2020 Democratic Nominee

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Who advocates completely eliminating the private insurance sector from healthcare in our country?

Bernie and Warren, although Warren doesn’t appear serious about it, which I find encouraging.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bernie and Warren, although Warren doesn’t appear serious about it, which I find encouraging.

Bernie's Medicare for All bill, which you can read right here, doesn't completely eliminate private health insurance.

[henrygandorf 29174]

the fact that the message keeps getting misinterpreted is turning into an issue. delivery needs to be stronger. all the listeners aren’t flawed. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Bernie's Medicare for All bill, which you can read right here, doesn't completely eliminate private health insurance.

Well that’s Jayapal’s bill, not the Great Leap Forward Sanders presents in his speeches and so forth, but leaving that aside:
Medicare for all allows for insurers to provide coverage for services not provided by Medicare under the plan. What services are not available under Sanders plan?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

I really believe the MSM is the one framing the question as the "Dems want to abolish private insurance." Asking all the candidates to raise their hand was misleading and tricksy. Say one of them did not. Would they then be given a chance to say "I do not favor abolishing private insurance. I am in favor of having it available as supplemental insurance in addition to a baseline of Medicare for all, which is the way this works in virtually every single other western country," or would they just be left looking like they are the one asshole who failed a litmus test?

Who benefits from framing this debate as all or nothing, one might wonder. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, the networks. Imagine what their commercial breaks would be like without all those ads bought by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. 

[David Dennison 18646]

8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I really believe the MSM is the one framing the question as the "Dems want to abolish private insurance." Asking all the candidates to raise their hand was misleading and tricksy. Say one of them did not. Would they then be given a chance to say "I do not favor abolishing private insurance. I am in favor of having it available as supplemental insurance in addition to a baseline of Medicare for all, which is the way this works in virtually every single other western country," or would they just be left looking like they are the one asshole who failed a litmus test?

Who benefits from framing this debate as all or nothing, one might wonder. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, the networks. Imagine what their commercial breaks would be like without all those ads bought by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. 

When anyone says "Dems want to abolish private insurance" what they mean is "Dems want to abolish employer provided health insurance."

Democrats who favor Medicare for All need to do a better job of explaining to Americans that MFA means taking Medicare (including Medicare Advantage), which is currently only available to individuals 65 and older, and making it available to everyone. 

[zork 629]

holy moly.

Edited June 29, 2019 by zork

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When anyone says "Dems want to abolish private insurance" what they mean is "Dems want to abolish employer provided health insurance."

Democrats who favor Medicare for All need to do a better job of explaining to Americans that MFA means taking Medicare (including Medicare Advantage), which is currently only available to individuals 65 and older, and making it available to everyone. 

But doesn't it also mean prohibiting by statute all private plans offering coverage that overlaps with with MFA provides?  

[David Dennison 18646]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

But doesn't it also mean prohibiting by statute all private plans offering coverage that overlaps with with MFA provides?  

Not if you keep Medicare Advantage.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

But doesn't it also mean prohibiting by statute all private plans offering coverage that overlaps with with MFA provides?  

The Sanders plan and the Jayapal, not the others. Warren hasn’t documented anything, really. The others are various versions of public option/Medicare for those who want it, either with or without a buy in, and without the vastly comprehensive benefit package that Sanders/Jayapal proposes.

And for the record- employer insurance is a huge problem as breaking that tether is one of the best things we can do. But the issue with Sanders’ push towards single payer is less about cost and more about practical elements of how the transition would work.

But I really think you guys aren’t reading this stuff closely. When you have a bill that covers almost everything, and prohibits any overlap by private carriers, that effectively eliminates private insurance. And private insurance is actually good at some things. It’s just really terrible at others.

My point in all this isn’t that I “oppose” what Sanders is proposing. My point is that it’s unworkable on top of politically impossible, like Trump’s views on immigration or trade, albeit with more noble intentions.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Not if you keep Medicare Advantage.

No, not really.

