Timex
3396
I believe that most recent polling has shown that the Democratic party is quite diverse, in terms of ideology. It’s got far left elements, but also has moderate elements.
By contrast, polling of self identified GOP members has shown that they’ve moved quite far to the extreme right, and there are very few moderate Republicans left in the party.
This does mean that the Democratic party would likely not be able to simply do what the GOP did and go crazy extreme, because they actually have members who are more moderate. Their platform would necessarily need to be more moderate.
M4A isn’t extreme. It polls middle of the road. People hate health care as is and want it fixed. Most democrats know that the bullshit stories people tell about Canada and Europe are exactly that, and the audience of democrat voters who don’t know if it’s a good idea will listen to democrats say that it is and change their minds, because they aren’t stuck in the Fox News machine.
Menzo
3398
I don’t see how you get to single payer without starting with M4A. It’s just too big a leap to try all at once.
Timex
3399
Totally true… but the idea of just gutting the entire healthcare system is inherently scary.
I think Pete described why having a public option ALONG with a continuation of private insurance, makes sense… if the public option is better, then it’s just gonna win, so you’ll get there anyway. You don’t NEED to kill private insurance plans to get what you want.
In truth, the fact that private insurance won’t be able to compete with government plans is one of the core arguments against the public option from the right wing. “Well obviously the government plan will win, because it won’t be bound by the same kind of profitability needs! That’s not fair, and will kill private insurance!”
These kinds of things require a tactical approach.
Oghier
3400
‘M4A’ covers a spectrum of proposals that range from moderate to crazy talk. Buttigieg was right last night when he said, “Nobody should say they are for M4A without having to say what that means and how we get there.”
The question is what we do with private insurance. The idea that we’re going to simply switch everyone over to a single-payer system is politically and practically impossible. 100m+ people have private insurance. You can’t just tell them “trust the government to handle it now.”
The plans for optional buy-in to M4A can work. If the plans are good, they’ll out-compete private insurance in the long term, but they don’t cause massive disruptions in the short-term. That’s what we need to do.
The cool thing about electing a bunch of smart people with varied interests is you can trust them to try their best to do a good job. I don’t expect anything that passes will be crazy or break everything.
Sharpe
3402
I direct your attention to the UK since 2016.
wahoo
3404
M4A is deliberately confusing b/c people won’t like it in its actual legislative language. So smart politicians are trying to change what it means.
A Medicare buy-in is an incremental step. It means people can purchase access to the Medicare program (or Medicaid). Individuals would have premiums, cost sharing the way Medicare works. I believe this is what most people think of when they hear Medicare for all. It’s a big step to universal coverage. It’s popular b/c Medicare is popular.
This is not when Medicare for All is. Medicare for for All is the specific piece of legislation that Sanders is pushing (when Warren/Gilly/Harris/Booker) as co-sponsors and has over 100 co-sponsors in the House. (It’s Called The Medicare for All ACT) with multiple congressional hearings.
This legislation would be the most generous health care plan in the world with no cost sharing provisions. Unlike most other health plans, including other nationalized systems, most incidental benefits are covered with 0 cost sharing. Private insurance is also eliminated as would existing govt programs. These are all far beyond international norms.
I have 0 doubt this plan will be implemented b/c the CBO score would be staggering.
That’s okay, they can just sunset all the parts that benefit actual Americans before the five-year mark.
Yeah, that kind of thinking can go pound sand.
As far as health insurance goes, a federal public option buy-in, with no nonsensical BS in the law about not letting the government negotiate on price, is the way to go.
Wahoo is correct with regards to Sanders’ plan. However, there are competing proposals and once it goes through the legislative process it’s doubtful his version will remain intact.
Here’s a piece that goes into more detail:
There’s also this to consider. Doing nothing would be even more expensive:
There is no question that the costs would be massive. On the other hand, according to government projections, if things stay as they are, by 2026, the combined health care spending by the private and public sectors is expected to reach $45 trillion regardless.
Again though - representatives of all major health care industries. Lock them in a room for a month or two and ask them to come up themselves with a program that at a minimum keeps the cost of health care flat year over year.
If they refuse or are unable to do this then open government run pharmaceutical manufactories, open tons of government run medical delivery services, and then refuse all Medicare Medicaid payments to any non governmental medical provider.
Stop there and I’m on board
Yes, that’s what all the conservatives say. Also, too, it matches their own political desires, which is quite a coincidence.
Not good enough. Sorry, but doctors are overpaid, and nothing short of price controls is going to fix that.
Edit: Actually you’re right on this point, so sorry about that.
I disagree. Making laws is complicated. “I’m for Medicare for All” is a perfectly reasonable position in the absence of detail. It communicates a desire to see a government-provided health insurance offering similar to Medicare and available to everyone. No specific plan touted by anyone in a campaign will ever be implemented as originally described, and asking people to spell what they mean out in great detail is a waste of time because it is irrelevant.
Most people change their insurance every year or so and have no say in the change at all. Either their employer changes plans, or they change employers. People are used to changing. M4A will actually improve on that. I’m not someone who thinks private insurance has to be eradicated, but this isn’t much of an argument for keeping it.
Someone needs to tell Joe about the rule of holes.
I’m sure some poet laureates were also gangbangers. I mean, who doesn’t like a good gangbang?
So the next debate is at the end of July and has the exact same format and requirements. Two nights, ten people per night, 1% polling, same number of donations (presumably for the quarter?).
So, yay. More clown cars.
