Public Option is better than Medicare for all

[Reece2076]

Public Option

1. Anyone who doesn't have insurance can immediately buy into it.
2. Anyone not happy with their private insurance can buy into it.
3. If it ends up being cheaper and more efficient than private insurance most people would eventually choose it.


Medicare for all

1. Not giving people a choice to choose their insurance provider whether it be public or private is un-American.
2. Both Warren and Sanders admitted that it would raise taxes, but expect us to pay less overall due to lower health care cost.

Conclusion

1. Giving people the option to buy public insurance is more practical and fair than forcing everyone to choose public insurance that hasn't been proven yet while raising their taxes.

[Cha]

1. Yes.. Thank You!

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Yes, let's keep giving these people money

[JoeOtterbein]

6. + a googleplex!

[dawg day]

11. That will fade away--

and just be for "concierge care".

But in the meantime, there actually will be "Medicare Available To All", which actually passes Congress without dooming Democratic house members (remember 2010!).

MFA right now would be better. Public Option right now will actually pass.

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. Centrist had their dumb compromise plan in 2010

Didn't help them keep seats. Too complicated to explain to the voters, apparently.

M4A is simple. Stop paying greedy insurance companies premiums, pay LESS in Medicare taxes, reduce health care costs by NOT charging $400 for a $4 vial of insulin.

It's so fucking simple, yet people refuse to have the imagination to sell the plan and call for less. Shameful.

[Reece2076]

24. Right .. all we need is the pubilc option

which seems more palpable compared to medicare for all. We can pass it this time. The only people who should be against a public option are insurance companies.

Why take a nuclear option (medicare for all) when we can solve the problem with a little bit of dynamite (public option)?

[pattyloutwo]

44. Excellent graphic

[still_one]

3. Absolutely. Medicare is for those 65 and older, and some special cases, where the majority of

participants have being paying into it for 20 plus years.

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. I notice that those opposing M4A

Are those who are already on Medicare, or are going to be on it soon

[Control-Z]

16. You may have a point.

I currently have direct experience with:

1. Medicare
2. The ACA/Obamacare
3. Private insurance through work. (Movie Industry)

all at the same time for my family. In my case, the private plan is superior by far. There is nothing about the others that comes close. I would fight my daughter needing to give up her Cadillac private insurance.

ACA has better coverage for my son than medicare covers without a supplemental policy or private Medicare insurance.

Medicare comes in last. It's great to have. (My husband has had two shoulder replacements with minimal out of pocket but it's not the prime policy that M4A proponents make it out to be.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. So it all boils down to:

I got mine, screw the rest. It's the same song and dance.

Here's an idea, everyone else has medicare, you get to buy medicare plus your private Cadillac insurance. It'll be just like how people pay tuition for private school plus taxes for public school. How does that sound?

[Control-Z]

21. I'm not really understanding you.

Scolding me because my daughter has great insurance? I don't have it.
She does and I was making an observation. So then you say what I think is kind of basically what I think. But you somehow make it sound bad so I have no idea what you're trying to say.

How about we make a public option competitive? Improve Medicare? Make people want what we have to offer? And put private insurance companies out of business because people choose what we offer - something as good as, or better, with lower costs.

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. I remember when the public option was too radical

Now it's apparently the moderate position.

I say cut to the chase, stop this bullshit incrementalism, and put in a common sense coverage system. All you are doing is proving that those who oppose M4A are those who have medicare or better.

[Reece2076]

25. So are you saying you agree with having a public option, so people can choose

between private and public insurance? If so great, we're in agreement. But the plans that Warren, Harris, and Sanders has calls for eliminating the choice of private insurance.

[uponit7771]

4. K&R,

[JoeOtterbein]

5. Please let's stop the supporting the healthcare insurance companies.

If you are covered for everything, why would you even need to buy health insurance?

[Reece2076]

26. Why not let everyone decide for themselves instead of telling them what's best for them?

[JoeOtterbein]

27. Maybe because that is a Repub talking point?

Instead of a question from a dead talking point, from Repugs?

Kamala is killing Trump on CNN as we speak!

[Reece2076]

41. How about just give an intelligent reposne to the question?

[Thekaspervote]

7. Agree reece2076. Thx for the comprehensive post

[highplainsdem]

8. And we have a much better chance of adding a public option to the ACA than we have of getting

MFA through Congress.

[dawg day]

9. Also-- any employer who wants to insure workers can use the public option Medicare

for the group insurance.

[TomSlick]

13. I tend to agree but have a lingering question.

I agree that a public option for Medicare would eventually (actually, rather quickly) beat private insurance in the market.

