Why would you mind them taking away your private insurance if in its place you never have a medical bill or insurance premium or co pay or oop again?

I like what I have. I get to decide whether I like the new government offering better.

If it sucks like so many other government run things, I'll pass.

The government runs the health system for vets, right? The VA is a total cluster.

You go prove that the government can do a better job for me than Aetna, and I'll switch over.

No way no how am I supporting any plan or candidate who doesn't get that. And I'm not the only one.

The current Medicare is great, but it's not free if you go with the original plan (vs Medicare Advantage).

With the original, you pay a premium for Parts A and B (hospitalization and medical) and need a Medigap supplement to cover the 20 percent they don't. You also pay for Part D, prescription drugs. No vision or dental coverage.

Medicare Advantage is another beast. You may get different coverage and not have premiums, but you're limited to the doctors you can see (kinda like an HMO).

I'm on the brink of real Medicare, so it won't matter to me, but if I had private insurance I would be looking at the details of any proposed Medicare-for-All plan very carefully in order to understand what I might be gaining/losing.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
I like what I have. I get to decide whether I like the new government offering better.

If it sucks like so many other government run things, I'll pass.

The government runs the health system for vets, right? The VA is a total cluster.

You go prove that the government can do a better job for me than Aetna, and I'll switch over.

No way no how am I supporting any plan or candidate who doesn't get that. And I'm not the only one.

No, you're not the only one. A large majority would be annoyed by a government-forced termination of private insurance. A government option would garner much more support. But the Democrats have a penchant for talking about grandiose "transformations," and their talk alienates enough people so that they either lose elections or prove that they too cannot govern.

Agreed. I also think that the term "medicare for all" has different meanings to different candidates. "Free healthcare" has such a great ring to it, but it will never, ever pass unless there is massive turnover in the Senate (which will never happen).

Obama was successful with an incremental approach. I think that's the way to go. Medicare for those who want it, in other words. The question of who is paying is a separate issue, that's getting conflated with a public option.

Once again, the progressives are trying to cost us the election.

Fist, Nader.

Then Sanders.

Now, the squad.

Dems will never get it.

There was talk at one time of offering a "medicare for all" option for those buying insurance on the open market. Then opening that option up to businesses for their employees..

If it cost way less and covered just as much as "for profit" insurance, I bet more and more people and companies would choose that option!

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:
Thing is, most Americans support Medicare for all (something like 70%), 2/3 of Americans support free college, a similar number support a higher minimum wage. So, I don't think the problem is what a majority wants. It seems pretty clear what a majority wants.

The problem is the make up of the Democrats in congress, where we've got blue-dogs and reps from swing states that need to be tip-toed around.

We won in November by being the party that wont take away your health care.

Now some candidates are actually proposing to strip millions of people, including me, of their private health insurance.

Insanity. Will guarantee a Trump win because even I'm not voting to take away my own health insurance.

Not Buttigieg.

P.S. Trump is going to win anyway.

One hope is that Trump keeps making crazy-ass economic decisions and messes things up big time. September 2020 would be a good time for that. I'd be willing to take a hit to my investments if it meant he'd be out of office.

quote:

Originally posted by rontuner:
There was talk at one time of offering a "medicare for all" option for those buying insurance on the open market. Then opening that option up to businesses for their employees..

If it cost way less and covered just as much as "for profit" insurance, I bet more and more people and companies would choose that option!

This is an excellent argument for incrementalism. You win people over to the public option by demonstrating that it works in the small, and without forcing anyone.

And the other argument is that without control of the Senate, you cannot abolish private insurance. Full stop.

So we are being derailed by unpopular ideas that are impossible. Great, just great.

Here's my question/observation. I keep hearing about how these debates are so damaging to the Democratic party, because the candidates are attacking each other instead of showing party unity.

Huh?

It's a debate, and it's a competition to become the candidate. Of course they're going to attack each other and point out weaknesses. I assumed that was one of the main points of this whole awful exercise. It's also one of the main reasons why I would LOVE to see some of these people polling at < 3% get off the stage. We ain't got time for a vanity run, and we can't afford to keep people up there who will never, ever win the nomination. We need to pick a viable candidate.

The time for party unity and kumbayah is after we have a candidate. (Hear that, purity ponies?)

I honestly don't get it.

I'm glad we are having a robust series of debates.

In 2016, the Republicans had a robust series of debates, and their guy won.

In 2016, the Dems had a five-person first debate (Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton). In the end, all Hillary had to do was beat an old Socialist from Vermont, which she could only do with the help of a crooked DNC. And she was so weak she lost to Donald Trump.

The only tweak to the current process I'd recommend is that I would not have all 20 debate positions decided with polls/donors. Nineteen would be selected that way. But one slot would be a wild card, selected by the DNC, with no one person being allowed more than 1 wild card appearance.

That would bring drama and excitement, of course. But it would also make sure there was a sliver of hope for any good candidate or late entry who ought to get a shot.

The first wild card would have gone to Steve Bullock, whom I thought did very well in the debate.

How did Bullock strike you guys?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:
I'd like to see a full accounting of what we spend on our military and on how much taxes businesses actually pay after all tax loopholes are applied.

I think, but do not know for sure, that these things cost us so much money that we could fund a good portion of the things progressives would like to do in terms of health care and education by fairly modest cuts in these areas. Eisenhower did, after all, warn us about the military/industrial complex.

I do not disagree that we need a strong military and I do not think that business should be throttled. I just think that our expenditures are way out of balance and we should look at that problem before we say that we can't afford to use taxpayers' money for programs that are of direct benefit to those taxpayers.

Silly Mary Anna. That would require actual work. From this lot? Hah.

But seriously, I agree we need to take a very long hard look at loopholes, subsidies, fraud, budgeting and government purchasing across the board.

We may differ on what to do with the proceeds but that is the place to start.

I think a good tactic at this point would be to attempt to flip the script for the debates. Realize that these are an opportunity to grab the bully pulpit for a short while.

Mayor Pete is on the right track - what got us here? Every problem/question brought up by the moderators should be answered with something similar to:
"Moscow Mitch and the tRumpublicans have had a chance to fix this problem and have only made it worse. It is time to hold the rule-makers and referees accountable, and get America working again."

Bankers aren't the problem. Corporations aren't the problem. Lobbyists aren't the problem, they are all just playing by today's rules. Rule-makers that consistently slant the playing field to hurt regular Americans are the problem. Referees that won't blow the whistle, even when there are clear fouls on the field are the problem. Score-keepers that don't even count all the points are the problem.

I don't think enough people really care about specific plans or policy at this point, only the assurance that "we can roll up our sleeves and fix this".