Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill 'Medicare for All'

[Lazy Daisy]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Democratic Primaries forum).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/politics/medicare-for-all-lobbyists.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR02y5cJvT0f6xdVPAIrkE_bUzq5u7bS3mQbpDnmyZGPVMqK6JRs3PNElfI

WASHINGTON — Even before Democrats finish drafting bills to create a single-payer health care system, the health care and insurance industries have assembled a small army of lobbyists to kill “Medicare for all,” an idea that is mocked publicly but is being greeted privately with increasing seriousness.

Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. They have hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort. And their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts to the left on health care.



I posted this in primaries because it's part of the discussion here. Most people seem to think all our candidates support single payer, they don't. I apologize if this is the wrong place and will move it to GD if that is the proper place for it.

[Sherman A1]

1. No real surprise

one would expect them to do so.

[Soxfan58]

2. And how many humans?

[Ohiogal]

3. Of course.....

“We have a structure that frankly works for most Americans,” said Charles N. Kahn III, the president of the Federation of American Hospitals..."

What planet is this guy living on? Has he looked at the figures for the number of uninsured Americans? Has he seen the thousands of uninsured and poor that line up for dental care fairs? Has he ever known a senior citizen that must choose between buying prescriptions or paying their rent?

I think not .....

[Recursion]

6. The problem is a majority of the country gets insurance through their employer, and likes it

Employer-provided insurance is extremely popular among people who have it.

That's why when you ask people if they want Medicare For All to to replace private insurance, only 13% support it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Then let the employer pay for the MFA.

This idea that banks masquerading as insurance companies have some sort of secret sauce shuffling OUR money around has to end.

[Lazy Daisy]

21. I believe, but could be wrong

that an employer would contribute as well as the employee

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Just like now.

And higher paid “currently happy” employees could have their pay “grossed up” to cover insurance.

[Lazy Daisy]

27. somewhat

There are many employers that don't provide insurance. More than people would think. I recently worked for a company that split itself up into different companies (office/admin employees, production employees, sales employees) so they didn't have to provide insurance. Under universal healthcare/medicare for all they couldn't do such a think. Although I think their contribution would be far less than private insurance would cost.

[DBoon]

30. They love their employer insurance until they don't

Until they have a major procedure and find out because some detail wasn't covered, they owe tens of thousands of dollars

When the carrier tries to drop their spouse because the spouse does not share the same last name

When they change jobs and have to find a whole new set of medical providers, because the doctor they saw for years doesn't accept the new plan.

I could add to this list, but these are only the ones I have personally experienced.

A simple answer to a poll question isn't the whole story.

[Recursion]

34. Yep. But they love it now

It's frustrating but still true

[DBoon]

15. has he ever gotten a bill for $14,000

because the facility was not in his plan despite the doctor being in the plan?

Private insurers pull all kinds of trick to avoid paying claims. How many people with employer insurance have ended up with huge bills because of the fine print in their policy?

[ZeroSomeBrains]

24. It works for the insurance companies

It doesn't work for people rationing insulin and trying to buy insulin on the black market.

[Demsrule86]

29. Well adopting unpopular stances like Medicare for all replacing work place insurance will lead

to our defeat and it sure won't help anyone if Donnie is re-elected.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

35. I haven't seen the polling you have on MFA

I have seen numbers in the 60's and 70's in approval. And just disregarding those deaths and those struggling as inconsequential is sad. I also don't hear everyone in extacy over their employer health insurance. A lot of people have two thousand dollar deductables making it mostly incapable of serving them. If you noticed Bernie is one of the most popular politicians in the country. A lot of that has to do with his humane approach to those needing health care IMO. And it's far too early in the process to say this person is unelectable or that one isn't.

[Demsrule86]

36. No not if you ask about replacing workplace insurance which MFA does.

I have had 8000 dollar deductibles...so I get it. But polls have shown that people don't favor MFA if it kill work place insurance. Also, MFA won't help the poor...and state have not passed the medicaid expansion or who have changed the rules so we can't count on that working either...a public option for those who can't get the ACA or a good priced ACA or who's states have not expanded medicaid or who have mandatory work laws and such.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

37. I respectfully disagree

You can make a poll say what you want it to depending on what information you give me the respondents and how you phrase it. I imagine having private insurance will be ultimately allowed for those who want plastic surgery and such but if you show the respondents that they will ultimately pay less when these middlemen will no longer be allowed to make money denying coverage and having all this billing nonsense to deal with I think the numbers would be much more in line with what I was referring to. The man who shepherded Canada's health Care system is the country's most beloved man in history so this is not thought of as unpopular when implemented elsewhere.

[lancelyons]

4. It won't take much. Just say a dem candidate farted wrong

We will eat them alive and will be so repulsed we won’t vote.

