https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-the-election

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

So about half as many Bernie voters defected to Trump compared to Hilary voters defecting to McCain.

Amazing stat but not quite as amazing as the way it was originally stated- double the Bernie voters voted for Hilary compared to Hillary voters for Obama (actual would be around 88% vs 75% if you disregarded third party votes.)

Right. It's also a very different claim because the cohort of people who didn't vote for the Democrat in the general is composed of people who voted GOP and people who stayed home. Bernie bros are frequently going to be in the second category, which is unmeasured when you switch to measuring support for the GOP candidate in the general.

I think you also want to be careful about the way you interpret it. Obviously for starters, Hillary is on the right of the party and Bernie is on the left, so it's not surprising that more Hillary voters defect to the GOP. Also, people might be inclined to interpret this as pissed off Hillary voters throwing a tantrum, but the level of registered Dem support for McCain - around 10% - was the same as for GWB in 2004.

Question: When people talk of Medicare For All, are they including the fact that it only supposedly pays 80% in most cases?

Not sure why ya'll are getting so mad about Bernie when ButtigieGOAT is obviously gonna win.

What is this poll "debunking", exactly? Does it prove that a more centrist Dem, proposing a public option that preserves private insurance for those who want it, would do worse against Trump? Of course it doesn't.


And the GOP hasn't even started going after Medicare for all in earnest yet. Let's see those polls in 18 months or so.

MAYOR PETE has the better slogan: Medicare For All Who Want It

It will be just as damaging as when they went after the ACA, I'm sure.

ACA did not force people with good private plans into a govt plan. Huge difference. Running on something similar to Obamacare makes a lot more sense than taking away everyone's private insurance.

We will see how well a forced move to a govt program goes over with the American public when it's time to pull the lever on election day.

I support universal healthcare, but it would be politically disastrous to pitch a plan where people who currently have private insurance lose it and have to get on Medicare. Medicare is much worse insurance than many already have, so would be much better to start out offering some sort of coverage to the uninsured and letting things evolve over time. Also Medicare is much, much worse insurance than Medicaid (at least in my state) so for many low income folks you would be taking away excellent Medicaid insurance and replacing with crappy Medicare. I don’t know whose idea it was to call this Medicare for all, it needs to be “health insurance for all”.

From above...

What does the bolded mean exactly?

The UK NHS covers everybody but if you want to go private, (for speed and convenience) then you can - you pay extra to BUPA, for example.

(NHS is paid for out of general taxation)

Medicare is very popular and the name "Medicare For All" polls very well. It's a good idea to frame it that way.

You might be the only person who I have seen claim that Medicaid is better than Medicare.

Yup. Centrist Dems are definitely going to be right for the first time in my lifetime. 2p2 libs are gonna look silly when the light-blue wave sweeps Kloubacher into the presidency. No way simple phrases like "Medicare for All" and "Green New Deal" will fool the savvy, detail-oriented voters of this nation.

I will trust the pollsters and political scientists, but hard to believe given Medicare is really not helpful if your low income because you won’t be able to pay 20% anyway.

Why are people afraid of a government health care plan taking something away from them? If they come out with single payer or medicare for all or whatever, wouldn't they be able to choose between the government plan and a private plan? I'm sure the government plan would be way cheaper (and they would already be paying for it via their taxes) but they could still stay with their own plan if they wanted. I assume the private health care companies would mostly go out of business because when the government is offering something cheaper that is subsidized by the taxpayers, people are going to pick that over a separate health plan. Is that what people mean when they say their health care is being taken away?

Different by state and condition, but in my state Medicaid is 100% coverage while Medicare is 80%. Also Medicare includes no dental or vision coverage.

As a psychiatrist all my Medicaid patients see me for completely free and also get free transportation from Medicaid to all doctors appointments.

I just asked my wife this who is a medical social worker and her response was “If it’s medicare for all it better be better than current Medicare”. She would much rather have her patients have Medicaid, she just said “it’s a million times better”.

You've mostly got it figured out. If there is a govt option, then employers (which is where most get their private plans) won't need to offer a private plan to attract workers. So the choice won't be between a govt option and a private plan, it will be between a govt plan and nothing.

I'm sure there would still be some private plans for the very wealthy, but there would not be much incentive for a company to have an insurance product to sell to middle class workers.

Now it's possible things could unfold differently depending on how exactly the govt option is structured. The above is just what I think other people think when they say they're afraid of their plan going away.

Well, that may be true, but that's not the problem with Medicaid. The problem with Medicaid is that a lot of health care providers don't accept Medicaid patients at all. So if your coverage is through Medicaid, then your options are limited. 100% coverage doesn't help if no one accessible is willing to accept your form of 100% coverage.

Now if you are a savvy consumer you could take Medicaid coverage and strategically use it to get very good care. But that would generally take more time, effort, and acumen than the average Medicaid recipient has (but it can be done). Also, as you note, it depends on where you live.

The government plan would be paid for by tax, so anyone wanting a private plan would be getting double-charged. You couldn't opt out of paying for M4A.

In Australia, there is a 1.5% tax levy which funds Medicare, means-tested so that low income earners don't pay. Then, if you earn over $70,000 ($US 50,000), you are over 30, and you don't have private health coverage, you pay an additional levy, the amount of which goes up for every year of your life you satisfy those criteria. So if you get to like age 60, could have had private coverage all your life and didn't bother, you'll pay a good chunk more tax. Also, private insurers are forbidden from not covering people (though there can be delays before pre-existings are covered, etc). This prevents a "death spiral" where all the sick people get dumped into the public system. These are the sort of contortions you need to go through to get a working two-tier system.

Not sure why Sanders' plan apparently bans private health insurance, as long as high earners are funding Medicare, who cares if they want to buy more cover.

The left tend to be opposed to means-testing and that sort of bureaucratic stuff, but I think Australia's system is fine. Although I do have private coverage, I can also walk into any public-system provider and be treated the same as someone who doesn't have private coverage. Nobody is forcing me to think about it if I don't want to, I can just use the public system all my life if I like, though I'll end up paying more tax. Standard of care in the public system is generally good. Private system gives you shorter wait times for non-essential stuff, always private rooms instead of sometimes shared wards, etc.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...73284462669824

I haven’t looked into it recently but doesnt Austria (or maybe Switzerland) have a pretty good system where the hospitals are still private, but the health insurers are non-profit organizations required to work in the best interest of the insured. Insurers still have incentive compete with each other to try to provide better coverage because they execs get more bonuses the more people choose their insurance (which is way cheaper than paying out billions to shareholders). Low income patients would get the coverage subsidized or free if income low enough.

This is based on like a 10year old memory so system may not exist anyone for all I know. But seems this sort of system would appeal to Americans.

IDK much about it but I know Germany's system is like that. All private nonprofits. Australia has a mix of nonprofit and for-profit. I'm with a nonprofit. It's like a credit union.

Seems odd that the article suggests those are the same thing when they're not.