In a bunch of new polls, its being shown time after time that a large majority of all Americans, of BOTH PARTIES support simply expanding Medicare to cover everybody, so that nobody is bankrupted by healthcare bills any more. This support cuts across party lines and economic and political boundaries. Everybody agrees, its dumb to create another insurance monster, instead, lets go with something that we know works, a national healtcare plan based on an expanded Medicare for everybody.
Then we can take all that money that right now is going to billing and broker commissions and CEO salaries and instead, spend it on IMPROVING PATIENT CARE. The sense behind that is unassailable. Lets not WASTE any more time arguing about things that we know can't work.
.
This is from a recent essay on the PNHP web site, "Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer" by Kip Sullivan, JD
In recent polling, its been shown that 2/3 of all Americans support the Medicare for All concept. Not Medicare for some, or Medicare for the rich, Medicare for all, like they have in Canada.
"In Part 2 of this six-part series, I reported on the results of two "citizen jury" experiments in which advocates for single-payer, managed competition, and high-deductible policies spoke to, and were questioned by, "juries" that were representative of America. In the case of the 1993 "jury" sponsored by the Jefferson Center, 71 percent voted for single-payer. In the case of the 1996 "jury," 61 percent voted for single-payer when no specific information about its cost to individuals was presented, and 79 percent voted for a single-payer system that would have lowered premium and out-of-pocket costs by as much as taxes rose. Both juries rejected proposals relying on health insurance companies by huge majorities.
Many polls that ask about support for Medicare-for-all produce results that confirm the citizen jury findings. But others don’t. What explains that inconsistency?
The more they know about single-payer, the more they like it"
Table 1: Polls indicating majority support for single-payer
.....................................................................For single-payer........Opposed to single-payer
General public: Polls in which support is 60 percent or higher
Harvard University/Harris (1988)(a)........................61%..............not asked
LA Times (1990)(b)....................................................66%.............not asked
Wall Street Journal-NBC (1991)(c)............................69%................20%
Wash Post-ABC News (2003)(d)................................62%.............not asked
Civil Society Institute (2004)(e).................................67%.................27%
AP-Yahoo (2007)(f).....................................................65%..............not asked
Grove Insight (2009)(g).............................................64%.................28%
Grove Insight (2009)(g).............................................60%.................27%
General public: Polls in which support is below 60 percent
AP-Yahoo (2007)(f).....................................................54%...................44%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)..........................58%...................38%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)..........................50%...................44%
Doctors
New Eng J Med (medical school faculty and students) (1999)
.....................................................................................57%......
..........not asked
Arch Int Med (doctors) (2004)....................................64%................not asked
Minnesota Med (doctors) (2007).................................64%................not asked
(a) The question asked by the Harvard University/Harris poll was described in the Health Affairs article reporting the results as follows: "The majority of Americans (61 percent) state they would prefer the Canadian system of national health insurance where ‘the government pays most of the cost of health care for everyone out of taxes and the government sets all fees charged by hospitals and doctors....’" An analogous question posed to Canadians found that only 3 percent of Canadians said they would prefer the American system.
(b) The question asked by the Los Angeles Times poll was: "In the Canadian system of national health insurance, the government pays most of the cost of health care out of taxes and the government sets all fees charged by doctors and hospitals. Under the Canadian system – which costs the taxpayers less than the American system – people can choose their own doctors and hospitals. On balance, would you prefer the Canadian system or the system we have here in the United States?" Sixty-six percent chose the Canadian system and 25 percent chose the US system.
(c) The question asked by the Wall Street Journal-NBC poll was: "Do you favor or oppose the US having a universal government-paid health care system like they have in Canada?"
(d) The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked: "Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that’s run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)" Thirty-three percent preferred the current system while 62 percent preferred the "universal system."
(e) The Civil Society poll asked: "Other major nations, such as Canada and England, guarantee their citizens health insurance on the job, through government programs, or via a nonprofit source. Would it be a good or bad idea for the United States to adopt the same approach to providing health care to everyone?"
(f)The AP-Yahoo poll asked two questions. One asked respondents which of these two proposals they agreed with: (1) "The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers" (65 percent chose this option); (2) "The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance" (34 percent chose this option). The second question was: "Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?" (54 percent said they were supporters of single-payer and 44 percent said they were opposed).
(g) The Grove Insight poll asked two questions. One asked: "Federal leaders are considering expanding Medicare to all Americans, so that people have another option besides private health insurance or an HMO. Do you favor or oppose the creation of this type of public health plan option?" (64 percent said they favor this proposal). A very similar question was asked which differed from the first by including information on the financing mechanism: "There is proposed federal legislation that gives any American, regardless of age, the option of joining the Medicare program. Americans who choose this option would share the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?" (60 percent favored it and 27 percent opposed it). Both questions, especially the second one, imply private insurers will continue to exist alongside a Medicare program open to all. But the questions are so similar to questions that clearly ask about Medicare-for-all systems that I decided to include them here.
