Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question about Medicare 4 all, how would it cost more than the current system? [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)69. "Medicare for All" is actually misleading, but great marketing.
Sort of like "right to work" states.
But the moniker Medicare for All is misleading. Sanderss proposal actually scraps Medicares operating model, which mimics the private sectors insurance-company-based structure, including the use of private insurers for administrative tasks. BernieCare, by contrast, would eliminate the private sectors role in insurance provision. In fact, Sanders seeks to discard the current patchwork of government and private options: Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-provided insurance for the better-off and ACA policies for those who fall through the cracks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/09/26/medicare-for-all-sounds-great-but-berniecare-is-a-political-flop/
There is nothing about single-payer that inherently does a single thing about far and away the biggest profiteers in the health-care system, which are not insurers but providers, as Phillip Longman has pointed out:
Thus, without additional reforms, single-payer could wind up enabling a massive set of corporate subsidies in the name of, well, democratic socialism.
In any event, those who wish to use Medicare for All as a descriptor for anything other than a simple expansion of the current program to make it universal have no particular standing to lecture others that they are misappropriating the term. In the long run whatever progressives lose from not fully exploiting the popularity of Medicare they might well gain from better public understanding of what they are actually proposing, with all its costs as well as benefits.
The decision not to include a funding scheme was a calculated one, and as Sanders himself told the Washington Post, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need to put together cost estimates and funding plans in the proposed bill.
Adopting a single-payer system might have done a lot of good twenty years ago. But since then, a massive wave of corporate consolidations has transformed the American health care delivery system in ways that make the single-payer approach highly problematic. Most Americans now live in places where there is little or no competition among medical providers. In market after market, hospitals, clinics, physician practices, labs, and other key health care infrastructure have been merged into monopolies controlling nearly all aspects of health care in the areas in which they operate.
Thus, without additional reforms, single-payer could wind up enabling a massive set of corporate subsidies in the name of, well, democratic socialism.
In any event, those who wish to use Medicare for All as a descriptor for anything other than a simple expansion of the current program to make it universal have no particular standing to lecture others that they are misappropriating the term. In the long run whatever progressives lose from not fully exploiting the popularity of Medicare they might well gain from better public understanding of what they are actually proposing, with all its costs as well as benefits.
The decision not to include a funding scheme was a calculated one, and as Sanders himself told the Washington Post, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need to put together cost estimates and funding plans in the proposed bill.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/medicare-for-all-wont-bring-medicare-to-all.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Question about Medicare 4 all, how would it cost more than the current system? [View all]
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
OP
It could be an issue to get elected on. That's a reason. It could be a way of taking control of the
JCanete
Aug 2018
#5
I would prefer we shifted the overton window on this issue so that it is within the realm of...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#6
So your answer is yes, risk continued power by nazi's and fascists to achieve the unachievable.
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2018
#7
Isnt what is happening, what is happening is positioned democrats who WILL win their
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2018
#10
OK, we will hold you to that, if the Dems dont take back both the house and senate, you can
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2018
#14
Why is that the path of least resistance? Being uninspiring is the path of least resistance?
JCanete
Aug 2018
#60
What seats are at risk because of this advocacy, and moreover, when will ever be the right time? n/t
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#16
Very soon this will all be moot. Either the same "approach" that got us rump in the
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2018
#71
Um - not true re first paragraph. And re 2nd - Medicare For All is already better than regular
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#31
Thats basically what many states had pre-ACA. It was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#8
Part of the point of it would be to provide coverage for the vast number of people who
Squinch
Aug 2018
#11
My question isn't will the costs rise, will my taxes increase by 340 dollars a month...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#23
We all paid into Medicare during our working lives. That pays for hospital stays.
wasupaloopa
Aug 2018
#24
We would continue to do so, my question is would the additional cost for adding everyone...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#25
Even that seems like a bargain for me, when I use my insurance, it costs a pretty penny...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#33
My Medicare plus my pretty inclusive "N" supplement costs me less than $300/month. I'd say that's
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#32
Well, you have to add in what you and others have paid into the system for 40 years.
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#35
No I don't. If people are paying in during their working time in taxes, it's still taxes.
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#39
I'm not arguing against it. But it ain't going to be the cheap panacea you believe.
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#45
I don't believe I ever said it was going to be a cheap panacea so not sure why you
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#48
You have to consider how much we spend on healthcare in this country of all the
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#55
Naive is thinking that Medicare for All will produce significant savings, especially picking up
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#57
Ok you win. Every country that produces better results for less money and more people
Nanjeanne
Aug 2018
#64
Not trying to win. Unfortunately, our health system is not structured like every other country, to
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#67
I would say a gradual buy in program would lead to less "sticker shock"...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2018
#34
I doubt it will pass like that, although I'd be fine with it. Joe the Plumber will go berserk,
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#66