Here's why you don't like Medicare-For-All, why it can't work and so on.

[deckeda]

It's not because of Republican opposition. Well, not officially .

It was "your" idea. Ain't that sweet?

State lawmakers acknowledge lobbyists helped craft their op-eds attacking Medicare-for-all

Remember when "liberals" meant progressive?

[vision63]

No way they would do that! These are elected officials they're accusing.

[Sarcany]

Medicare for all doesn't work on its own because you're still on the hook for at least 20% of your medical bills under Medicare.

You will still need a supplemental insurance plan.

We should have a true single-payer system, but I would settle for “Medicare Extra For All,” so long as bankruptcy-inducing co-pays and "patient responsibility" bills are eliminated.

[Ombligo]

Sarcany wrote:
Medicare for all doesn't work on its own because you're still on the hook for at least 20% of your medical bills under Medicare.

You will still need a supplemental insurance plan.

We should have a true single-payer system, but I would settle for “Medicare Extra For All,” so long as bankruptcy-inducing co-pays and "patient responsibility" bills are eliminated.

I too would like a single-payer system, but the Medicare model with supplemental works in that it keeps the private insurance sector working. Closing out the private sector totally could cost upwards of 500,000 jobs.

[RgrF]

You'll never get costs under control if you don't eventually remove insurance companies from the equation.

[cbelt3]

RgrF wrote:
You'll never get costs under control if you don't eventually remove insurance companies from the equation.

This. Because Medicare/Medicaid ONLY works because the rest of us pay out the hoo ha.

[Ted King]

RgrF wrote:
You'll never get costs under control if you don't eventually remove insurance companies from the equation.

I think the theory a lot of moderate Democrats think makes sense is that by the government providing more efficient, better quality and cheaper health care through a public option that we would evolve away from private insurance.

I have no idea if there is a way to fashion a public option where we do get such an evolution away from private insurance (I think some form of private insurance will at least persist in some more limited manner). As a purely political consideration, I do think a public option has more appeal to that small segment of persuadable voters than does Medicare for all.

[mattkime]

IMO, a stepwise plan is far better, but politics being politics its probably easier to make one big change rather than a series of small changes over time - after all, look at the evolution of ObamaCare.

[DeusxMac]

cbelt3 wrote:
Because Medicare/Medicaid ONLY works because the rest of us pay out the hoo ha.

In basic terms, that's how ALL insurance works: homeowners, auto etc.

Those who don't utilize/need payouts subsidize those who do.

(Dammit, I never had no car accident, so my insurance payments been goin to all them lousy drivers!)

[AllGold]

Getting insurance companies out of it is tough. Not just because it would result in the loss of a lot of jobs, but also because of how our political system has been perverted to allow massive influence from large corporations.