Healthcare for all.....Look what CA is looking to put on their Nov 2026 Ballot - "If the measure qualifies for the November 2026 ballot and were to be enacted by California voters, it would levy a 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s roughly 200 billionaires. It would direct 90 percent of those funds to California’s Medicaid recipients and the institutions that serve them (with the remaining 10 percent going to the state’s K-12 schools)." To read the details ..it would be a start see: https://open.substack.com/pub/robertreich/p/a-wealth-tax-that-works?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
As Thom mentioned in a phone call on Saturday, Vermont did the equivalent, adopted Medicare for All, but because it needed matching Federal funding, could not effectuate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
My feeling is after reading the article that this is a 'test' for Healthcare for all as it's just for the tax year of 2025....it's quite interesting to read how they are proposing to do it!!!
I am all in favor of Medicare for all - if the current democrat party leaders will not get behind this (they won’t) then we need new leaders who will add this to their mission to reduce costs and health risks for all citizens! - all they need to do is find some financial support for showing the facts of how this reduces costs and eliminates big insurance companies denying coverage while making their executives obscenely wealthy - to me this could be a big winning proposal for the democrats
JMckay. "......find some financial support for showing the facts...."
It is easy to demonstrate with simple mathematics of the kind called Inferential Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences, that the larger the risk pool, the lower the cost of a system of payment. In other words: the largest risk pool, ALL AMERICANS, is the cheapest way to pay for health care. The insurance companies have armies of statisticians working for them. They know this to be true. Furthermore, as Mr. Hartmann has pointed out: those countries with a single payer system, [including every citizen in them], are less expensive than ours. This is empirical evidence which supports my claim.
I taught that math for decades at the university level. It is beyond the scope of this comment to develop the mathematical model. It would require a semester of time and a blackboard.
Thanks but my comment referred to finding financial support to advertise the facts that you know support the argument and politicians willing to fight the big insurance companies
Bravo. This issue is one people of all stripes can get their head around. It should be hammered without cease until some Republican leaders get the message and join most of the democrats. I finally got myself taken off Medicare DIS-advantage just last week. I delayed last year when I was in the middle of an inquiry about a medical issue and decided not to change horses mid-stream. I called the number on the back of the Medicare handbook, and an amazing worker walked me through the process in about half-an-hour! (During the shutdown and after SS staff was cut in half by the DOGE freaks). Essentially, all I needed to do was choose a new drug plan and fill in a simple application form (which she did for me on the phone!) that makes the change back to regular Medicare official effective Jan 1st, 2026. Thank goodness for the deep state.
I had heard that it was very difficult to switch and there is a window during the enrollment period and a restricted period later for going back. But I had no problem at all after they opened the enrollment window. There could be higher costs for drugs or for the plan I believe, but my costs are actually the same or lower. I recommend going back, regardless because you know you will eventually get screwed by private insurance. I was especially upset about a $40/mo cost for a bi-pap sleep apnea machine with an initial $140 cost (which I refused). I'm expecting to get it under Medicare without any payment or possibly a small cost.
Sir Okie Doke. Franklin Roosevelt, one of our three best presidents, appointed Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor. She was the first female cabinet member in the U.S.
Perkins hounded Roosevelt until he agreed to create Social Security, the third rail of American politics. She also urged him to create universal, single payer national health care. But Roosevelt did not do it because he knew it would be a lost cause in the Congress.
Roosevelt knew that the Southern Whites would never agree to share health facilities with Black citizens. So, in the end, it was White racism that did us all in. White and Black, both.
They were both a force of nature. It's hard to believe it is going to take 100 years to finish the job they started, but I believe we will.
The Woman Behind The New Deal by Kirstin Downey is a brilliant book about Perkins. I'm sure you've read it, but I thought I'd mention it for others interested in this history.
Great column. The democrats should use this to educate the public (the American public is not well educated on many important issues) and then gain more votes.
The billionaires seem clueless that national healthcare would reduce absenteeism while eliminating any costs they pay currently for employee insurance. National healthcare also enables the government to cap what private-practice doctors can charge, and cap drug charges, too. In European programs, people are FREE to pay for additional private insurance if they foolishly think that they get more competent care by paying too much for elite service providers. So Republican complaints of taking away freedom of choice is baseless.
I am one of the few Americans already on the national health insurance program because I am retired military. Once we turn 65, military retirees must pay for Medicare B, but DOD Tricare pays what Medicare won't pay. All my meds are free too. Several years ago, I needed prostate surgery that only Mayo Clinic could perform. My only bill was for overnight parking. I still have to pay separately for dental and vision insurance because some Congressional jerks label that as cosmetic rather than health maintenance. A national healthcacre program should cover that too.
Best of all, as Europe demonstrates nicely, the average life expectancy age would surely increase from the current 78 to 82 or more!
Business actually likes being connected to workers healthcare because it prevents them from leaving for another job. I know several unhappy people who are staying at their jobs just because someone in their family needs the coverage and they can't switch insurance. The pre-existing illness is a anchor. That allows their employer to underpay them yet retain them.
