• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to universal health care but by me.”

—Bernie 20:20
 
52813650_846659752348296_4713914307477464576_n-(1)-1656282143.jpg
 
That’s great.
 
Counterpoint:

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-medicare-for-all-universal?fbclid=IwAR1uZb2ECC5s_3AlcRPtkGd9nGfzTMhJ8SAEVORPFv0lptD-RwJc9-r-4HU

Medicare for America includes premiums of up to 10 percent of a person’s annual income and out-of-pocket maximums of $5,000. In a country where four in ten people don’t have the savings to cover a $400 emergency, these costs will either prove to be financially devastating or deter people from seeking needed care.

The proposal’s proponents argue that allowing Americans to opt into public insurance will gradually chip away at private insurers’ clienteles until the vast majority of Americans — or even all Americans — are covered under the same public plan. O’Rourke claims that the public option will become “the program of choice.” But by allowing private insurers to compete with the public plan, Medicare for America ensures that care will remain unequal and segregated.

This is why Medicare for America is not a pathway to single payer. Its multitiered and means-tested approach will inevitably pit working people against one another.

Imagine a situation in which only poor and working-class Americans utilize the public plan, while wealthier people can afford better plans. This is a breeding ground for resentment, which can be mobilized towards defunding the public option. Once that happens, patients enrolled in it will experience shrinking coverage and higher costs. This will naturally lead to the growth of private supplemental plans and leave Medicare vulnerable to further privatization with the encouragement of a still-powerful private insurance lobby. (We see this already with costly Medicare Advantage plans.) If the public plan is as good as O’Rourke suggests, why not enroll everyone in it now?
Click to expand...
 
MHBDemon said:
Counterpoint:

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-medicare-for-all-universal?fbclid=IwAR1uZb2ECC5s_3AlcRPtkGd9nGfzTMhJ8SAEVORPFv0lptD-RwJc9-r-4HU
Click to expand...

I'd like to give that author the benefit of the doubt, but the first paragraph you quoted is at best extremely misleading. Most of those 4 in 10 Americans would pay absolutely nothing for healthcare under Medicare for America. Also, because it charges rich people, it's at least plausible that Medicare for America would be better for low income Americans as a whole, as it wouldn't require as dramatic an increase in payroll taxes that no cost for all plans like M4A would. Need more details to be sure.
 
Is it predetermined that Medicare for All would require specifically an increase in payroll taxes?
 
Is Krugman any more clear on details than the authors of the Jacobin piece?
 
MHBDemon said:
Is Krugman any more clear on details than the authors of the Jacobin piece?
Click to expand...

Eh, I think they are making are making very different points. Krugman isn't try to sell us on specific details of a specific plan. He's saying that it's silly to argue there is only one way for us to get healthcare right. We should hear everyone out, including plans that include private insurance. I think that's a pretty easy argument to support given many countries around the world are accomplishing universal care successfully in different ways, nearly all of which involve private insurance and/or out of pocket costs.

That's a bit different than the Jacobin piece, which appears to be deliberately misrepresenting the details of one plan to prop up M4A as the only answer. I'm not even against a well designed single payer plan. But the whole "Medicare for all is simple, it just remakes a huge chunk of our economy in a way that is unlike any of the other highly successful countries around the world, but this is the best way, your way sucks, just trust us" thing is tough. It just rubbed me the wrong way, maybe I'm a bit cranky tonight.
 
MHBDemon said:
Is it predetermined that Medicare for All would require specifically an increase in payroll taxes?
Click to expand...

Of course it would. However, if people actually looked at net cost, the payroll taxes would likely be much lower than the insurance premiums people are currently paying whether they be co-paying with their employer or by themselves.

The problem is the RWers and insurance lobbies will spend billions, if necessary, to obscure the fact that the public will be saving money by such taxes.
 
And of course that's making an assumption that companies would immediately raise the salaries of people by the reduction in healthcare costs that they have been paying.
 
ChrisL68 said:
And of course that's making an assumption that companies would immediately raise the salaries of people by the reduction in healthcare costs that they have been paying.
Click to expand...

In Europe, national health insurance is paid by employers and employees like we do payroll taxes. Although the "tax bite" would increase for the individual, many would actually see more in their net pay. By having this as either law or option, companies could save tons of money on giving insurance to employees.
 
Somebody needs to calculate what universal system we could afford with what we already pay in health care costs.
 
MHBDemon said:
link?
Click to expand...

It's common sense. It's a tax that doesn't exist today.

Read my other post. It says more taxes may be taken out, but it's reasonable to think they will have more take home pay due to the cost of healthcare being lowered.
 
That's how Medicare works...That's how it works in every other country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top