4 ms·

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 n

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
  Whether he's simplifying or restating seems orthogonal to my point, which is that people who are worried that things are going to change and if they'd like to "just go to a private hospital instead," well - if Bernie is to be believed - in his vision of America, those may not be allowed to exist.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Where did anyone, Bernie included, say that private hospitals would not be allowed to exist?
    - bmelton 7y ago
      Firstly, it's implied when he proclaims that companies shouldn't be profiting off of health care. But to answer the question less obliquely, here's a quote of him saying it (from Politifact): "I could whack pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t need Medicare for All to do it, but I do need Medicare prices for all to deal with what the real profits are — whether you call them profits or not — which is hospitals." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/bernie-sanders/sanders-medicare-all-plan-targets-health-industrys/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/bernie-san...
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        Where does that say private hospitals shouldn't exist? All it implies, and which the article explicitly states, is that private hospitals will have to deal with making lower profits under M4A, which is obvious. You're reaching. Why are you trying to push a right wing spin on M4A, when studies show that it would reduce costs and increase access to care?
        bmelton 7y ago
        I'm not pushing a spin at all. I care approximately zero about the current healthcare debate or its future direction. I think my initial statement was apolitical and factual. If it's being interpreted otherwise, that's by inference, not implication. But to the point of why people might be wondering about changes to their healthcare policies, well, perhaps it's because they've been listening to the politicians. If folks would like to obliquely sidestep what I feel was a rather small, simple point and have an argument about efficiency gains in healthcare, you're free to, but I'm not trying to participate in that argument. Edit: Actually, consider this my last post on the topic at hand, as I'd rather not engage in any argument where reputably sourced facts and direct quotes are regarded as "right wing spin."

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
Whether he's simplifying or restating seems orthogonal to my point, which is that people who are worried that things are going to change and if they'd like to "just go to a private hospital instead," well - if Bernie is to be believed - in his vision of America, those may not be allowed to exist.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Where did anyone, Bernie included, say that private hospitals would not be allowed to exist?
  - bmelton 7y ago
    Firstly, it's implied when he proclaims that companies shouldn't be profiting off of health care. But to answer the question less obliquely, here's a quote of him saying it (from Politifact): "I could whack pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t need Medicare for All to do it, but I do need Medicare prices for all to deal with what the real profits are — whether you call them profits or not — which is hospitals." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/bernie-sanders/sanders-medicare-all-plan-targets-health-industrys/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/15/bernie-san...
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Where does that say private hospitals shouldn't exist? All it implies, and which the article explicitly states, is that private hospitals will have to deal with making lower profits under M4A, which is obvious. You're reaching. Why are you trying to push a right wing spin on M4A, when studies show that it would reduce costs and increase access to care?
      - bmelton 7y ago
        I'm not pushing a spin at all. I care approximately zero about the current healthcare debate or its future direction. I think my initial statement was apolitical and factual. If it's being interpreted otherwise, that's by inference, not implication. But to the point of why people might be wondering about changes to their healthcare policies, well, perhaps it's because they've been listening to the politicians. If folks would like to obliquely sidestep what I feel was a rather small, simple point and have an argument about efficiency gains in healthcare, you're free to, but I'm not trying to participate in that argument. Edit: Actually, consider this my last post on the topic at hand, as I'd rather not engage in any argument where reputably sourced facts and direct quotes are regarded as "right wing spin."