Great comment, Moon. Did HR and needed to know our employees stories as well as what we offered for insurance. This is exactly the "sick" way corporations think and screw with people's lives.
Both my wife and I have additional Federal Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, that covers what Tricare pays for you.
Our premiums are high... and going higher. Medicare is the high risk carrier in insurance terms. Must accept old and disabled folk otherwise uninsurable. The costs of healthcare increase with age. If they add younger people, as some had planned (i.e. to age 62), the risk and costs would be spread.
Yes, oddly, I get my hearing aids from the VA because Tricare considers it a service-connected disability, which it is. I recall when a PA interviewed me before testing, she asked me if I had ever been exposed to loud noises. I was in uniform LOL. I asked her if guns count. She was a bit embarassed by my answer - new-hire probably.
World War II gave us the mistake of basing health insurance through employment. Democrats have been trying to fix that for eighty years.
All the ACA naysayers never admit it was the first stride forward by making the damn insurance companies insure the folks with pre-existing conditions. Almost everyone hates them more each year and with good reason. They are killing our economy along with the patients.
Argentinians and Israelis have coverage and we are paying for it. That's stupid! Time to join the civilized world. Feed people and let them go to the doc or stop bragging about this place comes FIRST or that it is number ONE. See you in the streets.
About President Truman: "He proposed a national health insurance plan in 1945, which was later used as the foundation for Medicare and Medicaid, though his plan ultimately failed to pass Congress."-AI Overview
Without what the Dems have done for America, we would all be working till we dropped dead. It's one of the reasons these willfully ignorant "both-siders" absolutely need to pick-up a book! Thanks, Daniel.
Everyone I read says Democrats shouldn’t run on simply being anti-Trump in any upcoming elections (even though that is sufficient in my opinion). Medicare for all , tax the rich, and raise the minimum wage would be an inspiring, energizing message. Democrats have to go bold. The base will not put up with returning to the status quo. No more timidity.
IMHO Medicare for All (not necesarily the Canadian plan) could also enrich big employers, add millions of jobs, and reduce the cost of most insurance -- if., and only if, the collateral source rule were eliminated.
Collateral source rule (Google): Generally protects a plaintiff from having an award reduced by third-party payments, such as those from health insurance, Medicare, or workers' compensation. It also typically prevents this information from being presented to the jury, ensuring the defendant can't use it to pay less. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_source_rule
Medicare lien: Medicare has a right to seek reimbursement for its payments from any settlement or judgment that compensates you for those same medical costs. This means that after a settlement, Medicare can place a lien on the money to recover its expenses.
The conflict: Some states, like Florida, have modified or abolished the collateral source rule to allow for reductions in awards for certain collateral sources, including Medicare. This is because Medicare has a right to seek reimbursement, which can significantly complicate the process of a plaintiff's recovery.
As a result, parties in say, personal injury litigation, must request Medicare to approve settlements.
If collateal sources were eliminated from the equation, juries would not probably use futiure medical expenses as a basis to determine pain and suffering.
Therefore, at least in theory, the cost of all insurance should drop, like a rock, because defendants would have limited exposure for future medical as all would be covered by Medicare.
Mr. Solomon. An incompetent surgeon in Michigan butchered my left hand badly in a failed surgical procedure. I went to the best medical liability firm I could find. They told me that in Michigan the insurance company which had covered me for the operation, had the right to collect what they said was their share of the award which I might win in court. The attorney said I had a sure winner. But the insurance company would get virtually all the money the law firm would win for me. The attorney advised me to think hard about whether I really wanted to go through all that hassle and collect almost nothing after they win.
I wish this mess had a simple solution, but Vermont's experience shows that a major national overhaul is needed, not a piecemeal approach, and given how disruptive this would be you know what we can expect from Congress (nothing). But that doesn't mean it isn't needed. As you've said elsewhere Thom, this situation also grossly distorts employment, not just by adding major costs for employers but also by making it far more risky for people to quit and start their own businesses. And it leaves physicians and other medical people spending ridiculous amounts of time on paperwork and fighting with insurance companies rather than treating patients. But there's big money in sick people (I won't even get in to how prevention is a neglected strategy). It's like those stupid ads telling the public about drugs that they should, "Ask your doctor about". Huh, what, who's the expert here?
The joke in all this is that systems are working all over the world. We don't have to figure "it" out, but we need to get rid of these psychos and sadists running the show.
I just successfully finished up 15 rounds of chemotherapy for lymphoma. My personal doctor discovered several nodes that were growing and gave me a referral to the national hospital. I was quickly put into the system and began treatment in weeks. No paperwork, no deductible, no worry about denial of treatment or being out of network.
All of this happened in Costa Rica, a country not nearly as rich as the USA.
Starting universal health care in the USA would be complicated as we now have a deeply rooted system with nothing but for profit hospitals and as Thom said, parasitic, bloodsucking insurers whose only goal is to make a profit.
How can we possibly incorporate for profit hospitals into a national system? I can’t see them and doctors willingly giving up the incredible profits being made.
We should have done this a long time ago before the vultures got a stranglehold on the system.
Never say never, Chris. Glad you are getting what you need.