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

I still can't believe anyone would want to get rid of private insurance companies. Just look at the polling, people love their insurance company. I've got United and it is truly one of the most fulfilling relationships I have ever had in my life. I love United. I look forward to the first of every month when I have to write them a large check. I don't give a shit about the doctors or hospitals I have access to, all I want is to keep my United plan. I don't know why the commies like Bernie don't understand this. I would rather die than not have an amazing insurance company that lets me have a massive deductible and prohibits me from seeing out of network doctors. Once again the centrists are just showing that this "medicare for all" bullshit is going to ruin one of the great things about America: massive health insurance companies and their extremely well compensated CEOs. Smart centrists know that regular joe voters like me will never support a Democrat who would dismantle private insurance because of the deep, unwavering loyalty I have to United's and its CEO, who made $83,000,000 last year. 

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

Also, let me piggyback on what Bozo is saying, it would be like super hard to do this, so it's not really worth doing. Also I have invented many problems in my head that the plans do not specifically address, so therefore none of the plans will work. It's hard being a brilliant centrist and trying to educate the hordes of unwashed leftists who just do understand what good old fashioned pragmatism and reaching-across-the-aisle can do. I mean just look at our current political situation, it's amazing. So lets just keep on doing what we've been doing and what is the worst that can happen?

[David Dennison 18646]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, not really.

MFA should mean taking what currently exists for those 65 and older and applying it to everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

59 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the fact that the message keeps getting misinterpreted is turning into an issue. delivery needs to be stronger. all the listeners aren’t flawed. 

Not all of them, sure, but if you pay attention you see a TON of disingenuous argumentation, bad faith, and concern trolling.

Look, for instance, at bozo's posting. At first there is the guise of genuine and good-faith confusion, but that facade is only held long enough to get try-hard libs to buy it and then immediately out comes "The Great Leap Forward" rhetoric.

48 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What services are not available under Sanders plan?

Elective surgeries are one category of services not covered.

Quote

But I really think you guys aren’t reading this stuff closely.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote

When you have a bill that covers almost everything, and prohibits any overlap by private carriers, that effectively eliminates private insurance. And private insurance is actually good at some things. It’s just really terrible at others.

Effectively doing something and "completely" doing something are different things. As for the bolded statement, that is extremely vague; so vague as to be pointless.

Quote

My point in all this isn’t that I “oppose” what Sanders is proposing. My point is that it’s unworkable on top of politically impossible, like Trump’s views on immigration or trade, albeit with more noble intentions.

Everyone's a pundit!

35 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I really believe the MSM is the one framing the question as the "Dems want to abolish private insurance."

Absolutely, yes. Mainstream media is all owned and managed by MASSIVE corporations. They have interests to protect. They want woke capitalism. They want rainbow-flag stickers on cruise missiles and they love Big Pharma and the insurance industry.

Also, some of the questions at the debates were written by people who donated $10k+ for the privilege, and that's not really in the monthly budget of a West Virginia teacher.

Quote

Who benefits from framing this debate as all or nothing, one might wonder. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, the networks. Imagine what their commercial breaks would be like without all those ads bought by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. 

lol yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When anyone says "Dems want to abolish private insurance" what they mean is "Dems want to abolish employer provided health insurance."

Democrats who favor Medicare for All need to do a better job of explaining to Americans that MFA means taking Medicare (including Medicare Advantage), which is currently only available to individuals 65 and older, and making it available to everyone. 

Democrats who favor Medicare for All are desperately trying. The problem is that the only contingent who are either educated about it or honest are Bernie Bros and maybe 1/4th of Warren's group.

And the ENTIRE Republican group and the entire rest of the field of Democrats is actively lying, distorting, and working against it.

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

MFA should mean taking what currently exists for those 65 and older and applying it to everyone. 

Why? There are huge improvements that can (and should) be made to existing Medicare.

16 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But doesn't it also mean prohibiting by statute all private plans offering coverage that overlaps with with MFA provides?  

Yes, that's in the law. No private coverage of services that M4A provides is allowed.

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why? There are huge improvements that can (and should) be made to existing Medicare.

No one said don't improve it. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

I'm going to need 3-4 more weeks of consistent messaging on this from Liz before I feel fully comfortable that she's all in, but maaaaaaaan this is good.

This is so good

Liz and Bernie can tag-team this shit to victory.

Let's go, baby.

