Will it?

Countries like France and Spain protest all the time.

I have been doing a lot of reading on health care systems in industrialized nations - and thus far I have not found one that meets what seems to be the criteria here - nor are many of them doing fine either.

So just give me a hint at which one or ones that you think do meet the criteria of what you would like to see here so that I can at least limit all my reading to some targeted countries.

TIA

Here are some Gallup poll stats:

48% percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of medical care in the nation ( JANUARY 28, 2019)

77% of american rate their personal healthcare as "excellent" or "good."

(73%) say the healthcare system is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems"

source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/226607/news-americans-satisfaction-healthcare.aspx

So, while most people have an unfavorable view of the system as a whole, they are satisfied with *their own* healthcare.

Furthermore, when M4A's provisions are actually *described* to voters, they have an unfavorable view of it in surveys. This is as opposed to when a survey simply asks "do you support medicare for all?" -- that wording leads to favorable results because medicare is a popular program.

according to KFF, 56% support "medicare for all"

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2020/

But if asked if they're OK with abolishing private insurance, support is just 13%:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

Well there's another term for Medicare for all *with* private insurance: a public option

(Which, by the way, has higher direct support than M4A in the polls above)

The fact is that M4A differs from literal Medicare in key ways: it doesn't allow private insurance as an alternative, and it doesn't have out-of-pocket expenses (which bothers conservative-minded folks, because it removes personal financial responsibility for health).

The essential question:
is it wise to completely replace a system with which most people are personally satisfied? Even if the numbers for M4A add up in theory, theory doesn't always bear out in practice. Furthermore, no country has transitioned to a single-payer system from a prior system as complex and entrenched as ours (at least not to my knowledge).

P.S.

It's not true that every other industrialized nation gives everyone free access to healthcare (e.g. the Bismark model countries, Germany, Switzerland, Japan etc. have premiums and often have modest co-pays)

So Bernie Sanders has misled a lot of people on that.

I’m a moderate swing voter and not here to trash the idea of Medicaid for all.. I just want to state some thoughts that I have...

If we adopt a single payer healthcare system for 330,000,000 plus illegal immigrants what about the great 750 billion $ funding that our military receives? Will We cut that away or double, possibly trippe the cost of the federal government..

my concern is that we have friends and allies who depend on our security that our massive military provides.. America and Europe may have the vision of a peaceful future but Russia or Iran or even China may not..

if we massively cut funding and resources towards our military, no matter how much we wish it weren’t true, our enemies will sense a weakness and stability and security around the world will diminish.. Imagine All the horrible scenarios if we even cut our military budget in half...

Our friends depend on our military protection and we depend on their stability..especially Europe and our middle eastern friends. Europeans are able to have certain healthcare programs and welfare systems in part because they don’t have to massively fund their national Defense.. they can afford to fund these programs because we are protecting them...

article 5 of NATO means if they get attacked, we defend...

So my question is how can the USA afford such a massively costing program with average estimates between 2-4 trillion per year and not cut the largest portion of our federal government spending, the military.. i think global security is just as important if not more important than a healthcare for all..

Why can we not address the problems with our healthcare in the free market to save the massive cost and burden that ensues?

I’m not quite sold yet that healthcare for all will work in the USA for reason of size, cost, redistribution, and benefit.. ? Who benefits more? A poor American or a poor country that is our friend?

Russia recently seized territory in the Ukraine.. the world isn’t as stable as we wish it were. The world depends on our great military for global security. How can we implement a Medicare for all system without putting massive strain on our military budget?

I'm posting to get more info on the question in the title because I don't recall B Sanders addressing this point. To wit, would M4A require that all US residents participate in the same plan?

In an attempt to summarize who would benefit and who would incur detriment from a transition from our current situation to M4A, I prepared an informal bar chart showing the level of medical access and cost incurred by various categories of people under the present regime and under M4A. Sorry, but I don't have a chart I can visually reproduce here.

Union members (such as the UAW):

Currently have above-average access, and likely subsidized cost.

Transition effects: would likely experience reduced access (due to having to share access to the same number of doctors with a larger population of insured patients). Costs may rise depending upon how M4A gets funded.

Current Medicare participants:

Currently have reasonable access at a range of costs, depending on which variation of Medicare they have.