There are a lot of medical people on board with single-payer. The AMA is not who they used to be. Only 15% of physicians are in it compared to 75% in the 50's.
The “death panels” ACA opponents warned of years ago have come to pass - in the form of corporate boards of directors. Medical industry (and it IS, unfortunately, an “industry”) CEOs become billionaires, rewarded for increasing shareholder value at the expense of stakeholders. A medicare cheat goes on to become a senator (Rick Scott, R, FL), lying about what he delights in calling the “Schumer Shutdown” while inflicting pain on his own constituents. A social good is labeled “socialism”. Too many corporate, “centrist” Dems are at best derelict, at worst thwarting the efforts of the progressives you mention, often secretively while making progressive noises. We need to throw the jokers out of our deck.
The Democrats have a winning message, with Health Care for All -Single Payer, but that means repudiating their precious Obama Care -ACA, and that they can't do, because it means repudiating Obama and Pelosi, and a major source of donations, AHIP and PhRMA. (AHIP-Association of Health Insurance Providers)
Come on. You keep sayin stuff like that. It was the Massachusetts plan -- Mitt Romney proposed it as Romneycare, and Obama had little to do with creating it and has no ownership except for the name that REPUBLICANS gave it.
You're right that the insurance industry opposes Medicare for All. Most of the others were/are confused about how it works -- although they individually have it when they reach 65 or 67.
I live in a state where we did not extend Medicaid and turn down a lot of Federal health care funding. It costs us jobs -- and lives. We have some state govenrment entities that won't accept even Blue Cross/ Blueshield. That's because of the antipathy to "communism" that has been sold to the Hispanic minority. The same Hispanic minority has the highest proportion on Obamacare than any other identifiable group in the U.S.
So Bernie's plan was actually Romney's plan? No that is not what you meant, but you didn't clarify the subject, just stepped on the spring board without checking to see if there was water in the pool.
Oh you mean that the ACA was actually Romney's plan. And Obama and Pelosi had a lot to do with it. Obama had invited AHIP lobbyist and execs to the White House, but not one single payor advocate, not even Bernie, who wasn't allowed it, and Nancy kept all Single Payer motions off the floor
Them are facts, the ACA, aka Obama Care, was not only passed by the Democratic Congress, but signed by Obama and shepherded through the process by Rahm Emanuel in the White House. Remember the sign on Truman's desk, The buck stops here.
The bill is Obama's. His Office shepherded it and he signed it. It belongs to him, just like NAFTA and GATT belong to Clinton, and the PATRIOT Act, the National Security State act, that is being used to track and monitor us, belongs to George W. Bush, although it was actually drawn up during Clinton's presidency,.
NEVER was actually proposed by Obama. He signed it to expedite it after lots of negotiations in Congress. He could't control ther Senate committee and Max Baucus. That was years after the Hillarycare fiasco. Obama supported a public option later on.
During the ACA Debate (2009-2010)
Initial Support: As a presidential candidate and during the initial legislative push, Obama consistently advocated for a government-run insurance plan to be offered alongside private insurers in the new health insurance marketplaces (exchanges).
Rationale: The public option was intended to increase competition in the insurance market, keep private insurers "honest," and help control costs and premiums.
Congressional Action: A public option was part of the bills passed by the House of Representatives.
Removal: The measure faced strong opposition from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, notably Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatened a filibuster. To pass the landmark legislation, Democratic leaders dropped the public option from the final Senate bill. Instead of a federal public option, the final ACA included a program to provide federal loans for nonprofit, member-run health insurance co-ops, many of which later failed.
After the ACA Was Passed
Continued Advocacy: Years later, as President Obama reflected on the ACA's implementation and shortcomings (such as limited competition in some marketplaces), he renewed his call for Congress to add a public option, arguing it would strengthen the law.
Long-Term Goal: Support for a public option has remained a goal for many Democrats and has been part of subsequent party platforms and presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, as a way to build upon the ACA.
As for Medicare for All, goes back to the 1940's.Medicare didn't become law until 1965. I was co-chair of an ABA committee that examined the options at that time. I also had to consider the Medicare lien hundreds of times when I worked for DOL.
Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, sat in the West Wing and invited AHIP lobbyists and CEO's into the White House, if not inviting them, allowed them in,as the logs show, but did not allow Bernie or any advocates of single payer, or Medicare for all, into the White House as the logs show.
There was reportage of this in the media at the time, I am sure that most people paid no attention or accorded the fact any significance, but I am not most people and see stuff and remember them, that others pass by.
And as Truman said, the buck stops at the desk of the President, so Obama is responsible for the fact that we don;'t have single payer or Medicare for All, but instead a 600 page gift to the insurance companies, a gift which SCOTUS nullified when it declared the tax on folks who didn't have private insurance was unconstitutional.
For all of the political bullshit and posturing around the ACA, millions of people are still uninsured. when all they had to do was amend Sec 202 of the Social Security Act which reads as follows:
Sec. 226. [42 U.S.C. 426] (a) Every individual who—
(1) has attained age 65, and
(2)(A) is entitled to monthly insurance benefits under section 202,
(2) every person at live birth.