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

MFA should mean taking what currently exists for those 65 and older and applying it to everyone. 

Oh, is that what it should mean? Good point. Maybe we should just skip ahead to the part where things are as they should be.

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, is that what it should mean? Good point. Maybe we should just skip ahead to the part where things are as they should be.

Considering Medicare's popularity compared to other forms of health insurance, I'm of the opinion eliminating the 65 and over requirement is the most politically viable option to getting us to universal healthcare.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Plot twist: The original Tweet was by Kamala's dad.

 

aaaaawwwwwwwwwwwkwarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Not all of them, sure, but if you pay attention you see a TON of disingenuous argumentation, bad faith, and concern trolling.

Look, for instance, at bozo's posting. At first there is the guise of genuine and good-faith confusion, but that facade is only held long enough to get try-hard libs to buy it and then immediately out comes "The Great Leap Forward" rhetoric.

I've spent 20 years posting on this topic,  under this user name in addition to doing things about it in the real world. Virtually anybody who has been on the last four boards (surly, shaggy, Hornfans) has probably read something Ive written indicating my support for and specific policy ideas about how to achieve  Universal healthcare for all, including for mental healthcare. It is the the central policy issue of my life because the gaps in the system killed my mother at age 55 in 1999. 
i'm not telling you this to explain my myself, but rather so you can understand the context and where I'm coming from when I tell you to go fuck yourself with the "good faith" shit. 

Oh, and as for the details - 
 

Quote

Elective surgeries are one category of services not covered.

that's false in a number of ways, including that "elective surgery" isn't a category of surgery. His plan actually would have to cover a large number of "elective procedures". I think you mean cosmetic procedures. 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Dp

Edited June 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13132]

57 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

i'm not telling you this to explain my myself, but rather so you can understand the context and where I'm coming from when I tell you to go fuck yourself with the "good faith" shit.

The context makes no difference as to the nature of your arguments and you aren't the only person who has lost family. I'm sorry for your loss, but it's about as pertinent as the family I've lost and about as relevant as the politicians at the debate leading off every answer with "this is personal for me because".

The fact that you knew that there was even a House bill from Jayapal as differing from a Senate bill from Sanders shows that you already knew (or thought you knew) the information you were pretending not to. This is being disingenuous. This is operating in bad faith. You can assign whatever noble motive you want to yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that you were/are being purposefully misleading and dishonest.

And I mention that primarily because it ties into the conversation about the difficulty we face in trying to promote and pass M4A or any other single-payer healthcare program.

We have people who are purposefully dishonest.

We have people who operate in bad faith.

We have people who think their punditry is meaningful or predictive.

[Dolemite 143]

I love surfing. I love having fun.

 

[elfenix 34169]

Democrats, "We need our politics and our policies to be more like Europe." Independents, Libertarians, and members of other parties, "So, myriad parties across the spectrum to more truly represent the nuanced beliefs of a very large and diverse nation like ours?  Perhaps a coalition styled parliamentarian system like the Europe model you so ostensibly endorse?"  

Democrats, "No, no other parties.  Not even the GOP.  Just one party to rule them all.  That's the European model!"  

Rest of us, "Uh, it's not.  And last time they tried that...Welp..."  

 

You want to abolish the Senate and move to multimember districts with proportional representation in a parliamentary or semi-presidential system, come on in. But it can't just be places that typically vote for Democrats that do that.  

Otherwise, you're just setting up strawmen.

 

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

The context makes no difference as to the nature of your arguments and you aren't the only person who has lost family. I'm sorry for your loss, but it's about as pertinent as the family I've lost and about as relevant as the politicians at the debate leading off every answer with "this is personal for me because".
The fact that you knew that there was even a House bill from Jayapal as differing from a Senate bill from Sanders shows that you already knew (or thought you knew) the information you were pretending not to. This is being disingenuous. This is operating in bad faith. You can assign whatever noble motive you want to yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that you were/are being purposefully misleading and dishonest.
And I mention that primarily because it ties into the conversation about the difficulty we face in trying to promote and pass M4A or any other single-payer healthcare program.
We have people who are purposefully dishonest.
We have people who operate in bad faith.
We have people who think their punditry is meaningful or predictive.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Jayapal bill. Disagreement is not bad faith. Assigning motives rather than responding to content, on the other hand, is.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The problem with progressive maximalists is that they imagine that the only way to accomplish universal healthcare is to adopt a system that literally every country in the western world that ever had it abandoned.

