From Digby's Hullabaloo, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll, a majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans favor a Medicare buy-in plan for adults 50 and older and a Medicaid buy-in plan for individuals who don’t receive health coverage through their employer.

Democrats and Independents also favor a national health plan similar to Medicare for anyone, but would allow people to keep their existing coverage as well as a Medicare for all plan. Republicans polled don't go for these options, but are almost there (47%) for the Medicare for anyone but not required.

Interesting how 56% of those polled favor Medicare for all, but then if it requires paying more taxes those in favor drops to 37%. It could be how the question is asked, as with any poll. If you get Medicare for all and do not have to pay insurance premiums, then wouldn't you expect that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the plan? Otherwise, you will be paying premiums to the government. Either way you'll have to pay, I think.

R. Neal's picture

One problem with Medicare for

One problem with Medicare for All is that people think Medicare is free. It's not.

They also think it's paid for by the government via taxes. That's not how it works.

They think taxes will go up ($30 trillion!) because that's what they've been told by Republicans. This is not true, at least not the $30 trillion part.

Medicare for All is just one idea for a way to get to single payer within existing frameworks.

It's not really single payer because insurance companies are still involved. But it's a lot closer than what we have now.

JaHu's picture

I'm all for Medicare for all,

I'm all for Medicare for all, but I could see why businesses could be against it. I would think it would cost them money in the long run. Employees would ask for higher wages to compensate for the lost income due to higher Medicare deductions.
Then again it could force businesses to team up with the workforce to drive medical cost down.

bizgrrl's picture

Employers would no longer

Employers would no longer have to contribute to cost of employee health insurance, thus they could afford wage increases. Couldn't they?

JaHu's picture

Very true! So it would also

Very true! So it would also be beneficial to them also. The only group who wouldn't benefit would be the hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and the politicians who have their hands in the pockets of the medical industry.
I'm wondering if the Democrats are marketing "Medicare for all" in the best way possible? I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want it. The only argument I hear, is that they don't want the government involved. But I think its now been proven that it's worse leaving it at the hands of private interprise.

bizgrrl's picture

I think hospitals would be

I think hospitals would be okay. At least everyone would have insurance and hospitals would not have to write off so many bad debts.

Government is already involved in that they regulate the industry.

Considering what I have seen in regards to Medicare services, I would be happy to apply for Medicare.

Note, as was said earlier by the Mr., private insurance is still a part of your insurance services when you are on Medicare (e.g. Medigap, Medicare Part D, Medicare Advantage- Medicare Part C).

jbr's picture

Would the buy in be similar

Would the buy in be similar to regular market insurance. The employer and employee combined pay the premiums?

If you buy in for Medicaid at 50 years old would the rates not be higher as of 50 years of age?

JaHu's picture

I would think as is for

I would think as is for social security, the rates would remain the same throughout the lifetime for everyone. The deduction would be determined by the same percentage off everyones income.

JaHu's picture

I haven't gone over the whole

I haven't gone over the whole comparison yet, but right off, I'm not on board with Sanders plan. He wants all residents to be eligible? I personally feel you would need to be a US citizen to be eligible. With Sanders plan, what would stop anyone, that was here from another country, from setting up a residence just to take advantage of our medical without ever paying in, then returning to their country?

Treehouse's picture

Other countries provide

Other countries provide medical services to US citizens when they travel abroad and it doesn't cause them bankruptcy. Is the US not equal to their hospitality?

And if you don't provide medical services to immigrants, refugees, and visitors, what if they don't get vaccinated or they go to work and school with flu or we just watch them die of preventable conditions? They pay into the system too with sales taxes and more. We need to quit drawing lines.

jbr's picture

Surprise medical bills lead to liens on homes and crippling debt

NBC's Denver affiliate KUSA worked for months on a series about surprise medical bills, and found that since 2017, just one collection agency had put liens on 170 local homes. When NBC News contacted Credit Systems, Inc., the company declined to comment.

Surprise medical bills lead to liens on homes and crippling debt

fischbobber's picture

Wondering here....

Would it be better to sail off in a general direction to go, or to keep changing course and never landing?

Start with a buy-in medicare for all and see what happens. Tax rates and co-pays should be determined by participation and income. Mandate government programs to allow for maximum participation. See what happens. Allow the private sector a level playing field.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives