Home | About | Donate

We Should Support Medicare for All


#1

We Should Support Medicare for All

Judy Dasovich

Americans know we need affordable, accessible, quality health care. Our current system relies on private insurance which provides none of these things. Improved and expanded Medicare for all can give us the tools we need to move towards these goals.


#2

Just signed onto the pre-approval of Bernie Sanders’s coming bill. He’s collecting “citizen cosponsors,” and though I’d rather know exactly what I’m signing onto, I trust Bernie, and “Medicare for all” is pretty simple.


#3

Congratulations to Judy Dasovich for getting this article into her local newspaper!

All of can be talking, writing, and organizing action to push for this entirely reasonable change in the horrible US health care system. Cut out the blood-sucking profiteers! Improved and enhanced Medicare FOR ALL!


#4

The Dems are bought-and-paid-for servants of the for-profit healthcare denial system.

Want Medicare-for-All? Work around the Ds.


#5

“Other industrialized countries pay about half of what we do and provide more care to more people while producing better outcomes.”

Other countries have real Universal Health Care, which Medicare for All, as Medicare stands now, is NOT.

Medicare as it is now would have to be changed very significantly before it could pass as anything that looks like Universal Health Care.

I’d say this “Medicare for all” campaign is supported by insurance companies hedging their bets in relation to the uptick in calls for Universal Health Care.

Medicare, as it is, relies heavily on privately provided supplemental policies to reach toward full coverage, does not cover vision or dental and requires each participant to pay substantial amounts taken out of their social security earnings every month for basic coverage. Automatic deductions from social security monthly payments amount to over $1200 annually out of Social Security (and that does not include premiums for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover).

Basic Medicare covers 80% of many medical procedures. Sounds good until you have a 100K procedure…

Trading ACA for Medicare for all is a completely lateral move and offers no improvement, just different details.


#6

That’s exactly why the House bill is titled “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.” Join the fight.


#7

Other industrialized countries don’t have two-party systems with one of the major parties being the Republican Party. Exactly how do we get politically from fighting against a repeal of Obamacare to Medicare for all.


#8

Details please. The devil is in the details. I was behind ACA until I saw how it was implemented in my state.


#9

I recommend the following references for details on Improved Medicare for All:

http://www.pnhp.org/hr676
and/or
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676
(I’m only partway looking through myself)

I read the piece in the nation that complained about the names Single Payer and Medicare for All (https://www.thenation.com/article/want-national-health-insurance-dump-the-term-single-payer-and-medicare-for-all-too/) and I’m sympathetic to the argument that a better name could make a difference in getting there sooner (which is what really matters). However, I don’t know if that is going to be very easy at this point (and the Nation article offers no good alternative either). I’m starting to see a lot more Medicare for All references than Single Payer - I wonder if the latter term will be jettisoned. We have Social Security - maybe we should call it Medical Security. Or Taiwan’s NHI (National Health Insurance), USA Care, or whatever as long as we get there.


#10

Exactly? I couldn’t say, but it starts with convincing a lot more Democrats to stop being so wishy-washy like Obama was (with his worthless comment “if I was starting from scratch …”). We need Democrats to openly say - “yes I want a Medicare for All type system and with your help (speaking to organizers and people at rallies), we will get there. It isn’t going to be easy with us our party in the minority but that can change and believe it or not even some Republican voters aren’t happy with the current system and would consider our proposal. And in other countries like the U.K, even conservative politicians don’t propose moving from their system to one like ours - that should tell you something.”

If the choice in the primary is between a Democrat who will talk like that and one who talks like Feinstein ("If Single Payer means … <garbage she doesn’t herself believe>), it is obvious who most of us on CD who vote in Democratic primaries are going to choose.


#11

Pass the fair tax and medicare will be covered for all.


#12

Lrx, I truly understand your pragmatism. Your trust of the US national security agencies, not so much.

That said, I can say without hesitation that you will never overcome Republican opposition by playing on their terms. If your party doesn’t have the guts to set a fresh, bold agenda, they should stop pretending they’re anything more than a sideshow.

And I do mean sideshow: they can’t even form an effective political force in California. For my part, count me out.


