Next week, 20 Democratic presidential candidates gather in Miami for their first debate. One topic will surely dominate the discussion – "Medicare-for-all".
The promise of free, state-run health care has become quite popular among Democrats since Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt main plank of his presidential campaign in 2016. Four of his rivals for the Democratic nomination have backed his "Medicare-for-all" legislation , Some others have expressed support for such a thing.
Democrats could say they want "Medicare-for-All." However, recent surveys have revealed that they do not know what "Medicare-for-All" would mean to them ̵
MCCONNELL-ALIGNED GROUP GIVES 4 MIO OF THE DEBATE
Two "Medicare-for-all" laws were introduced in Congress – one by Sanders in the upper chamber and the other by Rep Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., In the House of Representatives. They are virtually identical. Both would set up a new government-led health plan that will ultimately provide health coverage to every resident of the United States, both citizens and non-citizens.
This protection would be comprehensive – from primary care to prescription drugs to dental, vision and long-term care operations.
Sanders and Jayapal have gladly refused their promise of free care. However, they agreed a little less about their bills effectively banning private health insurance.
This cunning may explain why two thirds of Democrats mistakenly believe that people with employer-sponsored insurance would be able to stick to their plans. According to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation this week, they are currently listed as "Medicare-for -Alles". Nearly two-thirds mistakenly believe that those who take out insurance on the retail market will be able to maintain their coverage in the brave new world of Bernie's health insurance under Medicare-for-all.
The Kaiser poll is no runaway. A separate poll released earlier this week found that 73 percent of Democrats thought "Medicare-for-all" would be just for anyone who wants to shop in Medicare to do so – and not a mandatory national insurance system, That would keep people from their private lives cover.
The ban on private insurance would have serious consequences. Around 180 million people are employer-funded. Around 52 million buy directly from insurers. About 22 million seniors have privately managed the Medicare Advantage policies. "Medicare-for-all" would end these coverage arrangements – and overthrow everyone in the new government-led unit plan.
In addition, the elimination of private cover would include about one million people in the insurance sector. Industry is jobless – Jayapal admits freely.
Canada's deposit system prohibits private insurance for everything the government covers, just like "Medicare-for-all." As a result, Canadian patients will be cared for the government's schedule, not their own – if they are even able to be cared for. According to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, we've been waiting for nearly 1.1 million interventions. With the adoption of one patient per procedure, nearly 3 percent of the country's population was on a waiting list last year. The average waiting time between referral by a GP and treatment by a specialist was just under 20 weeks. Patients requiring orthopedic surgery had to wait an average of almost ten months!
According to Democrats, health care is the main issue that the party's presidential candidates should talk about. You should be careful. You may be shocked by what they find out.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT SALLY PIPES.