7 ms·

> It's as if the rich assume that things will change for the worse for them if universal health care is enacted. Well, it depends on the implementation, but Be

> It's as if the rich assume that things will change for the worse for them if universal health care is enacted. Well, it depends on the implementation, but Bernie Sanders has been on record numerous times as stating that his Medicare-for-All proposal would absolutely ban private insurance. Elizabeth Warren is another Democratic front-runner who indicated that she's on board with that, though her proposals didn't necessarily reflect it. For what it's worth, the M4A _plan_ from Bernie's camp that I've seen didn't actually specify that it would eliminate private insurance, but he's also been keen on reminding us that he wrote it, and knows best what's in it. So while it seems unlikely to me that political reality in America would prohibit banning private insurance, there are definitely those who espouse banning it for the greater good, so perhaps that fear isn't wholly unwarranted.

duckMuppet 7y ago
For what purpose would they not ban it?
- bmelton 7y ago
  To be clear, I misspoke in my closing sentence, and intended to say "It seems likely to me that the political reality in America would prohibit banning private insurance" -- but got mixed up in my negatives and now it's too late to edit. That said, answering your question, they would presumably not ban it because a) the aforementioned arguments upthread make it pretty silly to do, and because b) it seems impossible to me that banning a wholly legal service just because it competes with the government would ever be deemed as constitutional. Well, not ever -- but not today, and not with the direction that the Supreme Court has been taking for decades now in regards to government power. Licensure seems possible, but I think even prohibitive licensure intended to dissuade private entities from competing with the government would be tossed out, and we already have such programs for insurance providers anyway.
pmiller2 7y ago
It's a slight misstatement to say that any of the M4A plans would have "banned private insurance." None of them prohibit supplemental coverage that would be secondary to Medicare.
- int_19h 7y ago
  This doesn't apply to procedures that are covered, though, does it? Like, a private plan that provides higher-quality / reduced wait times for all services you'd normally get from the public system.
  - bmelton 7y ago
    Regarding the implementations I was talking about, the private market would exist exclusively for elective procedures "like cosmetic surgeries." [0] For any of the services covered by Medicare. Quoting the Kaiser Family Foundation, "private insurance would be prohibited from duplicating the coverage under Medicare." [0] The full quote here is "If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries." [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-05/harris-keeps-tripping-up-on-her-medicare-for-all-fuzziness https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-05/harris-ke...
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      > For any of the services covered by Medicare. Quoting the Kaiser Family Foundation, "private insurance would be prohibited from duplicating the coverage under Medicare." That's correct. Supplemental insurance can still cover copays and other out of pocket expenses. It can also cover procedures not covered by Medicare. Now, tell me, how is that "banning private insurance" if insurance companies can still sell those policies?
      - bmelton 7y ago
        From a Bernie Sanders interview with NPR. Q: "Does private insurance go away under Medicare for All?" A: "Yes, it does, because you're not going to a have a need for private insurance" A tweet[1] from Bernie Sanders: You're damn right we're going to get rid of greedy health insurance companies. CNBC describes Bernie Sanders plan as "Bernie Sanders is pushing a “Medicare for All” bill, which would create a government-run program and end private insurance."[2] The Hill's headline covering Bernie's policy is "You're Damn Right Health Insurance Companies Should Be Eliminated"[3] and references a quote in an interview from MSNBC in which Bernie says universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies." So feel free to quibble over the nuances of what "eliminate," "end," and "abolish" mean as much as you like, but if you're a person who is concerned that your private insurance is going to be eliminated, and you're listening to Bernie Sanders talk about it, it seems like his statements would reinforce that fear. [1] https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1111363118867927040?lang=en https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1111363118867927040... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/these-2020-democrats-want-medicare-for-all-but-with-private-insurance.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/these-2020-democrats-want-me... [3] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-damn-right-health-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-d...

duckMuppet 7y ago

For what purpose would they not ban it?

bmelton 7y ago
To be clear, I misspoke in my closing sentence, and intended to say "It seems likely to me that the political reality in America would prohibit banning private insurance" -- but got mixed up in my negatives and now it's too late to edit. That said, answering your question, they would presumably not ban it because a) the aforementioned arguments upthread make it pretty silly to do, and because b) it seems impossible to me that banning a wholly legal service just because it competes with the government would ever be deemed as constitutional. Well, not ever -- but not today, and not with the direction that the Supreme Court has been taking for decades now in regards to government power. Licensure seems possible, but I think even prohibitive licensure intended to dissuade private entities from competing with the government would be tossed out, and we already have such programs for insurance providers anyway.

pmiller2 7y ago

It's a slight misstatement to say that any of the M4A plans would have "banned private insurance." None of them prohibit supplemental coverage that would be secondary to Medicare.

int_19h 7y ago
This doesn't apply to procedures that are covered, though, does it? Like, a private plan that provides higher-quality / reduced wait times for all services you'd normally get from the public system.
- bmelton 7y ago
  Regarding the implementations I was talking about, the private market would exist exclusively for elective procedures "like cosmetic surgeries." [0] For any of the services covered by Medicare. Quoting the Kaiser Family Foundation, "private insurance would be prohibited from duplicating the coverage under Medicare." [0] The full quote here is "If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries." [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-05/harris-keeps-tripping-up-on-her-medicare-for-all-fuzziness https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-05/harris-ke...
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    > For any of the services covered by Medicare. Quoting the Kaiser Family Foundation, "private insurance would be prohibited from duplicating the coverage under Medicare." That's correct. Supplemental insurance can still cover copays and other out of pocket expenses. It can also cover procedures not covered by Medicare. Now, tell me, how is that "banning private insurance" if insurance companies can still sell those policies?
    - bmelton 7y ago
      From a Bernie Sanders interview with NPR. Q: "Does private insurance go away under Medicare for All?" A: "Yes, it does, because you're not going to a have a need for private insurance" A tweet[1] from Bernie Sanders: You're damn right we're going to get rid of greedy health insurance companies. CNBC describes Bernie Sanders plan as "Bernie Sanders is pushing a “Medicare for All” bill, which would create a government-run program and end private insurance."[2] The Hill's headline covering Bernie's policy is "You're Damn Right Health Insurance Companies Should Be Eliminated"[3] and references a quote in an interview from MSNBC in which Bernie says universal health care can't be achieved "unless you get rid of the insurance companies." So feel free to quibble over the nuances of what "eliminate," "end," and "abolish" mean as much as you like, but if you're a person who is concerned that your private insurance is going to be eliminated, and you're listening to Bernie Sanders talk about it, it seems like his statements would reinforce that fear. [1] https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1111363118867927040?lang=en https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1111363118867927040... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/these-2020-democrats-want-medicare-for-all-but-with-private-insurance.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/these-2020-democrats-want-me... [3] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-damn-right-health-insurance-companies-should-be-eliminated https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436033-sanders-youre-d...