#13

From the summary: “The program would be funded through a combination of existing federal and state health care spending, a modest payroll and income tax based on ability to pay, and surtaxes on very high-income groups. Payroll taxes would be fully offset by a reduction in premiums and the virtual elimination of out-of-pocket expenses.” No real details here… just ideas left open to interpretation… a poltician’s trick to get backing.

The Medicaid Expansion had similarly expressed ideas and it has turned into a boondoggle for many states and has been used as impetus to privatize publicly funded mental health and other health care options which in effect has exacerbated the destruction of, for instance, community based mental health care making it harder to fund appropriate levels of community care in a wide spectrum of offerings that address the needs of those who need wrap around services in the community… it has made worse the growing problem of those who have a predominantly mental health based issues ending up in prison or jail. There are more people with predominantly mental health based issues in prisons than are served in community programs. I doubt that is what Kennnedy intended when he kicked off the deinstitutionalization movement.

People die because of these shortfalls… it isn’t merely an exercise in bureaucracy and making sure the administrative dots connect.

I have no problem with removing obstacle to universal coverage by using existing programs, but, again, the devil is in the details


#14

And there’s the other difficulty we have. Health insurance now varies state to state. That’s why you can’t buy your insurance from another state. Another big reason to federalize it and make it real health care.


#15

Why trust anything but very detailed information from this club?


#16

Non sequitur and ancient history.


#17

The outline of Sanders plan at https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ is an improved Medicare that he will be introducing in the Senate in a short while. Between Bernie’s proposal and the HR676 proposal - there are a lot of great ideas and I hope that the merger of the two will be very supportable.
Personally I believe it makes more political sense for funding to come from a single type of tax (like Social Security or Medicare now) rather than a collection of different types of taxes like Bernie proposes - the reason being that you then have to defend six things that some people won’t like instead of just one. But I will support any significant single payer proposal that gathers enough steam to ignite the public’s imagination for such an important positive change.


#18

Of course the devil is in the details, but also asking your average person to read hundreds of pages of details isn’t likely to enamor them to the concept either. In the bill (30 pages now) is some text on mental health care:

SEC. 204. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall provide coverage for all medically necessary mental health care on the same basis as the coverage for other conditions. Licensed mental health clinicians shall be paid in the same manner as specified for other health professionals, as provided for in section 202(b).

(b) FAVORING COMMUNITY-BASED CARE.—The Medicare For All Program shall cover supportive residences, occupational therapy, and ongoing mental health and counseling services outside the hospital for patients with serious mental illness. In all cases the highest quality and most effective care shall be delivered, and, for some individuals, this may mean institutional care.

I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from. Do you want to move in this direction or are you making some other proposal? And sure, nobody here likes DWS and her crowd. This bill comes from John Conyers which is about as far away from DWS as you can get in Congress these days.


#19

In spite of all the pages that you seem to think the average person could not fathom or have time for this remains SO general.

Of course this kind of language is duplicated in any proposed change… and has been, especially when funding cuts are a part of the deal. I witnessed this for over 35 years. Part (b) especially is exactly what every privatization plan asserts it will accomplish… in fact, the buy in for people in the flield when cuts and privatization is being wheedled into the works is bought by using this exact language.

There need to be a non-partisan oversight group, clinical experts with their fingers in the direct care world, from the industry that can make sure the spirit of “Universal” care is adhered to as the programs are rolled out. There are SO MANY models to choose from, with very similar cultural components… Canada’s for one, there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason to invent the wheel over again unless loopholes and ways that corporate health care can squeeze in are to be built into this plan…


#20

The one thing, a BIG disappointment, I remember about Conyers is that he helped the Dems win majority in the House during the Bush II years of lies and deceit on the grounds that they would pursue impeachment and prosecution. As soon as they won majority status Conyers was among those who promptly, I mean immediately, took pursuing the Bush cabal off the table. So don’t expect any kind of trust from me… the proof is in the pudding. The devil is in the details.

We need Universal Health care, not some bullshit overly complicated, easily exploited and profitized, propagandized version of what we have now… just firm up ACA and leave us half covered and ailing if that’s all its going to amount to.

I’m from Michigan, by the way, people have died from the way our governor was allowed to roll out medicaid (or should I say, roll in?)