Could have been changed to "every one at live birth" striking (2)
All of this b.s. talk around the ACA and the perfect being the enemy of the good is just that distractive bull shit.
Instead of months of crap to produce and incomprehensible 600 page document.
The Bill would have been one page, but the insurance industry sure would not have liked it, they would be reduced to selling Medicare Supplement programs,and Cadillac Insurance.
I was on a group insurance program with CalPers. When I turned 65, I was automatically enrolled in Medicare, and my quality of care and procedures diminished.
For instance previously I got two physical exams a year, now I get one wellness visit, which is not a physical exam, but a check up to see if I am abused or unable to take care of myself. I had to damn near order my PCP to order up a Basic Metabolic Panel, a Complete Blood Count and a lipid panel prior to the visit.
And I am going through shit with my oncologist. I am scheduled for a CT Scan with contrast on the 26th, but first they need a kidney check, so he ordered a creatine test, however kidney function is fully tested with GFR and Creatine, but only a Basic Metablic Test can provide that info, and they are balking at BMP, even though Medicare will pay for it, and if Medicare doesn't I will.
Point is Daniel, that instead of a 600 page monstrosity that is a gift to AHIP, we could have had, and still can, a single page bill that would provide all of us with Medicare, and there would be no need for Medicaid and that bureaucracy, that is held hostage by red states.
So Obama and Pelosi are not the heroes you make them out to be.
And the Democrats controlled Congress and the Executive at the time.
Your last name is actually rare, and is the same as my Uncle's, middle name, his first and middle were Harry Stilwell, named for his godfather in Philadelphia
You are talking about the ACA. I am not talking about the ACA. I am talking about Single Payor as a bill not as a public option.
Ye gads Daniel, you always go for the personal, why is that? With your background as a judge and lawyer, you try to slam me with "you do anyway" and that I want to vilify Obama.
I know full well that the ACA is Romnyey/Obama Care (which you happen to be defending, LOL, you defend Romney care and then accuse me. Actually the plan originally came out of the Heritage Foundation, which has given us Project 2025.
Instead of a Heritage/Romney/Obama Affordable care act with 600 pages of a gift to the insurance company, we could have had a single page bill to change the eligibility age to at birth.
As regards villifying Obama. Why that slandrous charge? I've got nothing against Obama personally, he is a decent human being, but a conservative politician and not some hero of the down trodden and oppressed.
Obama came into DC as a novice, having only spent two years in the Senate, and those were learning where the power really lay, and how to play the game, and plunked down in a White House surrounded by the real power in America, the lobbyist and their money, he had no idea of how to staff his admin, and along comes Larry Summer, who virtually pick his cabinet for him,especially his Chief of Staff, Rahm.
He was a fish out of water, and a conservative, a reputation that he had earned as Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
As Voltaire said: A man can no more change his character than a leopard can his spots.
Bottom line, Obama was a conservative wearing a Democrat hoodie.
Also despite being the first black president and two terms at that, he did absolutely nothing for blacks, but he did sit down and had a beer with he white thug of a sheiff that harassed the honorable Dr Louis Henry Gates, Jr.
Mr. Solomon. You have used the term "psy ops" many times in this blog. Are you referring to what is called 'Fourth Generation Warfare" in the current literature? I have been looking into it. Edward Bernays, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Richard Hofstadter were on our reading list when I was in school all those years ago.
Mr. Solomon. A "Public Option' is a bad idea because does not mathematically give the least expensive system. Complete coverage for ALL with no other option is mathematically best.
Unfortunately the American public is unabashedly uninformed in Mathematics. That includes many well meaning Democratic Party politicians.
Regardless of what type of Medicare plan one has, it is necessary to purchase additional coverage from private insurance companies. The Medicare supplements cost hundreds of dollars a month which is unaffordable to many people. They then are forced into Medicare Advantage plans which do not require additional hundreds of dollars a month. We need improved Medicare for All where purchasing private insurance is not necessary.
Medicare for all! I'm for it. That would serve the GOP right for obstructing help to 42 million American citizens. I'm old and on Medicare and love it.
I am an RN of almost fifty years, I'm 78 and I can't even tell you how many tears and how many prayers I've sent out of the years. I have lost friends, family, you name it. I always worked for a non-profit. How long will this country lose people unnecessarily? How many people have to die because we don't have Universal healthcare like other nations?
Healthcare for all.....Look what CA is looking to put on their Nov 2026 Ballot - "If the measure qualifies for the November 2026 ballot and were to be enacted by California voters, it would levy a 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s roughly 200 billionaires. It would direct 90 percent of those funds to California’s Medicaid recipients and the institutions that serve them (with the remaining 10 percent going to the state’s K-12 schools)." To read the details ..it would be a start see: https://open.substack.com/pub/robertreich/p/a-wealth-tax-that-works?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
As Thom mentioned in a phone call on Saturday, Vermont did the equivalent, adopted Medicare for All, but because it needed matching Federal funding, could not effectuate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
My feeling is after reading the article that this is a 'test' for Healthcare for all as it's just for the tax year of 2025....it's quite interesting to read how they are proposing to do it!!!
