>if capped at 8.5% i would pay more for health coverage. not
>many details in the plan but thats the best information i
>could find for my situation.
>

Well, that's good then right? lol. If you have better/cheaper coverage through your employer, then I think the idea is that someone like you would stick with that. Yay for having decent healthcare coverage. Not everybody does tho. What was the percentage of your annual income that goes towards premiums, after you calculated it? Was it less than 5%? Bc then it would even be cheaper than the M4A transitional plans.

>if i am allowed to skip on my employer provided coverage and
>wanted to switch to the public option i would pay more than
>what im paying for my employer provided coverage. i think the
>cost is already a bit high for my current coverage (i skipped
>on it this year) and i dont get much for it. i dont see
>anything tangible in his plan on how much out of pocket costs
>would be reduced.

My read is he's prioritizing capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare. Which is fair tbh, if that's the most vulnerable population that his plan can afford to provide that for while remaining budget neutral. I think, currently, Medicare Part A and Part B don't actually cap out-of-pocket costs which is why so many beneficiaries seek out private plans through Medicare Part C/Advantage - for the MOOP.

He does propose outlawing out-of-network billing past a cap of 2x the Medicare rate tho, I think for all Americans. I'm a little foggy on other features of the public plan at the moment. But I believe it's supposed to mimic Gold coverage if compared to an ACA plan. People can also qualify for subsidies regardless of income level, generic prescription drugs will essentially be free/no co-pays too (with a cap of 250/mth on brand name drugs).


>
>according to the kaiser study he references 53% of the
>uninsured are at 200% and above the poverty level. if their
>situation is anything like mine they would opt to skip
>coverage or i think be forced to pay for the public option.
>https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/8848-06-figure-5.png
>

It's my understanding that folks at this income level would actually be auto-enrolled for premium-free coverage under the public plan, tho. Tbh I think this resembles the target population the plan is especially designed to capture.. lower income people who might have qualified for Medicaid had their State expanded it but don't have great employer coverage to fall back on. Plus others who find themselves in that access gap for various reasons too (eg. job loss, caregiving, etc). And for the hardest-to-reach people, who perhaps aren't even captured by the system (eg. homeless), if they turn up in an ER or walk-in clinic etc a seperate reimbursement fund is budgeted out to pay back providers/hospitals that treat such uninsured people without payment. There would also be a streamlined mechanism to retroactively enroll such people right then at the point-of-care so they are covered from that point onwards too.


>is the public option actually any option?

yes

if you are offered
>insurance at work and cant afford it are you forced to pay the
>8.5% of your income into the public option???
>

Not to my knowledge.. Big Pharma's supposed to foot the bulk of the program via a range of taxes he plans to levy through his Prescription Drug Pricing reform plan.


>in one way thats better than a mandate because you get
>coverage but uh thats a lot of money. im understanding this
>wrong.....right??

Lol is it though? It depends what one's current situation is. For example, the cases used in the white paper:

"Today, a family of three making $31,000 a year pays about $1,200 annually for “silver” coverage on the marketplace. Under Pete’s plan, they will pay a maximum of roughly $600 a year for higher quality (i.e. gold-level) coverage. This plan will also extend the subsidies to more middle-income people by capping premium payments at 8.5 percent of income for everyone. That means that the 60-year-old in Iowa making $50,000 and currently paying $12,000 annually in premiums will now pay no more than $4,250 annually for gold coverage."


>
>at minimum i need to see a plan that eliminates out of pocket
>costs and keeps a premium. i would pay 8.5% of my income into
>a plan that had no copays or deductibles. is someone offering
>something close to that?

Well I mean.. there are people "promising" that lol (Sanders @ 4% income no copays or deductibles; Warren @ 0% income unless you're a businessowner with >50 employees, a businessowner incorporated or operating outside of the US, or worth more than $50M).
Personally? I think you just have to figure out what is higher priority to you. In some of your responses, it seems like you prioritize expansion of benefits (wanting more for your money eg. everyone should have vision, dental, hearing, long-term care, home-care, etc). If that's so, then contemplate whether you believe it's sensible, feasible, or necessary to essentially double US gov spending per year to have those benefits. However in other responses, it seems like what matters to you most is net costs. And if that's so, then contemplate the merits of achieving the same moral objective of the single-player plans - universal health insurance coverage for the US population - but in a way that is federal budget neutral, gives you optional access if you ever need it, qualifies you for subsidies if you ever need them (regardless of income level), and slaps new restrictions on the private sector to limit what you can be billed for out-of-network care and prescription drugs.

Is it the most "EVERYTHINGS FREE FREE FREE!" promise out there? No. But its one of two highest polling public options, no one in America would ever lack healthcare access again, it's already paid for once a repeal of the 45 tax cuts and passage of prescription drug pricing reform (which has strong public support https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/) goes through. And no cumbersome transition over 4y, 10y, or whatever either. *shrug*