View Single Post
Old 12th November 2019, 04:13 PM   #247
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,122
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The thing is that if an American has good group insurance through a corporate or government employer -- as the large majority do -- the system generally works pretty well. It is usually heavily -- sometimes fully -- subsidized, and if you have a problem your benefits office will help you. Medicare also works pretty well for the people who are covered by it.

The problem, of course, is that not everybody has such insurance, and even if you do, you can lose it if you leave your job. But people who benefit from the system as it is are understandably leery of giving up what works in favor of an unknown, uncertain alternative.

That's why a public option -- or as Mayor Pete calls it, "Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It" -- is a more politically palatable proposal. If the public option is better than private coverage, people will choose to migrate to it over time, but there won't be a "Today one way, tomorrow another" transition.
Heavily subsidized by who?
These are costs to the employer, the employee, or both.
If the costs are reduced or even stay the same, and everybody gets covered, who loses? Dimwits that prefer to see "medical withholding" on their pay stub instead of the word "tax"?
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top