 

The idea of completely eliminating the private insurance sector from healthcare in our country is as ridiculous and unrealistic as the deporting every undocumented immigrant and building a wall from sea to sea.

 

She very much strikes me was one who blows with the prevailing wind, which is what I meant by Biden.  A representative of the status quo.

[BradInATX 9208]

I for one think we should skip the opportunity for a "try it out" phase before we spend trillions on something that is extraordinarily risky. lol yolo. Plus, when given the chance to shift trillions of dollars of healthcare burden from corporations to individuals, we can't act fast enough. The middle class really needs to start pulling their weight around here.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

 

“I think Macomb County is going to vote for Trump,” she said at a bowling alley in Warren. “I don’t think anyone has a chance. They love the guy here. There’s this myth about the Trump voter here who regrets it, and I’m not sure that person exists.”

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michigan-town-prepares-auto-plant-close-democratic-candidates-debate-labor-n1024376

Anyone who thinks Dem candidates should kowtow to these fucking idiots is nuts.   They blame Dems for everything that's happened to them as the economy has evolved, and they don't give a shit that Trump is making it worse.  At this point they just want other people to get fucked over as much as they feel they've been.   They don't want the truth, which is that those jobs aren't coming back, and they don't want the solutions that Dems are offering, like secure health care and government investment in clean energy manufacturing, so what is the point?   

They're gone.   Dems don't need them to win, so better to focus resources elsewhere.  Trump is at 42 - 54 approval in Michigan as is, so there's more than enough reachable people without the "forgotten (white) man" whose job just moved to Mexico under Trump but still loves the guy. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

I for one think we should skip the opportunity for a "try it out" phase before we spend trillions on something that is extraordinarily risky. lol yolo. Plus, when given the chance to shift trillions of dollars of healthcare burden from corporations to individuals, we can't act fast enough. The middle class really needs to start pulling their weight around here.

Well it depends. I’m not afraid of the “risk” of what Sanders is proposing because there’s really no path to get there. There are plenty of ways to get to Universal healthcare, including various flavors of Medicare expansion among other things, but the rapid conversion of 180mm people to a true single payer system just isn’t achievable and really doesn’t offer much in the way of advantages vs other options.

 

But don’t kid yourself that single payer is a “shift” of cost from corporations/employers to individuals. Individuals are paying 100% of the cost of care now. They are just exchanging labor for (some) of it instead of post-tax money.

[BradInATX 9208]

Well it depends. I’m not afraid of the “risk” of what Sanders is proposing because there’s really no path to get there. There are plenty of ways to get to Universal healthcare, including various flavors of Medicare expansion among other things, but the rapid conversion of 180mm people to a true single payer system just isn’t achievable and really doesn’t offer much in the way of advantages vs other options.  

But don’t kid yourself that single payer is a “shift” of cost from corporations/employers to individuals. Individuals are paying 100% of the cost of care now. They are just exchanging labor for (some) of it instead of post-tax money.

 

Sure, you're right. But however you work the semantics of it, the only way for individuals not to take on more burden would be if corporations said "since we're no longer paying for your healthcare, here's an equivalent salary bump". 

Which of course won't happen. You might see it in a few industries like tech and healthcare where it's a talent seller's market. But generally speaking we all know how that will go.

 

 

And yeah, I'm not worried about M4A happening. That's just not how we operate. And the majority of the country is against it.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

22 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I for one think we should skip the opportunity for a "try it out" phase before we spend trillions on something that is extraordinarily risky.

Medicare began in 1966. I think that's a good-enough "try it out" phase.

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well it depends. I’m not afraid of the “risk” of what Sanders is proposing because there’s really no path to get there. There are plenty of ways to get to Universal healthcare, including a Medicare expansion among other things, but the rapid conversion of 180mm people to a true single payer system just isn’t achievable and really doesn’t offer much in the way of advantages vs other options.

