about our taking their health care away, we could very well lose in 20...you have to deal the hand you are dealt...I don't like Medicare for all...I prefer the ACA with a public option and end up with universal coverage like Switzerland or German or France.

[Demsrule86]

30. Also business will just use any savings to buy back their stock...My insurance

Is subsidized by my employer so and millions will pay more. You won't get this through and the attempt will hurt us badly.

[CTyankee]

32. We compete with other nations of the world where the workers essentially have MFA.

Their companies are freed from paying health care costs to compete with us and can use that money for R&D and to pay their workers better to keep the talent they have. That makes sense to me.

When I traveled extensively through Europe doing art research I always asked the people if they would prefer our system of health care. Their answers could not have been more resounding: NO.
And obviously the companies there humming along don't want the additional cost of administering health care plans. This just makes good sense to me.

MFA can be better positioned to show how it can provide Americans with better health care. If you look at statistics on our health care system as opposed to, say, Germany you would see that we come out worse statistically on such benchmarks as maternal and child health.

A healthy population is more productive. Businesses like productivity of workers.

[Demsrule86]

46. We compete with workers who have no health care of any sort...in third world countries.

[CTyankee]

49. We do not compete with European countries?

I am sure we do exploit the poverty in third world countries but I was under the impression that we also compete with European countries as well. But I am no economist (I try to leave that for Paul Krugman).

[MichMan]

50. Depends on the type of business

I work for an auto supplier. We have to bid against suppliers located in Mexico and China on every new part. It isn't easy winning business and trying to keep our plants operating at a profit and employing Americans with decent benefits.

[CTyankee]

56. Speaking of autos, the Italians have an interesting history in auto making.

I learned a bit about that when I found myself in Turin on one of my art history trips to Italy. I didn't know that Turin (Torino) was Italy's Detroit and made some fabulous cars. It was a delight learning about these beautifully crafted cars.

[Demsrule86]

58. They are not the issue...the problem is third world hell holes.

And I like Biden's new plan...I do not like MFA...My sis in law is on it...it is expensive and there are deductibles...when hubs and I are forced on it ...it will cost us way more...why start over...build on the ACA in order to get universal care. Medicare is forcing folks in my area to choose between care, medicine and food.

[Voltaire2]

64. We are working on only competing with

low compensation workers in developing nations. It is the Great Project of our post Reagan republic.

[beachbum bob]

33. A single payer system doesn't outlaw private insurance any more than Medicare outlaws it

we have Medicare Advantage policy that pays in conjunction with Medicare and all healthcare claims go to them for processing/


The SINGLE and SIMPLIEST fix is to make ONE standard healthcare form that ALL insurers and all providers must use. That would reduce the overhead that the healthcare indusrty must have to process literally hundreds of different claim forms into one.

Why isn;t this simple fix even mentioned? Is it becauses it is so simple?

[CTyankee]

34. of course. Makes good sense.

This is what I say to people who raise all kinds of objections to MFA: We won World War 2 and put a man on the moon. We can't do this?

[beachbum bob]

35. the problem is the understanding. To some the MFA sounds way too socialistic and unknown

and way better to educate them on Single Payer and emphasize private insurance is still working. The one thing I know about democrats, they can't market anything very well.

I always maintain the reason why GOP wins, they market a clear and succinct message, democrats don't do that and even worse they don;t see it.

To me the discussion about abortion by democrats should never mention abortion and saying "Choice" has become tired and worn...we should always frame the abortion discussion all about "FREEDOM" and say that word 10x to each time we say "choice".


That is how GOP does it so why not us?

[CTyankee]

37. It is ironic because the reason Dems came up with Medicare for All is that people know Medicare

and are not put off by it: it means something good ("Mom's on Medicare and she is well taken care of&quot . So then the pukes changed their tactics to make Medicare a negative: you'll be thrown off the health care you already have and then the media with their asking the pukes question to the candidates to raise their hand if they would abolish private health care. WE CAN'T LET THE MEDIA DO THIS. Since we can't control the media we have to better instruct our candidates to refuse the question because it is totally misleading and paints us into a corner.

[Demsrule86]

47. That is a great idea...but I still don't want MFA.

[Everyman Jackal]

44. I am 100% service-connected disabled and the VA pays for everything

including eyeglasses, hearing aids, speech therapy and 18 meds, vitamins, eye gels and nose spray. If a VA specialist cannot see me in 20 days they send me to a non-VA specialist through Community Care or Tri West. In an emergency, the paramedics pick me up and take me to the closest hospital all paid for by the VA. Everyone should have the same type of healthcare I have. Not MFA.

[Demsrule86]

48. I agree with that....

[questionseverything]

53. actually the m4a that bernie is discribing is very much like what u have

[Everyman Jackal]

54. It looks good.

I just read about what is covered and the cost per individual which seems to be a cap of $200/year for meds and I think prosthetics. Granted I read it about 11 PM and I did not read all 100 pages. I guess he wants to keep the name Medicare because most people know about Medicare.

[questionseverything]

66. yes the medicare part is just because it is well known

[Demsrule86]

59. No it isn't...and I shudder to think what would happen to such a plan if the GOP were in control...

Those who support MFA...and are on Medicare are probably lower income and medicaid picks up some of the costs...because by the time you pay premiums or taxes,deductible for two folks ...private insurance has family plans...it will be awful...bad idea. I do not like MFA and running on it would cost us the election.

[Hortensis]

61. :) Keep pointing this out! The VA is genuine socialized medicine.

Medicare is not socialized medicine in the slightest, only government regulated for-profit, and by the time people buy the very necessary auxiliary plans to make it sorta comparable, costs are over twice as much.

Socialized VA-for-All-Who-Want-It would be a great option -- someday when it might become doable.

Itm, the more MfA boosters who understand VA costs and benefits are far superior the better. For a long time many assumed those covered by the VA would just be rolled into Sanders' glorious universal plan (surely better?) and haven't been alarmed at the RW efforts to eliminate the VA.

[Politicub]

62. This thread is a hot mess of people peacocking about their privilege

It’s great if people have an employer-provided plan. But they’re no more deserving of it than the poorest Americans and those who do not have the education or opportunity to get a job with insurance.

It’s true that people will cling to their advantages, so the banning of private insurance isn’t going to get anywhere.

But I would expect people on DU to demand more equity when it comes to health-care justice.

[Marrah_Goodman]

65. Medicare for all would still need private insurance on the side

Medicare part b you pay for and it only covers 80%. The rest you either pay for yourself or you have supplemental insurance for it. If you are low income you can have medicaid as your supplemental.

Medicare is not medicaid.

[tirebiter]

76. All group insurance was called socialist when it first started

If that makes anybody feel better. It makes market sense, too.