[Lazy Daisy]

5. not at all

Who ever is the nominee we must push them in the direction WE want.

[Recursion]

7. Replacing private insurance with universal Medicare is incredibly unpopular

It polls at 13% nationally.

This is the same problem Obama ran into: people who have private insurance want to keep it. But if young rich healthy people don't enroll in Medicare For All, it doesn't work.

[MH1]

13. That's why our candidate needs a proposal to help the people who "need" help

That is, know or can be convinced that they need help.

The "Medicare for More" approach can be tailored to address the people who are falling through gaps in the current employer-based + Medicare system. The most obvious are older workers who get laid off and can't get rehired due to age discrimination. Too young for Medicare, but too old to get employer-based health insurance again.

[Recursion]

14. The only people who it really helps are the 6% of the country on the individual market

The poorest third or so of the country is on Medicaid, and for the most part they like it. It's just that there's a section of the middle class that has to buy insurance on their own, and they're screwed, particularly in states that made a point of screwing them. But the whole reason it's unaffordable for them is the same reason a public option is problematic: they're very expensive to insure.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Well there's the 40,000 plus people who die every year due to lack of healthcare.

They need help too.

(According to the AMA)

[Recursion]

22. Many of them have (and even like) their insurance

It's frustrating, to say the least

[Demsrule86]

26. The issue is the states who refuse to expand medicaid and who are those states who are

now allowed to make right wing cuts in Medicaid. A public option for those who don't make enough for the ACA ...it needs to be income driven so the poor can actually benefit. Medicare for all won't help the poor who can't pay those premiums. And stop the Medicaid shit the Donnie did by executive order when we win.

[Lazy Daisy]

20. you don't get enrolled in medicare for all

unlike the ACA, medicare for all is a payroll deduction

[Demsrule86]

28. This led to our defeat in 94 also.

[Politicub]

32. Ain't that the truth?

Universal, comprehensive coverage can be ours. It may be called Medicare or something else.

We have a strong platform on which to build via the ACA. We need to defend our ACA gains while we make healthcare more accessible and universal.

[leftofcool]

8. Medicare for all is unpopular

People who work like the insurance they have since much of it is paid by the employer.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Let the employer pay for the MFA

Who gives a shit who shuffles OUR money around.

I prefer it be done without a profit leech sucking the cream off the top while I’m young and healthy and laying me off on the government with all the other sick people when I’m old.

Combine the pools. This model we have is fucking stupid.

[c-rational]

9. The AMA tried to stop Medicare, and neither the AMA nor the insurance industry is really

interested in societal health. What I did not appreciate about your post was you had to mention it was an HC top lieutenant. Is that subliminal poisoning? I would rather focus on the issue at hand. Regarding that and the dumpster's use of emergency powers, I would suggest the next D president declare national emergency about VA health, set up US Medical Schools to train VA doctors so they graduate with no debt provided they work in the VA for say 250K-500K per year. It would break the stranglehold on the AMA and medical school licensing.

[kennetha]

10. Red Meat Meet Political Reality!

“Medicare for all” is certainly red meat for the we-want-it-all-and-we-want-it-NOW-wishing-it-were-so-will-make-it-so-cause-our-ideas-are-so-morally-awesome-and-who cares-what-“neoliberals”-think-anyway base. But it is a complete political loser in the real world. That’s because the current system, including the imperfect but much more easily improvable ACA, bakes in all kinds of stakeholders, that Medicare for All would completely upset. Sanders, in his typical demagogic fashion, completely ignores reality as morally irrelevant. And because Clinton saw no real need to ever challenge his ideas in detail last time around and thought that she would be in a position to revise and extend the ACA — which is much less of a political lift than tearing it all down and starting from scratch — Sanders’ empty, self-deluded and self-aggrandizing demagoguery got a pass and somehow managed to congeal into a litmus test of progressive purity. What a travesty!

[PatrickforO]

33. Gosh, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

First of all, I find your hyphenated description of people like me a bit offensive.

Second, neoliberalism is what is in charge in Washington now - it is the ideology that we need to deregulate, privatize everything we can, and cut social programs to the bone. Because, hey, we can trust corporations to be good citizens...can't we?

Third, and this question is quite legitimate, why is the US government spending $750 billion on 'defense' better for me and my family than healthcare? Why is a $13 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations better for me and my family than healthcare?

Fourth, I do agree with you that the ACA is easily fixable, but if we are going to talk realpolitik here, Medicare will necessarily have to be expanded. There is a bunch of popular pressure, and if we keep it up, we will likely get a couple of good concessions, such as Medicare eligibility dropped to age 55 or even 50, and a public option.

