Bernie's Medicare for All Plan; Going Anywhere?

[scagnt83]

It has 16 co-sponsors. GOP is clueless on what to do and their constituents are exacerbated when it comes to "healthcare".

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/ber...edicare-for-all-plan-with-16-co-sponsors.html

Will it go anywhere? Will it morph into a Bi-Partisan agreement? Will it die a fiery death? Should we have voted for Bernie instead?? Do we get more of the same for 3 more years???

Keep in mind that Trump is making deals with the Dems at the moment. So maybe Bernie thinks this is his opening. We all know Trump has voiced support for single payor in the past. So who knows.

Vote away.

 

[hamben]

it will never go anywhere. killing of the Employer sponsored cash cow will not be allowed.

 

[TampaHound]

it will never go anywhere. killing of the Employer sponsored cash cow will not be allowed.

Actually I think if anything will fuel it. It would be this. The average American worker has not seen real wage growth for nearly a decade (if not longer) as their medical insurance shrinks and they are asked to pay more into it.

If a company feels that it would help their bottom line to cut medical care for their employees...they would be more likely to push for the govt. to take it over. Wal-mart (one of the biggest employers in the country) currently does exactly that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#46573df4720b

 

[Yagents]

Schumer and pelosi already gave thumbs down. Won't even see the floor of either chamber. It's just an attempt for Dems to rebrand what they stand for in next election.

----------

Article states same.

 

[nylife11023]

Schumer and pelosi already gave thumbs down. Won't even see the floor of either chamber. It's just an attempt for Dems to rebrand what they stand for in next election.

I agree, but this is how all great change starts... with the idea first floated, and then discussed, sides drawn, and minds changed.

How did we get to a majority of people supporting gay rights?

History shows that the civil rights movement in the 1960s followed a similar path, as well as the anti-Vietnam war movement on the early 1970s.

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” ― Victor Hugo

 

[scagnt83]

Multiple studies have shown around 1/3 of registered Republicans now support a Single Payor system. Just wait until 2018 when some states have zero options in half the state.... Id bet it will be 50% of Republicans by 2019.

Funny how nobody ever complains about Medicare once they hit age 65... they even talk about how they cant wait to hit 65 to collect Medicare (especially if they are paying IFP premiums). But when it gets floated for those under 65 its like the world is going to end for some people... yet those same people jump on Medicare at age 65 without a second thought.

 

[FLM2]

I agree, but this is how all great change starts... with the idea first floated, and then discussed, sides drawn, and minds changed.

History shows that the civil rights movement in the 1960s followed a similar path, as well as the anti-Vietnam war movement on the early 1970s.

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” ― Victor Hugo

You have to be f**king kidding me.

The civil rights movement didn't start out of 'ideas first floated and discussed', it came out of the efforts of some incredibly brave people, some of whom gave up their lives, who virtually forced this country to provide equal rights under the law.

As for the anti-Vietnam movement, it wasn't the early 70's, it was the mid-60s and again, these weren't 'ideas first floated and discussed', it was people of my generation realizing that we had no right to be there, caused a sitting president to not run for re-election, and virtually forced Nixon to eventually end this nightmare but only after the loss of 58,000 Americans lives.

There is absolutely no relationship between these events and the upcoming discussions about healthcare, period.

 

[scagnt83]

There is absolutely no relationship between these events and the upcoming discussions about healthcare, period.

The healthcare discussion has become a moral issue. If you dont see the relevance of those movements then you are missing the whole point of why healthcare reform was needed in the first place and why ACA passed.

A majority feel healthcare is a moral right in a wealthy developed country such as ours. And that its immoral to ignore those in need of healthcare... or force them into subpar choices or into bankruptcy just to not die.

Is it in the US best interest to have people going to the ER for routine care?
How about people dying of diseases that are preventable with routine care?
How about families going bankrupt just to pay medical bills? Or these days just to pay a family deductible on a non-subsidized plan... lol.