My concern is that small rural hospitals (like the one in my town) could not survive if all, or even most, of the patients' bills were paid by Medicare. The Medicare reimbursement rates are ridiculously low. Private insurance patients subsidize Medicare and uninsured patients.

In order for any Medicare for most plan to work, the Medicare reimbursement rates would have to be substantially increased. That, of course, would substantially raise the costs.

I still agree with you that a public option is the answer. We just need to understand that the costs will be higher than is being talked about.

[Hoyt]

14. The one thing I'm not hearing about Public Option is how poorer people buy into it.

My impression is that the ACA needs much larger subsidies and protection from high coinsurance and deductibles that do bankrupt a lot of people, or keep them from getting care. Everyone needs to be covered quickly and with reduced/affordable out-of-pocket costs.

I basically think the POption gets us to Medicare for All quicker than trying to force M4A down throats of people who just don't trust it, for whatever reason. If we do that, the risk is high we'll be sitting here 4, 8, or more years from now debating the same damn thing.

[Reece2076]

28. Poor people will be able to get substidies or

if their income is low enough they qualify for free health care from their state already. At least that's the case in California.

[Hoyt]

30. But does the subsidy allow them to buy a policy with LOW out of pocket costs?

That’s not my impression.

I think Biden’s plan is best bet for getting something enacted, although M4A is probably better long-term if it had a chance of passing. But just want to make sure subsidies are sufficient and coinsurance/deductibles are very low so people can use the coverage.

[Goodheart]

15. That's a really bad analysis.

"Anyone can buy into".... oh yeah? Since when? How much will that public option cost? As it stands, even now after the ACA's subsidies ten million people don't have insurance because they can't afford it.

I don't think any of the candidates have said you wouldn't be able to buy private health insurance under Medicare for All. You think you can afford something better than free medical care? GO FOR IT! Who's going to stop you when nobody intends to make it criminal? In the meantime, under Medicare for All EVERYBODY is covered automatically, unlike today when millions of people can't afford it.

Yes, Medicare for All would raise taxes. SO BLOODY WHAT when at the same time it would reduce medical costs by a far greater amount. Don't believe it? Just look at the entire rest of the world for proof.... we pay TWICE as much as anybody else, even when their taxes are included, and rank about 40th in the world in actual health care. Want to know why? Because our health insurance "system" is designed for private profits, not for providing health care.

And even your conclusion doesn't follow from your own faulty premises. "More practical and fair" is a non sequitur. What's ACTUALLY practical is reduced cost and what's ACTUALLY fair is coverage for EVERYBODY.

Here's how your last sentence SHOULD read:

Giving people the option to buy PRIVATE INSURANCE on top of/in place of their Medicare coverage is practical and fair, and their overall cost will be lower even after paying more Medicare taxes.

Want an example to know that MY sentence is true? Try Australia, for one.

[Reece2076]

31. First of all

Warren Sanders and Harris all have said that they want to eliminate private insurance. None denied it during the debate.

A public opiton gives people a choice to buy into medicare. It has already been stated that poor people will be able to get it for free. We have a similar program here in California for people whose incomes are low enough.

I will acknowledge just like a public option hasn't been implemented and proven here neither has medicare for all. Ultimately we don't know how either will work out .. But

A public option gives everyone their natural born right to make a choice for themselves, will be easier to implement and less costly to implement. And best of all if it works out, it will eventually lead to medicare for all.

That's what I meant when I said a public option is practical because more Americans support it, its easier to implement and costs less.

It's fair because it give people a choice. If you want medicare for all your family than get the public option. Why dictate what everyone should choose for their families.

[Indygram]

17. I like Medicare for America, the plan Beto supports. Here is the actual text...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2452/text

[Goodheart]

18. Why does the OP prefer to pay private insurance companies over paying less to our government?

Because in the final analysis that's what it all boils down to.

Even Barack Obama has admitted that the ACA is NOT what he truly wanted. He wanted Medicare for All but felt that it would be too big a step for Republicans to swallow, so he went for something he thought could get bipartisan support.

[Reece2076]

32. The public option would give you the opiton to pay less to our government

Why is that so hard to understand? Then after it proves itself more Americans would choose it, eventually leading to medicare for all.

The reason the ACA was not truly what he wanted because he didn't include the public option that was originally planned. I think his biggest mistake was compromising on that.

[Hoyt]

34. I'm not sure it will be less.. I want everyone covered, but Sanders and Warren

are promising picking up 60 million uninsured/underinsured, dental, hearing aids, no coinsurance or deductibles, etc., with less cost to average Joe/Jane.