Fifth - and here's where we digress the most - the root cause of the evils in the healthcare system we have today is the primacy of the shareholder doctrine. If you are a CEO of a publicly held company, your ONLY responsibility is to legally maximize shareholder earnings. So, you're going to bust unions, gobble up pensions if you can get away with it, cut corners on worker safety. You are going to work really hard to give your patients the minimum service you can get away with because to actually provide people with the treatment that would benefit them most is in direct conflict with the profit motive and shareholder earnings. And, finally, you are going to foul the environment if you can get away with it, and simply write off the damage as an 'externality' as long as your shareholders aren't hurt by it.

This is why I plug Medicare for All Americans whenever and however I can, and answer objections line by line.

Still, fixing the ACA and expanding Medicare eligibility would be a fantastic step in the right direction here, and I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that we're going to fight down the well-funded corporate lobbies - because hey, we have Citizens United, corporations are people and dollars are free speech.

Now I have one last question for you. And I ask this question in humility and in utter seriousness:

Why do you ridicule the idea of basing social policy on morality?

[RKP5637]

11. People are so often self-centered and don't give a sh** about others as long as they have what

"they" have/want. Hence for many, healthcare sucks ... and is another reason why the US is consistently at the bottom of the list for many things when compared to other countries. In the US it's all about money. That, is the bottomline, money and profits ... and people come last.

[MH1]

12. Guerrilla strategy is required.

We are up against a formidable and well funded army. We may have the right ideas, but don't have the funding strength to win by conventional means.

I support Medicare for All as a goal, but am not willing to sacrifice on the altar of purity those that could be helped by a program that makes Medicare accessible for those facing age discrimination in layoffs and hiring. There is currently a gap where a person laid off after age 50 will not be able to afford any health coverage at all until they are able to buy into Medicare - currently at 65!! That is a lot of people, people tending to be most in need of medical help.

Yes, full single payer is the right policy. But if we can't get there from here? But we can get somewhere short of that, that helps a lot of people? Hell yeah I'll take "helps a lot of people now" over "helps everyone ... never".

ETA - (apparently I lost my original point here, LOL): Not only does "Medicare for more" have a better chance of actually helping more people sooner, it IS a "guerrilla strategy" that would get us closer to Medicare for All. So the purists should not be attacking it. If it is a step to the goal, take it, ferchrissakes.

[KPN]

16. My view is if we don't go after single payer,

the run of the mill person, which is frankly 90 to 99 percent of us depending on how concentrated wealth actually becomes, will ultimately exist in poverty here in America.

If we go after and do not achieve single payer, perhaps some of those people will avoid poverty; the extent of the “some people” depending upon the extent of what we do achieve. That’s not good enough.

I will not consider anyone who does not strive for at least a viable and accessible to all public option. That’s my minimum. I will favor those candidates who strive for single payer.

[crazytown]

25. This belongs in GD

[PatrickforO]

31. I think we need to revise the way we are looking at this.

'Drift to the left' seems pretty passe.

First of all, we ALREADY pay out the nose for health insurance, and a third of that money is wasted on profits.

Second, I very much dislike my employer-provided coverage. This idea that most Americans like their coverage is quite likely untrue.

Third, I really can't choose my own doctor. I have an HMO because it is all my employer can afford and it would cost me dearly to go 'out of plan.' Yet the total cost is nearly 18% of my gross. And I have crummy, rationed care with financially crippling copays - every year the costs have gone up, the copays have gone up, and the services I actually have access to (can afford) have gone down.

That SUCKS. It is UNACCEPTABLE.

It seems to me we'd be a LOT better off removing profit from the system and allowing the government to negotiate prices.

That said, in terms of 'realpolitik,' what we'll probably end up with is either Medicare eligibility lowered to age 55, or maybe a public option, or maybe both. The writing is on the wall, and it is now a national conversation.

Oh, AND IF YOU LIKE THE IDEA OF MEDICARE FOR ALL, then it would be a good idea to:
1. Call your US Senators and Representative weekly on the issue. I always like to do something pithy like ask how a $13 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations is better for me and my family than healthcare.

2. Register with Disqus and go on sites like The Hill and fight the good fight. People, policymakers actually read those things.

3. Get active in your local Dem party and educate people about health care. Trump doesn't get it because he's a dumb-ass, and people like McConnell are being paid well to ensure we don't get it (pardon the play on words), but the reality is there are many, many more of us than there are lobbyists.

[democratisphere]

38. The American Criminal Enterprise Healthcare System MUST

be brought down and eliminated. Got to get f'ing wall street and wall street influences out of our healthcare systems.

[DonViejo]

39. Locking...

Forum Hosts feel this OP/news article is more appropriate on the General Discussions Forum than it is on the Dem Primaries Forum; please post it there.