Medicare for All - Full Text of the Bill

[HerbChestnut]

Since there's still so much confusion on what exactly Medicare for All does, partly thanks to some of our Democratic candidates, I'll be posting a link to the full text of the bill from time to time. Happy reading.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[LAS14]

1. Excellent idea. Can anyone post a summary also? nt

[saidsimplesimon]

2. I support the aspirations for

this as the ultimate goal. I recognize that public support depends on allowing those who have existing medical insurance to keep it. It's a complex issue and not many voters will take the time to read or comprehend the benefits for individuals with or without existing coverage.

I hope that Elizabeth Warren modifies her General Election platform.

[HerbChestnut]

5. Yeah, it's complex, but healthcare as an issue is complex.

There is no simple solution to fixing the healthcare crisis.

[blm]

26. Only in America - greed makes it more complex here than in

the rest of the civilized world.

Thank you for the thread.

[LAS14]

3. Can I get a leg up for learning how to read this stuff?

Well, I went to the link and "transitional medicare buy-in option" caught my eye. I wanted to see what it was about. But I was immediately paralyzed. If someone could answer my specific questions (enclosed by ****), it might give me a leg up in learning how to read this stuff.

tia
las

SEC. 1001. LOWERING THE MEDICARE AGE.
(a) In General.—Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“TRANSITIONAL MEDICARE BUY-IN OPTION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS

*** What does 'transitional' mean here? I don't see anything that suggests "transition" below. ***

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Every individual who meets the requirements described in paragraph (3) shall be eligible to enroll
under this section. ***What does the word 'section' mean?***
*** What section is "this" section?***

***Same questions appy wherever these two words show up.***

“(2) PART A, B, AND D BENEFITS.—An individual enrolled under this section is entitled to the same benefits (and shall receive the same protections) under this title as an individual who is entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under parts B and D, including the ability to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan that provides qualified prescription drug coverage (an MA–PD plan).

“(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY.—The requirements described in this paragraph are the following:
*** There many different requirements listed below. How are they reconciled? ***

“(A) The individual is a resident of the United States.

“(B) The individual is—

“(i) a citizen or national of the United States; or

“(ii) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

“(C) The individual is not otherwise entitled to benefits under part A or eligible to enroll under part A or part B.

“(D) The individual has attained the applicable years of age but has not attained 65 years of age.

“(4) APPLICABLE YEARS OF AGE DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘applicable years of age’ means—

“(A) effective January 1 of the first year following the date of enactment of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, the age of 55;

[ehrnst]

16. Here is a good source:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/compare-medicare-for-all-public-plan-proposals/

[LAS14]

19. Thanks! nt

[George II]

4. The confusion isn't "partly thanks to some of our Democratic candidates", it's because of....

....the vagueness of the "bill" and how it will be funded.

[beastie boy]

9. Just by reading the above responses, I can tell that the confusion about the bill

is not only emanating from some of our Democratic candidates, but is apparently shared by the DU readers.

I would suggest that the bill itself is confusing. In addition, by just glancing at the bill, I have an issue with its Section 107 and how it relates to Section 303. Under Section 107, It appears that, if a service is covered by this proposed law, it would be illegal to purchase coverage or services in addition to what is covered in the Act. Yet, the same Section says that there is nothing in it that prohibits you from alternatively purchasing services not covered in the Act. This is confusing as hell. For instance (and it is just an example) if the Act covers an extraction of one tooth, are you or are you not allowed to privately pay for an extraction of a second tooth?

Additionally, Section 801 prohibits you to use your private pension benefits to pay for the benefits covered in the Bill. Does this mean I contributed to my pension fund for nothing?

And I am not even talking about where the money will come from. Since there is no official cost analysis to go with the bill, it would be a completely esoteric exercise to raise the issue.

[wasupaloopa]

6. This is a Sanders proposed bil. It is not on the floor and never will be.

Sanders has proposed numerous bills. They never become law. This is not M4A it is a Bernie plan.

M4A if it ever becomes law will be bipartisan compromise like the ACA was.

[HerbChestnut]

7. It's the policy that's being debated during the campaign.

[wasupaloopa]

8. Yes if you are Bernie fan

[dsc]

15. The ACA got 0 GOP votes

now it did start with a GOP idea to be fair but 0 is still 0

[HerbChestnut]

11. Marketing.

[TwilightZone]

13. Yes.

The name is a significant part of the problem.

It was done for simplicity (and because Medicare is popular), but it's misleading and guaranteed to cause confusion for exactly the reason you note. It's not Medicare.

[TidalWave46]

14. Can you point me to the section that outlines how it will be funded? Thanks.

Do you have a link to the CBO Score?

Yes, I've read it.

[ehrnst]

18. Here you go:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-05/55150-singlepayer.pdf

[LAS14]

20. Thanks! A much needed document!!!! nt

[TidalWave46]

22. Read it.

It is a much needed document that outlines the fact that the legislation put forward is seriously lacking.

[TidalWave46]

21. Thanks for the link.

I just spent a lot of time reading it just to find out that the CBO doesn’t have what is needed to give any clear picture of this piece of legislation.

[brooklynite]

23. Sec 107 (a): "it shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance"

SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.

That's what'll kill it

[HerbChestnut]

24. That's a necessary clause to prevent people from paying for the same insurance twice.

[brooklynite]

25. They won't pay for it twice if you give them the option to choose

If MfA is as popular as it's advocates claim, market forces will remove the desire to keep a private plan.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Where is the part for increasing healthcare workers?

And Healthcare facilities? We are overwhelmed now.

I’m at the point I don’t care what we call universal Healthcare if provisions aren’t made to actually provide Heathcare.

[TidalWave46]

28. There is going to have to be a considerable transition period.

Things like this bill will not address that. There will have to be protections and incentives put in place for healthcare workers. Such an important part of the puzzle.