the claim he makes that insurance companies get with hospitals, find out what their cost for procedures are then convince the hospital to increase this charge for people not covered by their insurance is also very troubling. need to verify this.
this is dumb right? if you have a procedure done in december and need continuing care the next month you now need to come out of pocket more for the same incident.
4. "RE: People should pay for their own costs up until a certain number. " In response to Reply # 3
>That cap can be progressive. do you mean out of pocket expenses on top of premiums? or would you consider premiums being part of paying for their own costs?
> >The government should pay for catastrophic medical costs. > >People should have to buy insurance (or bake it into taxes) to >care for everything in between. > >No insurance companies. > >Boom Done. > >Oh yeah and all costs should be transparent and entered into a >huge database everyone can see and we can shop for care. >
this is big, theres no reason people should be paying significantly more for the same procedure with similar circumstances.
11. "RE: People should pay for their own costs up until a certain number. " In response to Reply # 4 Fri Nov-01-19 10:42 AM by Buddy_Gilapagos
>>That cap can be progressive. >do you mean out of pocket expenses on top of premiums? or >would you consider premiums being part of paying for their own >costs?
I think everyone should pay a premium that pays into the national system but it shouldn't be that high. It should be like auto insurance numbers and wealthier people pay more into it.
This amount is separate and aside from your deductible.
> >> >>The government should pay for catastrophic medical costs. >> >>People should have to buy insurance (or bake it into taxes) >to >>care for everything in between. >> >>No insurance companies. >> >>Boom Done. >> >>Oh yeah and all costs should be transparent and entered into >a >>huge database everyone can see and we can shop for care. >> > >this is big, theres no reason people should be paying >significantly more for the same procedure with similar >circumstances.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
ive read through the abstract and brief and going through the report. i like that this is comparing, to a decent detail, the different proposals. by their own admission they are not painting the full picture. primarily they dont consider how M4A would pay for itself.
"We do not estimate specific revenue raising approaches to fund any of the modeled reforms; we restrict our financial estimates to the effects on spending because revenues can be raised in many different ways with very different distributional implications, depending upon the approach taken. "
they also seem to focus on federal spending instead of net spending in their abstract and brief.
"For this approach to reform, federal spending would increase by $34 trillion over 10 years, but health spending by individuals, employers, and state governments would decrease by $27 trillion, so national health spending would increase by $7 trillion over the same 10-year period, from $52 to $59 trillion."
regardless its good to see how many people would be covered under each proposal and have some numbers to go with it.
While it’s clear that Warren’s permanent Medicare Head Tax is unworkable and bad, I do think a temporary head tax that transitioned into an employer-side payroll tax could work. To do this, you would start it off the same way Warren does by requiring every employer to pay 98 percent of their per-employee health care costs prior to Medicare for All (call this the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) payment). Then, for every subsequent year, you would phase-in the payroll taxes by a couple percentage points a year, allowing employers to deduct that payroll tax from their MOE Payment. After a few years of this, the payroll tax would get large enough to subsume the MOE Payments, which will be eliminated.
I considered this approach when I was producing my own M4A financing plan, and I think it is fine as a transitionary device, though I did not select it myself.
the transition period of all plans concern me. i have not read that warren is proposing extending the transition timeline. only speculation that she would since she says she will examine it and make an alternate proposal for it.
"But she did allow for one potential future tweak, saying in the Medium post that her team now intends to draw up its own transition plan.
"My transition plan will take seriously and address substantively the concerns of unions, individuals with private insurance, hospitals, people who work for private health insurers, and medical professionals who worry about what a new system will mean for them," Warren wrote."
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Fri Nov-01-19 02:35 PM
17. ""Warren's too scared to provide that soundbite."" In response to Reply # 15
^ That is the responsibility of a politician. To know what soundbites need to be avoided in order to still accomplish something.
The plan itself is make-believe for either Bernie OR Warren. Bernie's got people thinking he'll raise middle-class taxes for something that he'll never accomplish anyway.
I don't know if I can make it any more clear. We are looking at a once in a lifetime candidate/movement with an unprecedented track record of 50 years of consistency. Warren has a store full of red flags that I've talked about many times before, a reformist that you can't trust and is trying to co-opt an existing movement is not the one to upend a system that is entrenched. The bottom line is this:
You want a non zero chance of M4A in the next 5 years, free college, complete student debt cancellation, major criminal justice reform, appropriately funded Green New Deal there's only one choice. Any other choice only treats the symptoms and not the root of Trumpism.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