Want to see the data, not we are going to tax rich people for healthcare, childcare, bolstering social security, free college, debt forgiveness, deficit and debt reduction, jobs, and more.

[Goodheart]

19. And on I go... why does the OP think that private insurance companies exist to provide healthcare?

They DETRACT from over all cost and quality because they exist to suck profits AWAY from people. Why do you think subsidizing obscene private profits helps to provide health care? Do those insurance companies actually wield scalpels and stethoscopes?

[Reece2076]

33. Personally I would give the governent run public option a shot

But I believe others should be free to keep insurance they have had for years if they are happy with it. Why do you hate freedom of choice?

[gtar100]

22. Yes, I so much love to pay for insurance

and helping the companies earn a profit to pay their executives millions and pay shareholders millions in dividends. Because I and others didn't need that money for actual health care.

And deductibles? Oh don't get me started! I much prefer to pay out of pocket after paying my premiums. It's one of my annual pleasures to sit down with a nice cup of tea, wearing a warm sweater as I sit next to a cold radiator that the landlord controls, and decide whether to go for the $500, the $1000, $2500 or even the $5000 deductible if I really want to live high on the hog. The gamble is truly a thrill as I imagine what might happen to me and my family in the coming year. And if I get it wrong and get stuck with a huge bill or paid more than I needed to because of the unfortunate circumstance of good health and no accidents despite taking the low deductible, well them's the breaks...this is America. It just gives me the warm fuzzies thinking about it.

Oh, and can you imagine not having to worry about losing health care because of a layoff? Neither can I. It's so un-American to feel like you have a right to good health care when you're poor. A public option will keep them in the game, even if they have to gamble with high deductibles. Having to deal with that bureaucratic game really adds to that great feeling one gets with a pink slip, or going to sleep at night with one eye open in the shelter. A public option will ease everyone's mind there.

Seriously, why would anyone want Medicare for All when there are so many reasons to love our insurance plans.

Go team America - and send me that bill!

[Reece2076]

35. Public option does not equal private insurance

your posts has no relevance to my OP.

For whatever reason many Americans are comfortable and satisfied with their current insurance. Perhaps it's because they've only needed it for minor problems, and haven't been faced with high deductibles. It doesn't really matter because it's their life and their choice.

[jcgoldie]

29. "un-American"?

I'm not even going to say it.

[Reece2076]

36. Yes taking away our freedom to choose is unAmerican.

It's the same argument I'd make to the "pro-life" anti choice crowd.

[jcgoldie]

38. yeah right

Pretty sure women's rights to their bodies have nothing to do with being "American" or "un-American" anymore than having a right to prop up insurance companies has anything to do with being an American either. How about gun-control? Is that also "un-American"?

[Reece2076]

39. freedom of choice is essential to this country period

[jcgoldie]

40. there we go

thanks.

[Claritie Pixie]

37. Who here wants private insurance companies to call the shots?

They do now. They say who can get treated and how. Need to stay in the hospital longer but insurance says nope? Tough luck.

Need an expensive drug to stay alive but insurance says no? Tough luck.

Lose your job, lose that private insurance.

Healthcare should not be a for profit enterprise.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Totally agree.

[LiberalFighter]

42. I would disagree on the following

Limit how insurance companies can participate.

The options would be the same as those on Medicare.

Keep in mind that Medicare only covers 80% of covered costs. If you want the other 20% covered you have to find insurance to cover it. You have two options. Have regular or Medicare Advantage plan.

Insurance providers ripping off the insured is not American.

Medicare has been proven. Expand it. It will cost less than regular insurance for those not 65 or older. Because nearly everyone is on it the costs go down. Especially if the government handles it taking out the expensive CEO's, etc.

Employers could include the premium costs for their employee and children. Spouse if not employed. It would cost them less. Especially if coverage does not include the unemployed spouse. It is good that employees currently can pick the plan that best suits them when the spouse is employed. But that means one business has less expense and another has additional expense.

Even though FICA is identified as a payroll tax it is actually an insurance program. The same would apply to Medicare for All or Public Option (without the option to opt out).

You won't be paying the monthly premiums to an insurance company. Instead it will go to the federal govt. And if worked out right should be less.

[Eric J in MN]

45. Canada pays half per capita what we do for healthcare. NT

NT

[Duppers]

46. Should our Postal Service be privatized?

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Just asking.

[area51]

47. Might want to consider

a couple of sites from the physicians' group PNHP on the public option and this page.