It's the supremely confident assertions without any credibility plus the total lack of specifics regarding the supposedly more-feasible alternatives that just make this soup so tasty.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Obviously I’ve been a big fan of Wyden-Bennett going back to 2007 because I think that’s the fastest and best way to both get to universal coverage and pressure overhead costs while also taking the biggest distortion out of the healthcare economy (employer coverage).

 

But, of the various flavors of M4A that are more feasible than the Sanders Bill (S1129), I see the most feasibility in

 

DeLauro-Schakowsky (HR 2452) - M4A w/opt out. This is probably most politically palatable to those who like employers coverage, and is probably most like what people think M4A means when politicians say it.

 

Bennett-Delgado (S981) - Medicare buy-in. This is probably the easiest to implement quickly and smoothly from where we are.

 

What you taste is not soup.

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Js1 85085]

🤨

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Wyden-Bennett?! My god.

Even if enacted, Wyden-Bennett would still have left millions, perhaps tens of millions, uninsured because it requires people to buy private insurance. That is never going to work. Faced with a massive health insurance bill to pay (since it would no longer be hidden from them via taxation or employer subsidy), many would simply choose not to have insurance because they are facing a dozen other insane financial pressures that seem/are more pressing.

Wyden-Bennett (like the ACA) is YET ANOTHER example of Democrats desperately trying to get the Republicans to like them by cutting public services as close to the bone as possible (while still trying to progress) only for the Republicans to say, "lol fuck you nevermind."

How many more Democrats are going to debase themselves like this? Dozens, I'm sure. Some Republicans will give a mocking thumbs up as the gullible Democrats toil away pointlessly, but the moment it gets serious the Republicans walk away.

And conservative voters love it because they get to play pretend about liking social programs but then can furrow their brows and say, "Oh well" when their chosen party refuses to do anything about it.

--

Medicare for America (DeLauro-Schacowsky) is definitely better than Wyden-Bennett, but it doesn't even have the veneer of Republican involvement. It's a 100% pure Democrat bill that has ALL the disruptive potential of Medicare for All without any of the massive cost and efficiency savings of having everyone in one plan. It leaves the massively inefficient and abusive private health insurance industry still in control of working American healthcare.

So yeah, their "Medicare for America" is way better than the ACA and Wyden-Bennett, but it's a compromise in search of a buyer on the other side.

If we're going to go it alone, why the hell do we even bother with inefficient and inhumane compromises?

--

Medicare-X (Bennett-Gibson)

This is ACA with a public option with no guarantee (or even desire) to achieve actual universal coverage.

It's Tim Kaine and Michael Bennet, for Christ's sake. Two very conservative Democrats with zero Republican input or support. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

MBU still bringing the, "Republican concern trolls WORRIED about Democrats not being Republicans!" heat.

Nice work, MBU.

[David Dennison 18646]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

MBU still bringing the, "Republican concern trolls WORRIED about Democrats not being Republicans!" heat.

Nice work, MBU.

Funny you should say that . . . https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/god-man-fuck-you-bret-stephens-1835987319

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Actually no, BT, You don’t understand Wyden Bennett , who it covered, how it covered them, or the mechanism of payment. You are incorrect in a number of ways.

Go read the CBO analysis. I won’t insult you by accusing you of bad faith, instead I’ll just assume you uncritically adopted talking points attacking it without doing the reading.

 

 

[Zonahorn 8079]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

🤨

 

Example number eleventy billion he’s out of touch and way too old.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well it depends. I’m not afraid of the “risk” of what Sanders is proposing because there’s really no path to get there. There are plenty of ways to get to Universal healthcare, including various flavors of Medicare expansion among other things, but the rapid conversion of 180mm people to a true single payer system just isn’t achievable and really doesn’t offer much in the way of advantages vs other options.

 

But don’t kid yourself that single payer is a “shift” of cost from corporations/employers to individuals. Individuals are paying 100% of the cost of care now. They are just exchanging labor for (some) of it instead of post-tax money.

Why does the conversion need to be rapid?  It seems like a multi-year phase in, either age or region based, would be the best solution.  Just because it can't be accomplished overnight, doesn't mean that it isn't achievable. 