I am all in favor of Medicare for all - if the current democrat party leaders will not get behind this (they won’t) then we need new leaders who will add this to their mission to reduce costs and health risks for all citizens! - all they need to do is find some financial support for showing the facts of how this reduces costs and eliminates big insurance companies denying coverage while making their executives obscenely wealthy - to me this could be a big winning proposal for the democrats
JMckay. "......find some financial support for showing the facts...."
It is easy to demonstrate with simple mathematics of the kind called Inferential Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences, that the larger the risk pool, the lower the cost of a system of payment. In other words: the largest risk pool, ALL AMERICANS, is the cheapest way to pay for health care. The insurance companies have armies of statisticians working for them. They know this to be true. Furthermore, as Mr. Hartmann has pointed out: those countries with a single payer system, [including every citizen in them], are less expensive than ours. This is empirical evidence which supports my claim.
I taught that math for decades at the university level. It is beyond the scope of this comment to develop the mathematical model. It would require a semester of time and a blackboard.
Thanks but my comment referred to finding financial support to advertise the facts that you know support the argument and politicians willing to fight the big insurance companies
Bravo. This issue is one people of all stripes can get their head around. It should be hammered without cease until some Republican leaders get the message and join most of the democrats. I finally got myself taken off Medicare DIS-advantage just last week. I delayed last year when I was in the middle of an inquiry about a medical issue and decided not to change horses mid-stream. I called the number on the back of the Medicare handbook, and an amazing worker walked me through the process in about half-an-hour! (During the shutdown and after SS staff was cut in half by the DOGE freaks). Essentially, all I needed to do was choose a new drug plan and fill in a simple application form (which she did for me on the phone!) that makes the change back to regular Medicare official effective Jan 1st, 2026. Thank goodness for the deep state.
I’m glad to hear of your success escaping Medicare DISadvantage. I had heard that once you left Medicare that you could not get it back!
I had heard that it was very difficult to switch and there is a window during the enrollment period and a restricted period later for going back. But I had no problem at all after they opened the enrollment window. There could be higher costs for drugs or for the plan I believe, but my costs are actually the same or lower. I recommend going back, regardless because you know you will eventually get screwed by private insurance. I was especially upset about a $40/mo cost for a bi-pap sleep apnea machine with an initial $140 cost (which I refused). I'm expecting to get it under Medicare without any payment or possibly a small cost.
The message should indeed be hammered without cease but by what means can this be done? Other than Fox and CNN, populace has little use for the MSM.
I wish I had an answer. Other than in social media posts or letters to editors and word-of-mouth, there are few options.
There are few indeed.
The GOP/Dem cabal in Congress are Healthcare Industry Whores -- They'll turn any trick for a buck.
Meanwhile, the Confederate [red] states want to kill minorities softly, by withholding healthcare, even if poor/middle-class Whites die, too.
All this so a few greedy 0.01% CEOs can retire superrich . . . If they don't get shot dead.
VOTE !!!!
Sir Okie Doke. Franklin Roosevelt, one of our three best presidents, appointed Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor. She was the first female cabinet member in the U.S.
Perkins hounded Roosevelt until he agreed to create Social Security, the third rail of American politics. She also urged him to create universal, single payer national health care. But Roosevelt did not do it because he knew it would be a lost cause in the Congress.
Roosevelt knew that the Southern Whites would never agree to share health facilities with Black citizens. So, in the end, it was White racism that did us all in. White and Black, both.
They were both a force of nature. It's hard to believe it is going to take 100 years to finish the job they started, but I believe we will.
The Woman Behind The New Deal by Kirstin Downey is a brilliant book about Perkins. I'm sure you've read it, but I thought I'd mention it for others interested in this history.
Great column. The democrats should use this to educate the public (the American public is not well educated on many important issues) and then gain more votes.
The billionaires seem clueless that national healthcare would reduce absenteeism while eliminating any costs they pay currently for employee insurance. National healthcare also enables the government to cap what private-practice doctors can charge, and cap drug charges, too. In European programs, people are FREE to pay for additional private insurance if they foolishly think that they get more competent care by paying too much for elite service providers. So Republican complaints of taking away freedom of choice is baseless.
I am one of the few Americans already on the national health insurance program because I am retired military. Once we turn 65, military retirees must pay for Medicare B, but DOD Tricare pays what Medicare won't pay. All my meds are free too. Several years ago, I needed prostate surgery that only Mayo Clinic could perform. My only bill was for overnight parking. I still have to pay separately for dental and vision insurance because some Congressional jerks label that as cosmetic rather than health maintenance. A national healthcacre program should cover that too.
Best of all, as Europe demonstrates nicely, the average life expectancy age would surely increase from the current 78 to 82 or more!
Business actually likes being connected to workers healthcare because it prevents them from leaving for another job. I know several unhappy people who are staying at their jobs just because someone in their family needs the coverage and they can't switch insurance. The pre-existing illness is a anchor. That allows their employer to underpay them yet retain them.
Excellent point.
