Mac1958
Diamond Member
Rather than either/or, one or the other, we could probably find a point of equilibrium between the two.Allowing concentrated corporate wealth and power to handle it must be the answer. We have a voice there at least. And we must continue to elect to office those who do not believe a govt of/by/for the people can work, so they can make sure it doesn't.I've taken Medicare training every year since 2005. I was the financial guy in the room for a Fortune 100 Medicare insurer when it was putting together Medicare Advantage plans for my state for five years. I know these things inside and out.Moving to a healthcare system like that of all other advanced post industrial nations terrifies the holy shit out of the donor/political/corporate class. They need control over your access to healthcare. That is the new slavery. Most folks need to subjugate themselves to an employer for access to healthcare, whatever plan the employer decides to offer them. Let's recall that the ACA is a Heritage Foundation approach, and it still, as it has worked out, puts profiteers between you and your doctor.
Are under the impression that Single Payer, aka "Medicare for All", would eliminate the profiteers? Do you know how Medicare works?
33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || CMA
Medicare doesn't remove insurance industry profits from health care.
I'm against Single Payer, which is not "Medicare for All", despite what Bernie Sanders says. That's why I specifically advocate for a full expansion of the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system. That's the specific phrase I use every time I discuss this. That is not Single Payer.
.
Then at least we agree on the facts. Medicare for all isn't government health insurance. It's government taking our tax money and buying insurance on our behalf. What could go wrong?
Expanding the popular, already-functioning, public/private Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system to replace our ridiculous seven-headed beast of a system, for example.
.