I think whatever replaces the Cadillac plans will happen PDQ. After all, the reason for such plans will still be there. Any employer who has a need to offer such plans, will come up with an alternative quickly. And unless they want to see their best current employees jump ship for better benefits or pay from their competitors, they will provide the plan to current employees.
Whatever Bernie and Warren are supporting is only tangentially related to whatever actual legislation is proposed. I think true MFA – that is, offering the program as it is now to everyone – will become that proposed legislation.
The problem with fulsomely promising that people can keep their plans is that it’s not something the government, let alone a presidential candidate in the primaries, can meaningfully promise in a way that people will understand as having been kept. Any major change is going to disrupt the market, and in any case, there’s no current guarantee that you can keep your plan: Health insurance policies are not permanent arrangements with unchanging costs and benefits, and beyond that, most private plans are benefits of at-will employment. Obama fell into this trap (although he may not have had much of a choice) and it was a major controversy of his administration.
Honestly, I’m just tired of hearing about specific plans for health insurance legislation at all, but I’m pretty pessimistic about the legislative side of things. 52 Democratic senators (which, to be clear, is at the good end of possible outcomes) are going to have a damn hard time finding their way to passing anything big at all (on anything, but especially health insurance reform). I realize that you can’t actually campaign on that reality, but I’d like to hear more about executive policy and less about legislation, from the entire spectrum of candidates.
That would be a lot better, but it is much different from what they are proposing. And they defend the tax increases involved by saying there will be no premiums and copays and the plan will be better than what people already have.
You’re right about promises biting Obama in the ass, and this one faces the same pitfall: just because the government doesn’t deny you access to your favored health plan doesn’t mean your employer will still pay for it, or that the insurer will keep the same plan available.
That’s why MFAnyone has to be sold, not just promised. It will be simpler. It will be seamless when you change jobs. It will unleash entrepreneurs who don’t have to stay in their jobs to get affordable healthcare coverage. Etc.
That’s the public option, letting people buy into Medicare (which includes making employers offer subsidized Medicare as an option).
I’d be open to that, but I think all uninsured should be auto enrolled in medicaid, private insurance should have all payer rate setting, elimination of networks, capping total out of pocket expenses including premiums, etc.
We don’t need single payer to have a humane universal health care system. The Netherlands, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, etc do not have single payer but they all have universal health systems.
So Crabs on a bucket, anything that makes life better for others will breed resentment? That reminds me of people who opposed gay marriage because they felt it cheapened heterosexual marriage.
Why not oppose a minimum wage hike because semi skilled workers who make $11 will be making the same as no skilled workers if the new minimum wage is $15.
Why not just phase it in to give people time to adapt.
Also what do you have against the ‘left’? America’s left is barely even leftist.
Right, I realize that’s the public option. I wasn’t proposing the idea so much as I was proposing the name: Medicare For Anyone. It sounds more choice-y and less impose-y.
The minimum wage thing is an issue for that reason.
And yes, i’ve heard all about how the left here is the center-right everywhere else or whatever. It’s a lot of hyperbole. I grew up in a left-wing family and they were legit left Marxists.
Thats fair enough. I’ve also heard it called ‘medicare for anyone who wants it’ which is the same as what you describe.
There were some good points in the debate though about how public insurance underfunds medical suppliers, and as a result there could be issues due to that. I know Washington recently passed a public option, but their reimbursement rate was 160% of medicares, which also kind of defeats the purpose.
The reason public health insurance is cheaper is due to lower reimbursement and lower overhead. If you take away the lower reimbursement, much of the financial benefit of the public plans go away. The overhead benefit is still there, I think medicare is only 2-5% overhead while private insurance can be 20%.
Not if you’re talking about the actual political roles of the different ideologies. The part of the US “left” that actually plays a significant political role advocates positions that in, say, most western European countries would be considered far more centrist or rightist than they are here.
But your family members weren’t elected to anything, nor did their support put any other “legit left Marxists” into any significant political office.
Nobody’s denying that there exists a small number of individual Americans who espouse left-wing views just as radical as any of their counterparts in Europe or wherever. The point, though, is that in the US those extreme leftist types have far less real political power and influence than their counterparts in other developed-world democracies.
Conversely, in the US the extreme right wing have much more real political power and influence than their counterparts in other developed-world democracies.
In real-life Medicare, the basic insurance is just that: basic. The private sector does a nice job with supplemental policies that have differing prescription management services, dental, eyeglasses, hearing aids and whatnot.
Give the insurance industry a chance, and they will design a Medicare-compliant, super-luxury, “not just Cadillac, but Tesla combined with Rolls Royce” level supplemental policy that even Libertarians would approve of.
How many times do I need to point out that Bernie’s bill is not Medicare at all but a single payer plan that is much more generous? There would be no market for the plans you describe because there is nothing left to supplement.
His plan seems to be more like a basic ACA plan for everyone as the public plan, then a variety of private plans on top of it you could buy as supplementals.
Alternatively, M4A will win, because we are living in the 21st Century, not the 20th.
M4A is the rallying cry for those who want a revolution. It’s what a campaign to replace the ancient, corrupt pols in Congress will run on.
Stop acting like the Presidential election exists in a vacuum. The real fight is over Congress, and the only way to fix the USA’s fiscal, environmental, & justice problems is to knock out as many corrupt “conservatives” and “centrists” as possible,
M4A is how you get the reformers into those seats.
But please, keep vocally opposing it. We need to know who our friends aren’t.
Bernie Sanders crafted the name Medicare For All during his 2016 campaign. He left open some small areas for private insurance like elective plastic surgery, at the time. Sanders introduced a Medicare For All bill in April of this year. The only allowed private insurance under that bill is for things not covered under MFA like elective plastic surgery and private hospital rooms. . The bill also prohibits cost sharing. (Cite)
Bernie Sanders created the name. He introduced a bill named Medicare For All just a couple months ago. That bill really would ban most private insurance and prohibit the two-tiered approach used in some UHC countries. MFA is not a synonym for universal health care. The problem is that many are using it as a synonym and consider possibilities that Sanders proposal explicitly prohibits. That prompts confusion.
It’s also not really Medicare as we know it if implemented. Medicare is a multiplayer system that offers universal coverage for those 65+. Sanders is effectively calling for a complete repeal of the current Medicare system with a totally new replacement system. Repeal and replace is probably a bad slogan for the Democratic primary, though.
Why would private hospital rooms not be covered under MFA? It’s my understanding that the trend now in new hospitals to have only private rooms, and that many existing hospitals are reconfiguring to have mostly private rooms.