Great comment, Moon. Did HR and needed to know our employees stories as well as what we offered for insurance. This is exactly the "sick" way corporations think and screw with people's lives.
Both my wife and I have additional Federal Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, that covers what Tricare pays for you.
Our premiums are high... and going higher. Medicare is the high risk carrier in insurance terms. Must accept old and disabled folk otherwise uninsurable. The costs of healthcare increase with age. If they add younger people, as some had planned (i.e. to age 62), the risk and costs would be spread.
We also have the VA.....
Yes, oddly, I get my hearing aids from the VA because Tricare considers it a service-connected disability, which it is. I recall when a PA interviewed me before testing, she asked me if I had ever been exposed to loud noises. I was in uniform LOL. I asked her if guns count. She was a bit embarassed by my answer - new-hire probably.
Agreed!
World War II gave us the mistake of basing health insurance through employment. Democrats have been trying to fix that for eighty years.
All the ACA naysayers never admit it was the first stride forward by making the damn insurance companies insure the folks with pre-existing conditions. Almost everyone hates them more each year and with good reason. They are killing our economy along with the patients.
Argentinians and Israelis have coverage and we are paying for it. That's stupid! Time to join the civilized world. Feed people and let them go to the doc or stop bragging about this place comes FIRST or that it is number ONE. See you in the streets.
Actually, this was argued during the Dem convention in 1948. Nixon would have accepted a version of it.
About President Truman: "He proposed a national health insurance plan in 1945, which was later used as the foundation for Medicare and Medicaid, though his plan ultimately failed to pass Congress."-AI Overview
Without what the Dems have done for America, we would all be working till we dropped dead. It's one of the reasons these willfully ignorant "both-siders" absolutely need to pick-up a book! Thanks, Daniel.
Everyone I read says Democrats shouldn’t run on simply being anti-Trump in any upcoming elections (even though that is sufficient in my opinion). Medicare for all , tax the rich, and raise the minimum wage would be an inspiring, energizing message. Democrats have to go bold. The base will not put up with returning to the status quo. No more timidity.
Election day---I hope you and I see some boldness, Linda.
IMHO Medicare for All (not necesarily the Canadian plan) could also enrich big employers, add millions of jobs, and reduce the cost of most insurance -- if., and only if, the collateral source rule were eliminated.
Collateral source rule (Google): Generally protects a plaintiff from having an award reduced by third-party payments, such as those from health insurance, Medicare, or workers' compensation. It also typically prevents this information from being presented to the jury, ensuring the defendant can't use it to pay less. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_source_rule
Medicare lien: Medicare has a right to seek reimbursement for its payments from any settlement or judgment that compensates you for those same medical costs. This means that after a settlement, Medicare can place a lien on the money to recover its expenses.
The conflict: Some states, like Florida, have modified or abolished the collateral source rule to allow for reductions in awards for certain collateral sources, including Medicare. This is because Medicare has a right to seek reimbursement, which can significantly complicate the process of a plaintiff's recovery.
As a result, parties in say, personal injury litigation, must request Medicare to approve settlements.
If collateal sources were eliminated from the equation, juries would not probably use futiure medical expenses as a basis to determine pain and suffering.
Therefore, at least in theory, the cost of all insurance should drop, like a rock, because defendants would have limited exposure for future medical as all would be covered by Medicare.
Mr. Solomon. An incompetent surgeon in Michigan butchered my left hand badly in a failed surgical procedure. I went to the best medical liability firm I could find. They told me that in Michigan the insurance company which had covered me for the operation, had the right to collect what they said was their share of the award which I might win in court. The attorney said I had a sure winner. But the insurance company would get virtually all the money the law firm would win for me. The attorney advised me to think hard about whether I really wanted to go through all that hassle and collect almost nothing after they win.
Is this related to the "Collateral Source Rule?"
I wish this mess had a simple solution, but Vermont's experience shows that a major national overhaul is needed, not a piecemeal approach, and given how disruptive this would be you know what we can expect from Congress (nothing). But that doesn't mean it isn't needed. As you've said elsewhere Thom, this situation also grossly distorts employment, not just by adding major costs for employers but also by making it far more risky for people to quit and start their own businesses. And it leaves physicians and other medical people spending ridiculous amounts of time on paperwork and fighting with insurance companies rather than treating patients. But there's big money in sick people (I won't even get in to how prevention is a neglected strategy). It's like those stupid ads telling the public about drugs that they should, "Ask your doctor about". Huh, what, who's the expert here?
The joke in all this is that systems are working all over the world. We don't have to figure "it" out, but we need to get rid of these psychos and sadists running the show.
I just successfully finished up 15 rounds of chemotherapy for lymphoma. My personal doctor discovered several nodes that were growing and gave me a referral to the national hospital. I was quickly put into the system and began treatment in weeks. No paperwork, no deductible, no worry about denial of treatment or being out of network.
All of this happened in Costa Rica, a country not nearly as rich as the USA.
Starting universal health care in the USA would be complicated as we now have a deeply rooted system with nothing but for profit hospitals and as Thom said, parasitic, bloodsucking insurers whose only goal is to make a profit.
