House Democrats' ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill would largely outlaw private insurance

[gwb-trading]

No you are wrong, again. It's because of Republicants that we do not have single payer. This, like the science behind global warming is common sense fact, so of course you think otherwise.

Jem, take your meds.

At the time ACA was passed Democrats had a majority in the Senate and the House plus Obama in the White House. They could have passed any plan they wanted - they chose to pass ACA which was 95% written by Healthcare lobbyists. The Republicans had no involvement in the Democrats deliberately choosing not to pursue single payer. The Democrats can only point the finger as themselves when people ask why we have Obamacare and not single payer.

 

[Tony Stark]

You are lying unmanly faggot poster.
.

You are a racist piece of shit dumb ass birther who feels manly using homosexual slurs

 

[Tony Stark]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[piezoe]

House Democrats' ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill would largely outlaw private insurance

New ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill would largely outlaw private insurance
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-medicare-for-all-bill-would-largely-outlaw-private-insurance

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled their latest “Medicare-for-all” bill -- a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system that would largely outlaw private insurance as part of what critics call a one-size-fits-all government takeover.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., and is co-sponsored by more than 100 House Democrats including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., showing the extent to which the policy has drifted from the fringe of the party to the mainstream.

It would move America to a virtual single-payer system, like systems used in the U.K. and Canada, and promises to “prevent healthcare corporations from overcharging for the costs of their services and profiting off illness and injury.”

“It’s time to put people’s health over profit. Our bill will cover everyone. Not just those who are fortunate enough to have employer-sponsored insurance,” Jayapal said in a statement. “Not just children. Not just seniors. Not just those who are healthy. Everyone. Because healthcare is a human right. We will need every single person in the country to help us, to stand with us, to organize and to fight for this.”

“Everybody in, nobody out,” Jayapal said at a press conference, according to The Guardian, where she hailed the bill as a “complete transformation of our healthcare system.”

The legislation, though, revives a controversy over what such a health care overhaul would mean for private insurance. Under the new proposal, private insurance plans could only be used to supplement coverage that is offered by the government, “for any additional benefits not covered by this Act.”

But the text of the proposal makes clear that private policies would largely be eliminated. One clause in the bill makes it “unlawful” for a private health insurer “to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.” The text also prohibits employers from doing the same.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, an advocacy group for the private health insurance industry, said the vast majority of Americans are happy with their coverage as it is.

“Americans want to improve what’s working for them and fix what’s broken. This bill will hurt patients, consumers, and taxpayers: Americans will pay more, to wait longer, for worse care,” spokeswoman Kristine Grow told Fox News in an email. “Let’s focus on real solutions that deliver real results, not a one-size-fits-all government system.”

Republicans immediately painted the plan as “disastrous,” pointing to studies that suggest the price tag could be as high as $32 trillion.

“Medicare for all will eliminate private insurance, make trips to the DMV look like a Caribbean vacation and cost taxpayers trillions. Good luck to the vulnerable House Democrats who will be forced to defend this $32 trillion boondoggle,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Michael McAdams said in a statement.

The legislation was quiet on the question of price. According to Politico, Jayapal said she plans to release a separate list of suggested funding mechanisms -- which include additional taxes or mandated employer contributions.

According to a fact sheet from Dingell’s office, the transition to Medicare-for-all would take two years. The coverage would include all primary care, dental, vision, maternity and newborn care, prescription drugs, mental health services and others. It would also cover "women's reproductive health services." The plan would appear to leave little that could be covered by private insurers.

The move marks a radical shift from former President Barack Obama’s original pitch for ObamaCare -- where he falsely promised: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” That statement was eventually labeled “lie of the year” by Politifact.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has not co-sponsored the bill, but has indicated she would allow hearings on the bill in an apparent nod to the party's left flank. The legislation would almost certainly be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate.

But the legislation appears to mark part of a broader shift by Democrats, with a number of 2020 presidential hopefuls coming out in favor of Medicare-for-all plans, and some putting their support behind abolishing private health plans.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper in January if people could keep their current health care plan under her Medicare-for-all plan. She indicated that they couldn't, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.