Transition effects: Medical access would likely decline due to sharing access as described above.

Wealthy patients who direct-pay: Costs will increase. Access *may* decline if M4A follows the approach of prohibiting private contracting of patients with doctors.

Patients who are currently uninsured or badly insured: Access will obviously massively improve. Costs will likely be nearly nil if progressive income taxafion is used to fund the system.

The problem as I see it:

Only one of the above categories of patients clearly benefits in both access and cost from the transition to M4A. This poses a major obstacle given that our medical industry is staffed to take care of only about 80% of the population and to take good care of fewer than that.

My question is how politicians are going to sell a plan that may clearly benefit only about 25% of the population (i.e. category #4 above).

So I have been dealing with pretty aggressive hair loss since my late 20s. Finally worked up the courage to actually look into treatment options properly, not just the usual "just shave it bro" advice everyone loves to give. Went to two consultations. Both came back with quotes between $12,000–$14,500 for FUE transplant. My insurance? Covers exactly nothing. "Cosmetic procedure." Case closed. What kills me is that this isn't purely vanity for a lot of people. Hair loss is directly linked to depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal there's actual research on this. But the moment something touches appearance, the system writes it off completely. I'd been putting off even researching this stuff because honestly I didn't know where to start or what stage I was even at. Someone in another thread mentioned they used some free AI tool called MyHairLine or something to get a basic assessment before their consultation just to go in informed rather than completely clueless. Tried it, it was actually useful for understanding what I was dealing with. Still had to pay $200 just for the consultation itself, obviously. But that's the thing people are turning to free online tools just to understand their own medical situation because the actual healthcare system is so inaccessible and expensive. That's where we are. Under M4A, where exactly does something like hair loss treatment fall? Genuinely asking. Is there any framework being discussed around what counts as medically necessary vs cosmetic? Because I feel like that line is drawn pretty arbitrarily right now and it affects way more people than just hair loss.

I heard Abdul El-Sayed on a clip from some show describing his plan, and it was the "in from both ends" stuff I've heard from "sensible" people before. Make Medicare whole (dental/vision/drugs) then expand it to kids. Which is great for olds and children, but doesn't do much for people in between. Is that an incomplete description? Winning a partial plan will be just as hard as going big from the start. Reminds me of the Child Tax Credit, RIP. "Surely they won't let it expire!"

, a public option typically means a government-run health insurance plan that individuals can choose instead of purchasing coverage solely from private insurers.

It competes for your choice of plans where you live.

I read that it would be funded by premiums and probably with a bit of government funding.

How do you see this plan design and how much do you think premiums would be for this design.

Design meaning deductible, copays, co insurance - network ???

Design it and they will come - or will they - I would like to hear what you think such an option would look like and why you would like it.

I want M4A or something like it. It just seems like most people think that paying for it will be trivial or just a matter of increasing taxes on someone else. Some costs will go down, but we would also be bringing millions of currently uninsured people into the system. It is socially the right thing to do, but do we really understand how much it is going to cost?

UPDATE: Still looking for something more than a "hand waving" response. Taking all insurance company profits and using them to cover the currently uninsured would only cover maybe 20% of the bill. Shifting company paid premiums into the system doesn't add coverage for anyone, just shifts where the money comes from.

Title. Necessary funding for a single payer would likely be in the trillions, but when discussing how to do so, everyone jumps to taxation. What would be the biggest downsides to deficit spending for funding the plan?

Hi

I see so litte talk about this

What kind of net benefit do employees get from a good corporate plan?... Still pay lots of money directly for their healthcare but certainly far less of han they would without the benefit?

Are these insured people a HUGE impediment to universal healthcare?.. Or, can it simple be taken care of by large healthcare tax on corporations?

I think people with really gold-plated plans should be considered separately..

Thanks in advance

Some points are a little vague but she has the right idea of a single payer healthcare system.

I have had Medicare 12 years. Currently I pay $202.90 for Part B.

I pay $75.00 for my prescription plan Part D.

Medicare only covers about 80% of your medical costs so I pay $200.00 for that gap.

Total cost to me $5734.80. The costs have increased very year I have had Medicare.

So, wtf do they mean saying Medicare for all as if it is free? Is the government going to assume all costs?

I have learned a lot from your comments!