• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Kamala Harris to Co-Sponsor Single Payer Healthcare

aeolist

Banned
Oct 31, 2006
17,538
0
0
Serious question- Do you want your middle class taxes to go up by 20% to get free healthcare? For sicker people, I'm guessing the answer is yes. For healthier people, I'm guessing the answer is no.

If you are worried about poor people having health care, then just expand Medicaid more (like maybe 3 times as much as Obamacare does.) I think that many of you are not thinking about the true cost of a medicare for all system. Do you remember that one Vox article about Bernie's healthcare plan in 2016? It is just too expensive. Why don't California or Vermont do it first? Massachusetts did Obamacare before the rest of the country adopted that.

How about we try it in a state first and see how it goes. California would be a perfect testing ground for this. Try it and see if it works. I am open to new ideas.

states don't have the ability to control costs or deficit spend during an economic downturn when healthcare costs would go up.

and i would be more than happy to jack my taxes up by 20% if i don't have to pay insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays anymore. even as a relatively healthy person i'd save a decent amount annually and have far better coverage.

e. also capital flight as a result of increased taxes is a far bigger concern for states than it is for the entire US
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
Medicare is also an existing system, and that's what they're calling this. Is that different?

Would changing the current medicare system to include people of all age ranges be more than budgetary? Like I have no clue. Just seem like it shouldn't be possible. Then again shit was approved in the recent repeal attempts that didn't seem like that would pass muster.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 8, 2006
50,641
0
0
I mean, cant you just have a young VP to take over if you kick the bucket and/or resign for health reasons?

So why not just cut out the middleman and elect that younger VP as president in the first place?

If one of the biggest challenges facing the post-Obama Democratic Party is cultivating a new and younger generation of leaders, then I don't see how nominating a septuagenarian for our next president is going to help that. And that's true for Bernie, Biden, and Warren.
 

Ponn

Banned
Mar 10, 2005
22,854
1
0
Florida
Would changing the current medicare system to include people of all age ranges be more than budgetary? Like I have no clue. Just seem like it shouldn't be possible. Then again shit was approved in the recent repeal attempts that didn't seem like that would pass muster.

Medicare covers more than just "old people". It is for all intents and purposes a government healthcare program. It covers people of all ages already that meet requirements like disabilities.

To further expand on this a Medicare expansion would indeed be mostly budgetary. For the people that keep saying it would take years to transition over to a single payer system using the current medicare system actually blows holes in that argument. See with medicare you have the option of going with several different Medicare Advantage plans instead of traditional medicare. Basically you get a plan with any of the traditional insurance companies and they handle the insurance but are just bound by Medicare regulations instead of coming up with their own rules like their own plans. Premiums and such are worked out between the companies and the government but to the person it works just like traditional insurance. Many Medicare users opt into this program because its simple and it covers medications easier than dealing with Part D.
 

StarCreator

Member
Oct 26, 2007
9,911
0
0
Maryland, USA
Unless the plans offered by Medicare are so barebones that private insurers can sell wraparound plans, I see this getting lobbied to death very, very fast. A lot of very rich people made, and still make, their money by selling private health insurance. There is just no way they are going to give up their cash cow without a fight.
 

Mass Effect

Member
Apr 24, 2011
11,120
4
0
Out of curiosity, do we have an idea of how much companies spend to provide their employees health insurance?

Reason I ask is because, in theory, if it is a non-insignificant amount, it could be money that goes directly back into employees' checks, something which could be used as a selling point for UHC.
 

StarCreator

Member
Oct 26, 2007
9,911
0
0
Maryland, USA
Out of curiosity, do we have an idea of how much companies spend to provide their employees health insurance?

Reason I ask is because, in theory, if it is a non-insignificant amount, it could be money that goes directly back into employees' checks, something which could be used as a selling point for UHC.

It is likely that whatever is now being withheld for employer health benefits will instead be withheld as higher Medicare taxes to pay for the expansion of the system.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 31, 2006
17,538
0
0
Unless the plans offered by Medicare are so barebones that private insurers can sell wraparound plans, I see this getting lobbied to death very, very fast. A lot of very rich people made, and still make, their money by selling private health insurance. There is just no way they are going to give up their cash cow without a fight.
bernie's already trying to get non-healthcare businesses on board with single payer

http://fortune.com/2017/08/21/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-health-care-insurance/
 

Zoe

Member
Jan 3, 2007
45,101
2
1,075
39
Austin
Out of curiosity, do we have an idea of how much companies spend to provide their employees health insurance?

Reason I ask is because, in theory, if it is a non-insignificant amount, it could be money that goes directly back into employees' checks, something which could be used as a selling point for UHC.

Under the original 2016 proposal, employer taxes were increased with the intent that employers would stop offering health care.

There were Kaiser studies posted in the previous threads. Employer costs are in the thousands on average, IIRC.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Out of curiosity, do we have an idea of how much companies spend to provide their employees health insurance?

Reason I ask is because, in theory, if it is a non-insignificant amount, it could be money that goes directly back into employees' checks, something which could be used as a selling point for UHC.

Two problems with this:

a) Wages are sticky in practice. Cutting the cost companies pay to provide healthcare would eventually increase wages when we hit zero unemployment pressure, but there isn't much evidence of that wage pressure right now for most people.
b) Most of that money is actually paid by the government in the form of the employer-provided health insurance tax exemption, so companies wouldn't get it back anyway. Employer-provided health insurance is the de facto government-run universal healthcare system of America, it just happens to be incredibly terrible and inefficient.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
Medicare covers more than just "old people". It is for all intents and purposes a government healthcare program. It covers people of all ages already that meet requirements like disabilities.

To further expand on this a Medicare expansion would indeed be mostly budgetary. For the people that keep saying it would take years to transition over to a single payer system using the current medicare system actually blows holes in that argument. See with medicare you have the option of going with several different Medicare Advantage plans instead of traditional medicare. Basically you get a plan with any of the traditional insurance companies and they handle the insurance but are just bound by Medicare regulations instead of coming up with their own rules like their own plans. Premiums and such are worked out between the companies and the government but to the person it works just like traditional insurance. Many Medicare users opt into this program because its simple and it covers medications easier than dealing with Part D.

"All ages that meet specific requirements" is a very narrow range in reality. It just seems very "iffy" ... who knos.


Also ... correct me if I'm wrong, but medicare for all is basically a large public option that would exist in the current for profit market. IE ... not single payer.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
"All ages that meet specific requirements" is a very narrow range in reality. It just seems very "iffy" ... who knos.


Also ... correct me if I'm wrong, but medicare for all is basically a large public option that would exist in the current for profit market. IE ... not single payer.

Medicare for All is an extremely vague term that could refer to all kinds of policies, from public option to single payer to universal catastrophic.

That's why it's such a popular thing to support!
 

Ponn

Banned
Mar 10, 2005
22,854
1
0
Florida
"All ages that meet specific requirements" is a very narrow range in reality. It just seems very "iffy" ... who knos.


Also ... correct me if I'm wrong, but medicare for all is basically a large public option that would exist in the current for profit market. IE ... not single payer.

You were questioning what was involved to make Medicare work for all and mentioned age. I was pointing out that's a big misconception that Medicare is only for retired people. The requirements to get on Medicare has nothing to do with its structure or how it actually works for the variety of people currently on it.

There seem to be so many different plans I wouldn't say Medicare for all is just for public option. It really depends on the plan put forth. You see a lot of people using Medicare for all because it's a government health care plan that's already in place and working.