3 ms·

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 se

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...
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Why are we still talking about Bernie Sanders?
        pmiller2 7y ago
        His ideas are still relevant, even if his candidacy is not.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        Nonetheless, the fact remains, no M4A plan proposed by any candidate in the 2020 race would disallow insurers from offering supplemental coverage. Bernie is just simplifying for purposes of making himself understood to the general public. Nobody would "need" private insurance under his plan: > In other words, while Sanders' plan doesn’t ban supplementary coverage from private insurers, it does offer such generous coverage by the government that there's not much room left for private coverage to fill any gaps. This is the logic upon which both conservative critics — and supposedly nonpartisan mainstream reporters and pundits — hang the logic that Sanders' plan would "ban" private coverage. It's a dramatic "gotcha" question.... [0] You're essentially reinforcing a right wing talking point that completely mischaracterizes what Bernie's M4A plan actually does. --- [0]: https://theweek.com/articles/850638/no-really-wants-ban-all-private-insurance-not-even-bernie-sanders https://theweek.com/articles/850638/no-really-wants-ban-all-...
bmelton 7y ago
I didn't say that any of the M4A plans would ban private insurance. That doesn't change the fact that Bernie has stated that his M4A plan would, even where the plan he's put forward doesn't show that. I think it's fair (if a bit naive) to take politicians at their word on occasion. Moreover, I think it's more than a bit disingenuous to assert that plans that are disallowed by law from competing with Medicare services still being allowed to exist for only elective operations as "not banning them." If I disallowed Netflix from streaming any videos longer than a minute in length, I guess technically I have not banned Netflix, but in practice, I have totally banned Netflix, and that's exactly the scale of disallowance we're discussing here.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Your analogy is false, though. A more correct one would be "Netflix is allowed to show all initial movies in a franchise, but sequels are fair game to anyone." Do you understand the difference between primary and secondary / supplemental insurance coverage?
  - bmelton 7y ago
    I don't believe that my analogy is false, or that supplemental coverage would be allowed for the kinds of care being provided by M4A. I think perhaps a more on-the-nose analogy would be that "Netflix is not allowed to distribute anything that Apple TV is distributing or claims to distribute." Again, I'm not making the claim that it's what's in the policy, but it's what Bernie has said, and others have echoed. Reasonable people can disagree on what policies are practicable or likely, but if you're a person who believes their health insurance might change based on those statements, then it seems like a warranted fear.

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...
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Why are we still talking about Bernie Sanders?
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        His ideas are still relevant, even if his candidacy is not.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Nonetheless, the fact remains, no M4A plan proposed by any candidate in the 2020 race would disallow insurers from offering supplemental coverage. Bernie is just simplifying for purposes of making himself understood to the general public. Nobody would "need" private insurance under his plan: > In other words, while Sanders' plan doesn’t ban supplementary coverage from private insurers, it does offer such generous coverage by the government that there's not much room left for private coverage to fill any gaps. This is the logic upon which both conservative critics — and supposedly nonpartisan mainstream reporters and pundits — hang the logic that Sanders' plan would "ban" private coverage. It's a dramatic "gotcha" question.... [0] You're essentially reinforcing a right wing talking point that completely mischaracterizes what Bernie's M4A plan actually does. --- [0]: https://theweek.com/articles/850638/no-really-wants-ban-all-private-insurance-not-even-bernie-sanders https://theweek.com/articles/850638/no-really-wants-ban-all-...

bmelton 7y ago

I didn't say that any of the M4A plans would ban private insurance. That doesn't change the fact that Bernie has stated that his M4A plan would, even where the plan he's put forward doesn't show that. I think it's fair (if a bit naive) to take politicians at their word on occasion. Moreover, I think it's more than a bit disingenuous to assert that plans that are disallowed by law from competing with Medicare services still being allowed to exist for only elective operations as "not banning them." If I disallowed Netflix from streaming any videos longer than a minute in length, I guess technically I have not banned Netflix, but in practice, I have totally banned Netflix, and that's exactly the scale of disallowance we're discussing here.

pmiller2 7y ago
Your analogy is false, though. A more correct one would be "Netflix is allowed to show all initial movies in a franchise, but sequels are fair game to anyone." Do you understand the difference between primary and secondary / supplemental insurance coverage?
- bmelton 7y ago
  I don't believe that my analogy is false, or that supplemental coverage would be allowed for the kinds of care being provided by M4A. I think perhaps a more on-the-nose analogy would be that "Netflix is not allowed to distribute anything that Apple TV is distributing or claims to distribute." Again, I'm not making the claim that it's what's in the policy, but it's what Bernie has said, and others have echoed. Reasonable people can disagree on what policies are practicable or likely, but if you're a person who believes their health insurance might change based on those statements, then it seems like a warranted fear.