Citizens in this country are becoming morally outraged at our healthcare system for so many different reasons. That is why eventually, in my opinion, we will have medicare for all (at least be able to buy into it). Hell, even some Republicans have floated the idea along with keeping the private market.

(and when I say morally outraged, Im talking about lifelong Republicans I hear saying stuff like that)

 

[Yagents]

This will not end well:
-------------

10 Medicare for All and Graham-Cassidy Highlights, for Agents

Medicare for All

Sanders and other bill supporters say they based their new bill on earlier Medicare for All bills introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.

The bill would:

1. Provide complete coverage for all medically necessary acute care and short-term care, including dental, vision and audiology care. It would not cover long-term care, but it would require states to spend at least as much on long-term care services as they do now.

2. Eliminate all cost-sharing for medically necessary care other than up to $200 in out-of-pocket costs per year for prescription drugs.

3. Ban the sale of private health insurance that duplicated Medicare for All program coverage. An insurer could, however, still cover services that were not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery.

4. Encourage patients to protest discrimination on the basis of "race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex, including sex stereotyping, gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy and related medical conditions" by filing lawsuits in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties.

5. Raise revenue for the program partly by:

Charging employers 75% of what they are currently paying for health benefits, or 7.5% of payroll, whichever was higher.

Charging families 4% of income for coverage.

Eliminating the current group health tax exclusion.

Raising marginal tax rates on households earning more than $250,000 per year, to a maximum of 52% of income for income over $10 million.

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.

Capping itemized deductions at 28% for households making over $250,000 per year.

Expanding the estate tax, and increasing the tax rate to 55% for an estate with a value over $50 million, with a special 10% surtax for an estate with a value in excess of $500 million, or $1 billion for a married couple. That means the total estate tax for a billionaire couple could be 65%.

Getting rid of "grantor retained annuity trusts," or GRATs, and other types of trusts and valuation techniques now used to minimize estate taxes.

Imposing a 1% annual wealth tax on households in the top 0.1% in terms of wealth. (If the tax took effect today, it would apply to households with more than $21.5 million in wealth.)

Change rules that help some taxpayers avoid the current Affordable Care Act 3.8% Medicare surtax and the ACA net investment tax.

 

[FLM2]

The healthcare discussion has become a moral issue. If you dont see the relevance of those movements then you are missing the whole point of why healthcare reform was needed in the first place and why ACA passed.

A majority feel healthcare is a moral right in a wealthy developed country such as ours. And that its immoral to ignore those in need of healthcare... or force them into subpar choices or into bankruptcy just to not die.

Is it in the US best interest to have people going to the ER for routine care?
How about people dying of diseases that are preventable with routine care?
How about families going bankrupt just to pay medical bills? Or these days just to pay a family deductible on a non-subsidized plan... lol.

Citizens in this country are becoming morally outraged at our healthcare system for so many different reasons. That is why eventually, in my opinion, we will have medicare for all (at least be able to buy into it). Hell, even some Republicans have floated the idea along with keeping the private market.

(and when I say morally outraged, Im talking about lifelong Republicans I hear saying stuff like that)

I'm not missing anything, I lived through both the civil rights and Vietnam era as both a teenager and an adult and don't see the correlation. The absence of civil rights was based on hatred and racism, the absence of healthcare is based on something completely different. And Vietnam was just a ridiculous situation made worse by a misguided president.

The healthcare 'mess' is driven by politics and business interests-there are solutions that don't require a massive overhaul of the insurance market but those solutions will never be implemented, such as getting providers to accept Medicare reimbursement rates instead of the 140-175% rates common on commercial plans (which is just one example).

Until both sides of the aisle have a real dialog about fixing the system nothing is going to change, the Sanders 'Medicare for All' bill is a step towards that dialog because the bill sponsors (such as Al Franken) know the bill won't pass in anything like its current form.