Discussion: Watch This 2020 Dem Get Booed For A Full Minute After Trashing Medicare For All

[donricardo]

Time for the one percenters to start dropping out.

[jonney_5]

@ronbyers

There is Medicare for All and there is Medicare for All. I would like to know which version he is trashing. Full blown single payer or the opt in variety pushed by some.

Neither are my favored M4A

I want someone to propose M4A that is true single payer, every human within our borders can use.

That Medicare should cover ~80%.

There should be some 100% covered items like in ACA.

There should be hospitals and clinics which will charge only Medicare coverage amounts.

Then the 2nd part is supplemental insurance which will keep some of our insurance industry intact, and perhaps manage some of the larger program.

This will allow those with money to purchase something better than those without (very important for the selfish amongst us) yet moves to 80% coverage which will reduce the supplementary coverage cost.

This will keep things closer to what folks are used to.

[jtx]

I think the taxes is a messaging thing, but employees get upset when their employer changes policies. Deductibles and CoPays keep going up, fewer options for providers, so that without the discussions their is little to ease their minds.

Untill we know what will be offered and how much each has to contribute to the plan we will be in limbo.

Lets not say it is looser.

[jonney_5]

@castor_troy

Nobody has been proposing a mandatory implementation across the board.

Even though this is the only real long term solution that can constrain rising costs.

[leftcoaster]

The legislation proposed by Pramila Jaypal rolls everyone over to Medicare very quickly.

Medicare-for-all: Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s new bill, explained

[maxwellsdemon]

@ANNFFL

Gee, first Hickenlooper got criticized for refusing to say he’s a capitalist, now he gets booed for rejecting socialism. WTF.

Maybe it’s for being afraid to commit

[ronbyers]

Sounds like you are beyond the slogan stage. Are any of the Democratic candidate?

[ANNFFL]

But that’s what many people think M4A is. I really like to see candidates give different names to their healthcare plans instead of having to constantly explain what they really mean.

[littlegirlblue]

Of the 23 candidates you’ve named the ones with fires in the bellies.

[pluckyinky]

Amid the boos, Hickenlooper said “You know, if we’re not careful, we’re gonna end up helping to reelect the worst President in American history.”

Since there’s so many people running for President (& not enough for Senate

He’s right about that and so is she.

[maxwellsdemon]

Thanks @rick too many seem to misinterpret “tolerance” along with the 1st Amendment. We should be prepared to listen to all opinions and they should be prepared to “tolerate” our responses.

[arc_of_the_universe]

I haven’t heard of a plan yet that calls for kicking people off their private health insurance.

Actually, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders and AOC are proposing. From Vox’s Sarah Kiff (one of the best liberal reporters on health care):

Sanders’s single-payer proposal would create a universal Medicare program that covers all American residents in one government-run health plan.

It would bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option. It would largely sunset Medicare and Medicaid, transitioning their enrollees into the new universal plan. It would, however, allow two existing health systems to continue to operate as they do now: the Veterans Affairs health system and the Indian Health Services.

Those who qualify for the new universal Medicare plan would get four years to transition into the new coverage. In the interim, they would have the option to buy into Medicare or another publicly run option that does not currently exist.

Eventually, though, they would all end up in the same plan, which includes an especially robust set of benefits. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, lab services, maternity care, and prescription drugs as well as vision and dental benefits.

The confusion lies in what is meant by “Medicare for All.” I (and, polls show, a majority of Americans) would prefer that all of us had the option to sign up for Medicare. Under Sanders’ plan, “all” means everyone (with some exceptions) would be forced to get Medicare.

I suspect this is bad policy because making it an option and then allowing the government plan to out-compete the private plans would be a more affective mechanism for transition. But one thing is certain: Telling the 115 million people who are satisfied with their plans that the government will force them to change is just awful politics.

The booing and ad hominem attacks (including AOC’s shade via Twitter) are markers authoritarian populism. I hope Democratic leaders discourage such methods. They have no place in a party that stands for democratic values.

[maxwellsdemon]

which is what it’s going to take to wrest control back from the corp-ocracy (both R and D).

[littlegirlblue]

Right. Some noise, some shaking up the norms, all that. Passion and then some.

[castor_troy]

Should have clarified I’m meaning amongst the Presidential candidates. There I’m really not tracking any, other than He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named and who has no chance of getting there, that are actively seeking to eliminate private insurance now. As some aspirational thing sometime down the road, sure.

Medicare for All, or Medicare for More? Here's where the Democratic...

[ronbyers]

@arc_of_the_universe

Telling the 115 million people who are satisfied with their plans that the government will force them to change is just awful politics.

Until we see the coverage being offered I don’t think we can reach any conclusion. To be popular the medicare for all plan better have superior coverage and lower costs than most employer plans.

[chlarry]

The RWNJs seem to inject the word “socialism” in their social media comments lately. That is probably a pre-emptive move on the part of the right to poison the discussion about income inequality. Why a Democratic presidential candidate would also throw around the nutter’s current favorite buzzword is beyond me.

[littlegirlblue]

@arc_of_the_universe

Telling the 115 million people who are satisfied with their plans that the government will force them to change is just awful politics.

Specifically employer-provided plans for workers and retirees. Much is given up during one’s work life in order to get that health care in the way of higher salary and other benefits, and no one is going to willingly drop them for the uncertainty of the unknowns in those plans.

[pluckyinky]

@arc_of_the_universe

The confusion lies in what is meant by “Medicare for All.” I (and, polls show, a majority of Americans) would prefer that all of us had the option to sign up for Medicare; Under Sanders’ plan, “all” means everyone (with some exceptions) would be forced to get Medicare. Telling the 115 million people who are satisfied with their plans that the government will force them to change is just awful politics.

I completely agree. Opt in M4A is to me the only viable option politically. People prefer to be given a choice and it will be breathlessly easy to scaremonger folks into hating a M4A they don’t even get a choice in accepting. Plus, even if we do somehow take the Senate, where are you going to get the votes for M4A?

[tiowally]

Thanks for that. It was my understanding that everyone could opt in, which, if I understood it correctly (emphasis on “if”), was the plan under the original ACA until the Rethuglklans whittled and hacked at it.