"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.

"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."

On Monday, fellow 2020 hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was asked on CNN if, under his plan, people could keep their private plans.

“No,” Sanders responded mid-question as he shook his head. “What will change in their plans is the color of their card. So, instead of having a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, instead of having a United Health Insurance card, they're gonna have a Medicare card.”

This Fox headline is a wonderful illustration of how disinformation based on accurate information may be even more powerful than real information, depending on the messenger. Note the weasel word "largely" which keeps the lie out of the outrageous category and converts it to the run-of-the-mill lie category. Of course a passable Medicare for all Bill would not outlaw private insurance. But the intellectual level of many Fox viewers is such that they might very well believe that. In fact Medicare for all would be profitable for private insurers, just not as profitable as the current system, which cleverly hands the young and healthy, low-risk customers over to the private insurance industry and the old, sick, and dying to medicare. Nothing is quite so profitable as insurance covering the improbable.

The last thing anyone should want is to allow people to opt out of medicare for all. That would kill the cost efficiency inherent in concept of medicare for all. This is not socialized medicine being proposed, it is socialized base insurance. Socialized medicine is what England and the VA offers. Medicare for all is simply a proposal for a national insurance plan backed by the Treasury and supplemented, probably by 20%, via the private insurance industry -- just as medicare for those 65 and older works now!

If Medicare for all gets legs after 2020, rest assured there will be many attempts by the Republican Insurance lobby to make it optional, and allow people, i.e., the healthy, to opt out. This will be the poison pill that the Insurance industry will hope to force down the legislation's throat, just as Obamacare was made to swallow ruinous poison pills. Though it may seem this country has become a hopeless plutocratic quagmire of legislation by and for the 1%, who own everything, we can, nevertheless, still make out faint rays of hope on the horizon.

 

[Tony Stark]

That's what the "public option" was about. It was killed by Max Baucas in the Senate, with help from his Republican colleagues, all of them with hands in the insurance companies pockets. It is possible that it could pass after 2020 depending on the election outcome. What would happen, however, if what you suggest was enacted, is that the Insurance companies, just as they do now, would continue to siphon off the healthy while leaving the sick and dying to medicare. It would be much, much better for all of us if we had universal medicare with the insurers selling supplemental policies that would pick up the 20% that medicare doesn't pay. That way the higher costs of care when one is old are averaged against the lower cost when one is young. That's how you bring overall costs down dramatically.

A lot of people seem to like thier private insurance or buy into the socialized medicine bullshit.To quit thier bitching and blocking medicare for those that want it we probably have to find a way to let them keep it.

 

[TJustice]

why do you make shit up about Obamacare?

Bacus was a democrat and Obama selected him because of his ties to health insurers.
He received millions from them
Obama caved to Democrat's cronies and special interests.
Obamacare was passed without a single republican vote...they could have done whatever they wished.

That's what the "public option" was about. It was killed by Max Baucas in the Senate, with help from his Republican colleagues, all of them with hands in the insurance companies pockets. It is possible that it could pass after 2020 depending on the election outcome. What would happen, however, if what you suggest was enacted, is that the Insurance companies, just as they do now, would continue to siphon off the healthy while leaving the sick and dying to medicare. It would be much, much better for all of us if we had universal medicare with the insurers selling supplemental policies that would pick up the 20% that medicare doesn't pay. That way the higher costs of care when one is old are averaged against the lower cost when one is young. That's how you bring overall costs down dramatically.

 

[TJustice]

You just keep making shit up to support democrats...
Fox was not the only website to say such things..

Politico did as will in fact...

Here is the google search snipet...

House Democrats to release 'Medicare for All' bill — without a price ...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/.../house-democrats-medicare-for-all-118913...
5 days ago - Government-run single-payer system would eliminate most private health insurance and ... The lead sponsor of the "Medicare for All" bill, Rep. .... abortion coverage would eliminate the long-standing ban on federal dollars for ...

Here is more...