How can we possibly incorporate for profit hospitals into a national system? I can’t see them and doctors willingly giving up the incredible profits being made.
We should have done this a long time ago before the vultures got a stranglehold on the system.
Never say never, Chris. Glad you are getting what you need.
There are a lot of medical people on board with single-payer. The AMA is not who they used to be. Only 15% of physicians are in it compared to 75% in the 50's.
The “death panels” ACA opponents warned of years ago have come to pass - in the form of corporate boards of directors. Medical industry (and it IS, unfortunately, an “industry”) CEOs become billionaires, rewarded for increasing shareholder value at the expense of stakeholders. A medicare cheat goes on to become a senator (Rick Scott, R, FL), lying about what he delights in calling the “Schumer Shutdown” while inflicting pain on his own constituents. A social good is labeled “socialism”. Too many corporate, “centrist” Dems are at best derelict, at worst thwarting the efforts of the progressives you mention, often secretively while making progressive noises. We need to throw the jokers out of our deck.
The Democrats have a winning message, with Health Care for All -Single Payer, but that means repudiating their precious Obama Care -ACA, and that they can't do, because it means repudiating Obama and Pelosi, and a major source of donations, AHIP and PhRMA. (AHIP-Association of Health Insurance Providers)
Come on. You keep sayin stuff like that. It was the Massachusetts plan -- Mitt Romney proposed it as Romneycare, and Obama had little to do with creating it and has no ownership except for the name that REPUBLICANS gave it.
You're right that the insurance industry opposes Medicare for All. Most of the others were/are confused about how it works -- although they individually have it when they reach 65 or 67.
I live in a state where we did not extend Medicaid and turn down a lot of Federal health care funding. It costs us jobs -- and lives. We have some state govenrment entities that won't accept even Blue Cross/ Blueshield. That's because of the antipathy to "communism" that has been sold to the Hispanic minority. The same Hispanic minority has the highest proportion on Obamacare than any other identifiable group in the U.S.
So Bernie's plan was actually Romney's plan? No that is not what you meant, but you didn't clarify the subject, just stepped on the spring board without checking to see if there was water in the pool.
Oh you mean that the ACA was actually Romney's plan. And Obama and Pelosi had a lot to do with it. Obama had invited AHIP lobbyist and execs to the White House, but not one single payor advocate, not even Bernie, who wasn't allowed it, and Nancy kept all Single Payer motions off the floor
Them are facts, the ACA, aka Obama Care, was not only passed by the Democratic Congress, but signed by Obama and shepherded through the process by Rahm Emanuel in the White House. Remember the sign on Truman's desk, The buck stops here.
The bill is Obama's. His Office shepherded it and he signed it. It belongs to him, just like NAFTA and GATT belong to Clinton, and the PATRIOT Act, the National Security State act, that is being used to track and monitor us, belongs to George W. Bush, although it was actually drawn up during Clinton's presidency,.
NEVER was actually proposed by Obama. He signed it to expedite it after lots of negotiations in Congress. He could't control ther Senate committee and Max Baucus. That was years after the Hillarycare fiasco. Obama supported a public option later on.
During the ACA Debate (2009-2010)
Initial Support: As a presidential candidate and during the initial legislative push, Obama consistently advocated for a government-run insurance plan to be offered alongside private insurers in the new health insurance marketplaces (exchanges).
Rationale: The public option was intended to increase competition in the insurance market, keep private insurers "honest," and help control costs and premiums.
Congressional Action: A public option was part of the bills passed by the House of Representatives.
Removal: The measure faced strong opposition from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, notably Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatened a filibuster. To pass the landmark legislation, Democratic leaders dropped the public option from the final Senate bill. Instead of a federal public option, the final ACA included a program to provide federal loans for nonprofit, member-run health insurance co-ops, many of which later failed.
After the ACA Was Passed
Continued Advocacy: Years later, as President Obama reflected on the ACA's implementation and shortcomings (such as limited competition in some marketplaces), he renewed his call for Congress to add a public option, arguing it would strengthen the law.
Long-Term Goal: Support for a public option has remained a goal for many Democrats and has been part of subsequent party platforms and presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, as a way to build upon the ACA.
As for Medicare for All, goes back to the 1940's.Medicare didn't become law until 1965. I was co-chair of an ABA committee that examined the options at that time. I also had to consider the Medicare lien hundreds of times when I worked for DOL.
Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, sat in the West Wing and invited AHIP lobbyists and CEO's into the White House, if not inviting them, allowed them in,as the logs show, but did not allow Bernie or any advocates of single payer, or Medicare for all, into the White House as the logs show.
There was reportage of this in the media at the time, I am sure that most people paid no attention or accorded the fact any significance, but I am not most people and see stuff and remember them, that others pass by.
And as Truman said, the buck stops at the desk of the President, so Obama is responsible for the fact that we don;'t have single payer or Medicare for All, but instead a 600 page gift to the insurance companies, a gift which SCOTUS nullified when it declared the tax on folks who didn't have private insurance was unconstitutional.