Single payer continues to be the only option that offers true universal coverage. Opt-in plans will underfund the system in much the same way the toothless ACA did for private plans. Healthy people won't opt-in. Sick people will.  Economically, you can't just force insurers, whether Medicare or private, to grant brand new coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.  Those people absolutely need to be forced to be part of the system before the conditions exist.  In fact, the term "pre-existing conditions" as it relates to healthcare access should be relegated to the history books. It should only apply to newborns. 

[horncyclist 1384]

56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

🤨

 

Biden's gonna Biden. I'll be surprised if he makes it to Iowa.

[bad_teammate 13132]

bozo, can you tell me what votes the Democrats would get on the other side of the aisle for ANY of those alternatives that they wouldn't get for Medicare for All?

Can you tell me which of those plans wouldn't be characterized as radical socialist government intervention by Trump (and, by extension, all Republicans)?

*jeopardy music plays*

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why does the conversion need to be rapid?  It seems like a multi-year phase in, either age or region based, would be the best solution.  Just because it can't be accomplished overnight, doesn't mean that it isn't achievable. 

Single payer continues to be the only option that offers true universal coverage. Opt-in plans will underfund the system in much the same way the toothless ACA did for private plans. Healthy people won't opt-in. Sick people will.  Economically, you can't just force insurers, whether Medicare or private, to grant brand new coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.  Those people absolutely need to be forced to be part of the system before the conditions exist.  In fact, the term "pre-existing conditions" as it relates to healthcare access should be relegated to the history books. It should only apply to newborns. 

In the first paragraph, the conversion should be as rapid as possible because we want people to get into the system and we want t pressure costs downwards. Why wouldn't we want a good system as soon as possible. 

As far as your second paragraph, that's just not the case. There are a number of different systems in the western world that offer true universal coverage. All of them would be better than what we have now. The only system that doesn't exist in a western country is true single payer healthcare where the government health payer has a full monopsony on non-elective services. Even Canada, which comes the closest, has private insurance as part of the system.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Do any of these other countries have a Wyden-Bennett solution?

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Do any of these other countries have a Wyden-Bennett solution?

Switzerland is probably the closest.

 

A Beverige model hybrid system would be fine with me too. The real issue with M4A as Sanders and Priyapal design it is that it’s not feasible. Take just the politics of it- essentially you have the time between passage and the next election to get people invested in the system, because at best the blowback will prevent tweaking for an extended period of time after, and at worst you lose control and it’s rolled back prior to covering anybody.

The real advantage of Wyden Bennet is that it could be implemented and achieve universal coverage so quickly that people who benefit would have something to lose inside of a year, making reversal highly unlikely.

 

[Js1 85085]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

28 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Switzerland is probably the closest.

Do you think it's "feasible" to institute a system that maintains private insurance companies that are compelled by law to be non-profit and face extremely high government regulation?

Is it worth such tremendous disruption to move from #1 in highest costs per capita ALL THE WAY DOWN to #2 or #3 in highest costs?

Is it "feasible" to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and all other government-provided programs, as the Swiss model has zero government-provided plans?

Quote

The real issue with M4A as Sanders and Priyapal design it is that it’s not feasible. Take just the politics of it- essentially you have the time between passage and the next election to get people invested in the system, because at best the blowback will prevent tweaking for an extended period of time after, and at worst you lose control and it’s rolled back prior to covering anybody.

The real advantage of Wyden Bennet is that it could be implemented and achieve universal coverage so quickly that people who benefit would have something to lose inside of a year, making reversal highly unlikely.

Medicare-for-All phase-in under Sanders's plan:
Year 1: Expanded Medicare for 0-18 and 55+
Year 2: 45-54 rolled in
Year 3: 35-44 rolled in
Year 4: 19-34 rolled in

Of course, it could just all be rolled in the first year.

Please use a specific argument as to how the Wyden-Bennett plan would move more quickly. I have seen nothing about the speed of its planned implementation.

And also, could you please answer these questions...

bozo, can you tell me what votes the Democrats would get on the other side of the aisle for ANY of those alternatives that they wouldn't get for Medicare for All?

Can you tell me which of those plans wouldn't be characterized as radical socialist government intervention by Trump (and, by extension, all Republicans)?