"The bill also orders the creation of a national health budget requiring federal officials to negotiate annual payments to providers in advance. And, for the first five years, at least 1 percent of that massive budget would go toward programs helping millions of health care workers displaced by the creation of a single government-run system, including “wage replacement” and retirement benefits in addition to job training. Jayapal estimated that 1 million to 2 million people in the private heath insurance industry could lose jobs.

The government would also be empowered to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies — a longtime policy priority for Democrats — and create a single list of covered drugs that encourages providers to use cheaper generics."

This Fox headline is a wonderful illustration of how disinformation based on accurate information may be even more powerful than real information, depending on the messenger. Note the weasel word "largely" which keeps the lie out of the outrageous category and converts it to the run-of-the-mill lie category. Of course a passable Medicare for all Bill would not outlaw private insurance. But the intellectual level of many Fox viewers is such that they might very well believe that. In fact Medicare for all would be profitable for private insurers, just not as profitable as the current system, which cleverly hands the young and healthy, low-risk customers over to the private insurance industry and the old, sick, and dying to medicare. Nothing is quite so profitable as insurance covering the improbable.

The last thing anyone should want is to allow people to opt out of medicare for all. That would kill the cost efficiency inherent in concept of medicare for all. This is not socialized medicine being proposed, it is socialized base insurance. Socialized medicine is what England and the VA offers. Medicare for all is simply a proposal for a national insurance plan backed by the Treasury and supplemented, probably by 20%, via the private insurance industry -- just as medicare for those 65 and older works now!

If Medicare for all gets legs after 2020, rest assured there will be many attempts by the Republican Insurance lobby to make it optional, and allow people, i.e., the healthy, to opt out. This will be the poison pill that the Insurance industry will hope to force down the legislation's throat, just as Obamacare was made to swallow ruinous poison pills. Though it may seem this country has become a hopeless plutocratic quagmire of legislation by and for the 1%, who own everything, we can, nevertheless, still make out faint rays of hope on the horizon.

 

[piezoe]

They could have passed any plan they wanted

It is a myth of course that Democrats voted as a block, so there was never much choice in plans they could pass! The only way they could muster enough votes in the Senate to pass O'Romneycare was if Max Baucas, a "democrat" who had taken more money from the insurance lobby than any other legislator, got his way. So no, they could not have passed any plan the rest of them may have wanted, but they could pass any plan Baucas would go along with!

 

[piezoe]

why do you make shit up about Obamacare?

Bacus was a democrat and Obama selected him because of his ties to health insurers.
He received millions from them
Obama caved to Democrat's cronies and special interests.
Obamacare was passed without a single republican vote...they could have done whatever they wished.

You probably didn't notice the use of the subjunctive in the Title to the Fox Article. You could take a look at my response to gwb if you are interested in more detail re Baucas.

 

[piezoe]

A lot of people seem to like thier private insurance or buy into the socialized medicine bullshit.To quit thier bitching and blocking medicare for those that want it we probably have to find a way to let them keep it.

They'll keep it as supplemental insurance to cover the 20% that medicare doesn't cover. We can't afford to let private insurers continue to siphon off the young and healthy, as they do now,* and also give them the cost breaks that medicare negotiates. That would wreck the efficiency and average cost of medicare. The care under medicare is identical to the care under private insurance; the cost claimed by private insurers for patients under age 65 is vastly higher than the equivalent medicare costs.
______
* a primary reason U.S. healthcare is so costly and so inefficient. You pay double premiums, medicare and private insurance, until age 65, then you drop to medicare plus private supplemental insurance. One of the political hurdles that has to be got over is that few under age 65 really understand how medicare works. And practically no one understands the burden placed on U.S. medical care costs of allowing for-profit companies to siphon off the young and healthy, charge them outrageous premiums, falsify billing by not disclosing discounts negotiated with drug companies and providers, and then dump the aged sick and dying on the public system. Remember that because of the McCarran–Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from Dept of Commerce Regulation that would otherwise prevent acting in restraint of trade, and depending on the state they operate in they don't have to publicly disclose their costs. They are exempt from most anti-trust laws.