For all of the political bullshit and posturing around the ACA, millions of people are still uninsured. when all they had to do was amend Sec 202 of the Social Security Act which reads as follows:
Sec. 226. [42 U.S.C. 426] (a) Every individual who—
(1) has attained age 65, and
(2)(A) is entitled to monthly insurance benefits under section 202,
(2) every person at live birth.
Could have been changed to "every one at live birth" striking (2)
All of this b.s. talk around the ACA and the perfect being the enemy of the good is just that distractive bull shit.
Instead of months of crap to produce and incomprehensible 600 page document.
The Bill would have been one page, but the insurance industry sure would not have liked it, they would be reduced to selling Medicare Supplement programs,and Cadillac Insurance.
I was on a group insurance program with CalPers. When I turned 65, I was automatically enrolled in Medicare, and my quality of care and procedures diminished.
For instance previously I got two physical exams a year, now I get one wellness visit, which is not a physical exam, but a check up to see if I am abused or unable to take care of myself. I had to damn near order my PCP to order up a Basic Metabolic Panel, a Complete Blood Count and a lipid panel prior to the visit.
And I am going through shit with my oncologist. I am scheduled for a CT Scan with contrast on the 26th, but first they need a kidney check, so he ordered a creatine test, however kidney function is fully tested with GFR and Creatine, but only a Basic Metablic Test can provide that info, and they are balking at BMP, even though Medicare will pay for it, and if Medicare doesn't I will.
Point is Daniel, that instead of a 600 page monstrosity that is a gift to AHIP, we could have had, and still can, a single page bill that would provide all of us with Medicare, and there would be no need for Medicaid and that bureaucracy, that is held hostage by red states.
So Obama and Pelosi are not the heroes you make them out to be.
And the Democrats controlled Congress and the Executive at the time.
Look up Liz Fowler and Max Baucus for further information on that ACA debacle. Also Baucus and Medicare for the town of Libby, Mt.
Your last name is actually rare, and is the same as my Uncle's, middle name, his first and middle were Harry Stilwell, named for his godfather in Philadelphia
It was the SENATE. The friggin House passed it with a public option. Went to conference.
I don't like Emannuel. His brother, a doctor was also involved. Was Prof of Medicine at Penn med. You repeat psy ops.
But you and your sources cannot deny what we have is actually Romneycare. But you do anyway. You want to villify Obama.
After it passed, Obama lobbied Congress to add a public option.
You are talking about the ACA. I am not talking about the ACA. I am talking about Single Payor as a bill not as a public option.
Ye gads Daniel, you always go for the personal, why is that? With your background as a judge and lawyer, you try to slam me with "you do anyway" and that I want to vilify Obama.
I know full well that the ACA is Romnyey/Obama Care (which you happen to be defending, LOL, you defend Romney care and then accuse me. Actually the plan originally came out of the Heritage Foundation, which has given us Project 2025.
Instead of a Heritage/Romney/Obama Affordable care act with 600 pages of a gift to the insurance company, we could have had a single page bill to change the eligibility age to at birth.
As regards villifying Obama. Why that slandrous charge? I've got nothing against Obama personally, he is a decent human being, but a conservative politician and not some hero of the down trodden and oppressed.
Obama came into DC as a novice, having only spent two years in the Senate, and those were learning where the power really lay, and how to play the game, and plunked down in a White House surrounded by the real power in America, the lobbyist and their money, he had no idea of how to staff his admin, and along comes Larry Summer, who virtually pick his cabinet for him,especially his Chief of Staff, Rahm.
He was a fish out of water, and a conservative, a reputation that he had earned as Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
As Voltaire said: A man can no more change his character than a leopard can his spots.
Bottom line, Obama was a conservative wearing a Democrat hoodie.
Also despite being the first black president and two terms at that, he did absolutely nothing for blacks, but he did sit down and had a beer with he white thug of a sheiff that harassed the honorable Dr Louis Henry Gates, Jr.
Mr. Solomon. You have used the term "psy ops" many times in this blog. Are you referring to what is called 'Fourth Generation Warfare" in the current literature? I have been looking into it. Edward Bernays, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Richard Hofstadter were on our reading list when I was in school all those years ago.
Mr. Solomon. A "Public Option' is a bad idea because does not mathematically give the least expensive system. Complete coverage for ALL with no other option is mathematically best.
Unfortunately the American public is unabashedly uninformed in Mathematics. That includes many well meaning Democratic Party politicians.
Regardless of what type of Medicare plan one has, it is necessary to purchase additional coverage from private insurance companies. The Medicare supplements cost hundreds of dollars a month which is unaffordable to many people. They then are forced into Medicare Advantage plans which do not require additional hundreds of dollars a month. We need improved Medicare for All where purchasing private insurance is not necessary.
Medicare for all! I'm for it. That would serve the GOP right for obstructing help to 42 million American citizens. I'm old and on Medicare and love it.
I am an RN of almost fifty years, I'm 78 and I can't even tell you how many tears and how many prayers I've sent out of the years. I have lost friends, family, you name it. I always worked for a non-profit. How long will this country lose people unnecessarily? How many people have to die because we don't have Universal healthcare like other nations?
Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege!