Jake Johnson wrote the article, so I trust the reportage. That's good. I sensed that the numbers were climbing so I'm not totally surprised. That's good. We still have about 40% against or indifferent, which I guess reflects some mixture of capitalist scum and the "deplorable" troglodytes of the US population, and its amazing that their percentage is diminishing. And last, it appears, that the federal and state political vermin of both parties of the duopoly are showing some sign of common sense. It will be interesting. A lot depends on the power wielders of the likes of California Democrat Rendom. I, usually pessimistic, am hoping that this new interest in single payer (notice I didn't use the terms "socialist tendencies") option. Leave it to the politicos to screw up the momentum.
That's not correct. Polls have shown at least a small majority in favor of universal healthcare going back 20 years at least. One can question how durable the support is once the corporate propaganda scare machine revs up, but the support has been there for a long time - perhaps going back to 1950 when Truman first proposed it.
True that many swing voters have been pro single payer for decades, however, the folks who attend Merkley's rallys are mostly dyed in the wool Democrats who have not given a lot of thought to policy in the past and functioned as rubber stamps for the Party,
Meanwhile, the DNC is in full crisis mode to dampen enthusiasm for single payer. Billions of corporate dollars are at stake.
Recall Obama telling MSNBC during his sales pitch for the ACA on September 9, 2009: "health care reform must preserve insurance company profits".
A majority, like about 60%, have supported a single payer system for many years. That certainly hasn't made it "inevitable." The notion that majority citizen support for something makes it "inevitable" is quaint.
Any health care bill proposed at this juncture needs careful consideration. A bad Single Payer bill will not be an improvement. People really need to understand what they are wishing for. The California Bill was incomplete and you really can't fix that kind of change once you've voted for it. Read the fine print folks.
Love to see a progressive plan to transition to Medicare-for-All.
Also, people need to realize the savings in NOT having to pay insurance premiums, deductibles, and other charges in comparison to probable increases in taxes to pay for it.
Let's see some numbers.
There is no clearer line between those who support the 99% and those who support the 1% than the issue of Medicare-for-all. When any politician says that he or she are against Medicare-for-all, it is a clear indication that they are either woefully ignorant or more likely bought and paid for by corporate America. if Americans could just focus on such a single issue as Medicare-for-all, it would enlighten so many Americans to the fact that almost every politician in D.C. is nothing more than a corporate sycophant incapable of promoting the public interest. Those same politicians should be branded as treasonous and run out of office. At that point Americans should realize that it is not North Korea, Russia or terrorism that is our biggest threat, but the entire system of corporate capitalism that will go to whatever lengths it takes to undermine the public interest on behalf of their sociopathic benefactors.
"Money doesn't talk, it swears" - Bob Dylan
Correct me if I'm wrong the California plan includes but it not limited to a 10.1 percent sales tax. This doesn't include Federal contributions
Very good point. If the U.S. ever does implement a "Medicare-for-all" system, it is crucial to eliminate any current traces of the For-profit healthcare system that is in place now or else corporate America will get their paid lackeys in D.C. to starve the new system so as to create the appearance of a superior system when it is operated by corporations. When government introduces half ass measures and removes vital protections for publicly owned institutions like education or the post office, the MSM is then instructed to focus the blame on 'government' and to declare the publicly funded program as a complete failure. Therefore we cannot allow the current system of corporate owned politicians to introduce a Medicare-for-all system because it will contain so many loop holes and self defeating clauses from the get go so as to create the illusion that such a system is incapable of succeeding in the U.S.
We must first vanquish any and all corporate friendly politicians from Congress and replace them with progressives that won't bend to the influence of special interest groups if we are to really overhaul the dangerous and unjust healthcare system Americans are stuck with today.
How fricken stupid can y'all be? Are you talking about a "single payer" plan like Medicare? Are you on Medicare? It's a complete POS.
You pay into it for you're entire working life and when you are forced to sign up, you are then forced to buy health insurance and prescription insurance under threat of life long penalty payments.
From the Medicare website:
Medicare doesn't cover everything. If you need certain services Medicare doesn't cover, you'll have to pay for them yourself unless you have other insurance or you're in a Medicare health plan that covers them.
Even if Medicare covers a service or item, you generally have to pay your deductible, coinsurance, and copayments.
From the Medicare website:
Medicare offers prescription drug coverage to everyone with Medicare. If you decide not to get Medicare drug coverage when you're first eligible, you'll likely pay a late enrollment penalty unless one of these applies:
You have other creditable prescription drug coverage
You get Extra Help
To get Medicare drug coverage, you must join a plan run by an insurance company or other private company approved by Medicare. Each plan can vary in cost and drugs covered.
It's a complete piece of crap that is paid for by everyone, collected by a few, covers very little, forces you to buy insurance and is going broke.
But at least it's so complicated that an entire industry of consultants is required to help Medicare recipients figure out the crap each year as it changes constantly.
Yea! Medicare for all!!
Exactly, if could effectively end medicaid unless it is included as a provision.
Medicare is barred from using its economies of scale in order to bargain down the prices for drugs, which would save it and those that use Medicare lots of money. The corrupt politicians also have made it very hard to import cheaper drugs and they and their corporate backers go to places like the WTO and have a seat at the table to undermine generic drug production in other countries, create a very protectionist intellectual property rights regime and make drug re-importation really hard in this country (and this despite the fact that we the taxpayers pay a large percentage of R & D costs for their damn drugs). There was a time in which Medicare didn't exist. Do you think life for the elderly was better then? If so, do tell, and provide some data too.
It is a fact that the overhead in traditional Medicare is a fraction of private health insurance, even with the ACA, and again, that is with Medicare not being allowed to bargain down the price of drugs. Single payer systems in other countries have far less waste and overhead, are cheaper and we spend more as a percentage of our GDP on healthcare than any other country on the entire planet according to World Bank data. Given why there is so much waste in this system, there really isn't anything that can be done unless you move towards single payer. The more plans, the more choice there is, the more plans that hospitals and other providers have to juggle. The complexity of this system results in the need for a massive administrative apparatus, and it results in lots of the system having to hire financial professionals to manage the complexity. Nothing can be done about that, or the marketing and lobbying costs, the massive executive pay, the profits, among other things. Single payer systems aren't perfect, but they cover everyone, they have less waste and they don't have the massive social costs we do in regards to thousands dying each year from a lack of access to healthcare, countless people being locked into their jobs and the large amount of bankruptcies that result from healthcare costs.
By the way, when people say Medicare for all, they are obviously talking about expanding Medicare to fill in the gaps in existing Medicare, as is the case with single payer systems elsewhere. In Canada, however, single payer doesn't cover dental care and dental care is important as far as person's health, so that might be another gap to fill.
Fight the Power? LOL!
Actually, some general hospitals that are mostly all closed now had dental services. Dental health can be life threatening and would be covered under that provision.
You might be right. Seems odd that an increase in sales tax would be used to pay for it or is that just for comparison of costs purposes?
What I am more interested in seeing though is an inventory of costs that people will NO LONGER PAY if a single payer, medicare-for-all system is implemented. That is very important to included in any discussion on this topic and is often not considered. People look at an incrase in taxes but don't consider the likely personal savings that they otherwise pay.
Easiest way to transiton to Medicare For All?
Delete these three words "65 and older" from medicare legislation.
According to Ro Khanna overall healthcare costs in US would plummet from 49 to 32 trillion.
Yes - parts of Medicare require additional payments.
I pay just over $100 a month for part B. How does that compare to your health insurance?
Why the savings? It's single payer.
Part of the new legislation would require the govt to negotiate drug prices.
Sanders' proposal to transition to MedicareForAll has two parts:
1. Lower Medicare Age to 55 immediately.
2. Create national single-payer option under existing ACA.
Americans need to unite and keep on pushing for what we need. We have been wanting this for decades. At least keep stumbling in the right direction and eventually get there. When both parties cease to take corporate money from the insurance companies then single payer or Medicare for all is possible. Good luck with that
I know the funding mechanism wasn't complete and that needs to be clear before it goes to a vote. It does have a lot of good points in my mind anyway. Sure, it takes a complete analysis which it doesn't have. I think we agree. Thanks