Voters oppose 'Medicare-for-all' system that replaces private insurance: poll

[Vambo]

Voters reject Democrat-backed ‘Medicare-for-all’ in new poll

It may be a winning ticket in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, but two new polls indicate "Medicare-for-all" is far from the right prescription in the general election race for the White House.

 

[Vambo]

• Pelosi comes out against 'Medicare-for-all,' tells 2020 Democrats to follow ObamaCare blueprint
•  
• Fellow 2020 candidate calls Bernie's 'Medicare-for-all' plan a 'losing battle' that will set country back 10 years

[Tour2ma]

I agree... this is not a change to be mandated and I am confident it will not be.

Among other things the disruption to the economy by putting somewhere between 1mm and 2mm  employees out of work, even over a phase in period. It's hard to know the exact number (I looked) because employees of the health insurance industry are not separated from other insurances, e.g., life and casualty, in the references I found. But in any case it is significant.

What should be... and likely would be the policy the next Democrat Prez... would be to push to make "Medicare" a nationwide public option. I would further argue that enlisting private insurers to administer "Open Medicare" would be prudent. This would be analogous to "Medicare Advantage" plans widely available across the country. Part of the prudence would be that as people migrated to Open Medicare, as I believe many will, this would reduce the business losses of these private insurers.

[calfoxwc]

Why Premium Support for Medicare is a Bad Idea

https://thedoctorweighsin.com/why-premium-support-for-medicare-is-a-bad-idea

Dec 03, 2017 · Why Premium Support for Medicare is a Bad Idea. Proposals that would change Medicare into a voucher program, also termed premium support, will harm the popular program and the people who rely on it.

Why 'Medicare-for-All' Is A Terrible Idea - The Federalist

https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/30/medicare-for-all-bad-idea

Why ‘Medicare-for-All’ Is A Terrible Idea Those with political power would get good care, while those without such power—often the sickest—would lose out. By David Hogberg

[Vambo]

13 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

I agree... this is not a change to be mandated and I am confident it will not be.

Among other things the disruption to the economy by putting somewhere between 1mm and 2mm  employees out of work, even over a phase in period. It's hard to know the exact number (I looked) because employees of the health insurance industry are not separated from other insurances, e.g., life and casualty, in the references I found. But in any case it is significant.

What should be... and likely would be the policy the next Democrat Prez... would be to push to make "Medicare" a nationwide public option. I would further argue that enlisting private insurers to administer "Open Medicare" would be prudent. This would be analogous to "Medicare Advantage" plans widely available across the country. Part of the prudence would be that as people migrated to Open Medicare, as I believe many will, this would reduce the business losses of these private insurers.

Do you think under those plans Doctors and other Medical Professionals would leave to go where they could make top dollar, so now you don't have the best but the cheapest doctors left for the average Joe and the skilled doctors for the rich?  I've seen some of the care people like in rehab/assisted living are treated having nurse shortages and temps who just don't care they are just there for a paycheck.  I'm not sure how the VA works and their waiting lists for certain care and who decides who is eligible for needed medical attention maybe some of the military people can educate me on this.

 

Secondly I have heard with the medicare for all could stifle the research and development part of the medical field, like some of the top Doctors may leave to follow the money.  Seems the more I look into this I end up with more questions than answers.

[Westside Steve]

17 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

I agree... this is not a change to be mandated and I am confident it will not be.

Among other things the disruption to the economy by putting somewhere between 1mm and 2mm  employees out of work, even over a phase in period. It's hard to know the exact number (I looked) because employees of the health insurance industry are not separated from other insurances, e.g., life and casualty, in the references I found. But in any case it is significant.

What should be... and likely would be the policy the next Democrat Prez... would be to push to make "Medicare" a nationwide public option. I would further argue that enlisting private insurers to administer "Open Medicare" would be prudent. This would be analogous to "Medicare Advantage" plans widely available across the country. Part of the prudence would be that as people migrated to Open Medicare, as I believe many will, this would reduce the business losses of these private insurers.

It probably would. I would also assume the increased burden would push Medicare costs significantly higher* and probably reduce benefits and service. Again that's a frog in the pot thing so as Generations go along it will just be common practice.

 

 

* meaning a much higher burden on seniors, the group it was meant to help in the first place.

WSS