(h) The Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked: "Now I’m going to read you some different ways to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance. As I read each one, please tell me whether you would favor it or oppose it.?" This was followed by eight proposals which, with the exception of the question about the "public option," were asked in a random order (the "option" question was always asked at the end). Two of these questions asked about single-payer. The first read: "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all." Fifty-eight percent said they favored this proposal while 38 percent said they opposed. The second read: "Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan." Only 50 percent favored this proposal while 44 percent opposed.
For sources see Table 2 below.
Also, Is the MSM FINALLY realizing Single Payer is the ONLY affordable route to quality HCR?
If so, its ABOUT TIME. I think that the mainstream media is finally ending their 15 year self-imposed ban on discussing single payer seriously. I've been seeing a hell of a lot of comments in newspaper articles lamenting the stupidity of "health care reform" that doesn't reform. The futility of the insurer-centric/public optional approach is finally beginning to sink in for all of us. I think those letters people have been writing to newspapers and on the web are making a big difference. They can't stop a tidal wave.
Reporters are realizing that they finally won't get in trouble for mentioning single payer.
The latest comment came at the end of an article in the New York Times today about how impossibly expensive the premiums for the "affordable" mandatory insurance plan being proposed by Senate Democrats would be. (and they didn't even mention the age tax)
What its coming down to is that the spin is being unmasked as dangerously optimistic and totally unrealistic, people are admitting that the emperor has no clothes.
Here's another argument. We need a national plan that covers everybody, rich and poor, because anything else will leave most of us still open to being given really terrible care.
ERISA's huge exemptions to common sense and morality have to go. Because they are giving the insurance industry a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through, one that is being effectively used to kill thousands of people a year who are in group plans- by denying them adequate care.
The epidemic of bad care due to ERISA amnesty is really thinly disguised murder, not just an abuse of their customers, one which they are basically being encouraged in by government policy. This is an example of where the people have to let their voices be heard. The spiltting up of Americans into groups won't work as long as families are under attack.
Is it in any way permissable to ignore this problem by forcing an unaffordable fake healthcare reform on Americans? No
How we can easily pay for health care for all!
Important: We would pay FAR LESS than we are paying now
This is from:
The Single Payer FAQ at PNHP.org
"Won’t this raise my taxes?
Currently, about 60% of our health care system is already financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.
A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%).
The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.
For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness.
It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.
Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness.
Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less.
For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness."
A taste of what the insurer-centric public optional health whatever, that Americans ARE EXPECTED TO WAIT YEARS FOR- will cost them. Thousands of dollars a month, and it wont even cover everything, just 65 to 70% of their costs, or less. There is no limit on uncovered costs unless you are already poor (from medical bills doesn't count) and have been since the last tax year.
"Coverage" is being upplayed and affordability and quality are being downplayed because without single payer, they are impossible to attain.
Public option was originally supposed to be confused with single payer, which is really public, and covers everybody (so its not optional, both rich and poor get the same quality care- that insures that poor people do too. In single payer countries, people can go to any doctor or any hospital.
Instead, we get a wasted year as they try to put forward various schemes that rearrange the deck chairs ..
None are Medicare for All, all seem to share as a common thread a false hope - deceptive tricks designed to make them look viable to people being asked to wait as much as FOUR YEARS for them.
Meanwhile 404,000 more Americans will die.
COBRA isn't something new, its a continuation of the old, AT ITS REAL COST.
This shows just how quixotic the Democrats expecting Americans to buy unsubsidized health care now is, because indeed, ALMOST NOBODY CAN AFFORD IT..Its not a choice, its the same coverage they had while working, which is OFTEN INADEQUATE while they are employed but DOUBLY SO WHEN THEY AREN'T because the co-pays are impossibly high.
If they get sick, they realize its underinsurance. When MANDATED underinsurance - when THAT's forced on families, its going to be a traigicomedy.
get an idea of how unaffordable its going to be while looking at COBRA and its impact. That makes this whole debate ABSOLUTELY SURREAL because its a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME ARGUING ABOUT THIS GIVEN ITS UNAFFORDABILITY.
COBRA, even now, its healthcare that most American families can't afford
What to Do before the Cobra Subsidy Ends:
"I’ve tried to scrape some money together to take care of things when the Cobra subsidy ends, but it’s just not enough," Ms. Mason said.
That government subsidy made Cobra a lot more affordable for millions of unemployed people like Ms. Mason. But now that the subsidy is ending for the first of its recipients, many don’t know where to turn. What is more, the way the stimulus act is written, the subsidy will no longer be available to any newly laid-off workers.
According to a report recently released by Families USA, a nonprofit health care advocacy group, Cobra premiums for family health coverage will cost laid-off workers, on average, $1,111 a month, which is almost 84 percent of the average monthly unemployment check those families receive.
In nine states — including Alaska, Arizona, Mississippi and Florida — full Cobra benefits exceed the amount of the average unemployment check, according to the report."