Perfectly valid concern, he has never explained how he’s planning to pay for zero minute abs.
That’s all fine but it’s clear you can’t work on a theoretical basis. It’s all very well saying the insurance industry takes X out of the US economy and X can cover healthcare. But you can’t just outlaw private insurance. Company contracts cannot change overnight.He did list how he would raise funds for his programs on his 2016 website.
That’s all fine but it’s clear you can’t work on a theoretical basis. It’s all very well saying the insurance industry takes X out of the US economy and X can cover healthcare. But you can’t just outlaw private insurance. Company contracts cannot change overnight.
Basically you’d end up with a lot of people having to pay more in taxes yet still have to pay for private insurance.
That's all very well, but the top 1% are not the only ones with private insurance right now. People with employer based insurance have negotiated (or agreed) to those jobs at contracts in part due to the medical insurance, who's going to deal with the hundreds of millions of people affected? Employers are just supposed to refund the cost of insurance to their employees?He has said he isn’t planning on outlawing private insurance. It would still be available even if Medicare for all is implemented. If the top 1 percent want private care then they can do so as long as they are willing to pay. The current employer based system would presumably go the way of the dodo bird.
That's all very well, but the top 1% are not the only ones with private insurance right now. People with employer based insurance have negotiated (or agreed) to those jobs at contracts in part due to the medical insurance, who's going to deal with the hundreds of millions of people affected? Employers are just supposed to refund the cost of insurance to their employees?
What would the system mean for all the people who work in health administration? Presumably there'd be alot fewer jobs?Those people would obviously switch from private insurer to government sponsored healthcare. The premiums and deductibles would go away in favor of (presumably) a small payroll deduction. It would also make life easier on employers as it would remove the overhead and administrative hassle of having to provide healthcare to all their employees.
Those people would obviously switch from private insurer to government sponsored healthcare. The premiums and deductibles would go away in favor of (presumably) a small payroll deduction. It would also make life easier on employers as it would remove the overhead and administrative hassle of having to provide healthcare to all their employees.
What will happen with all these people? Are they going to be "nationalized"?
Eating them is a part of sustainable energy in the Green New Deal.
Yes, but it is quite complicated. For example, in Oakland Kaiser Permanente is huge, the top employer by a large margin. And they have their own hospitals and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California#Top_employers
What will happen with all these people? Are they going to be "nationalized"?
What would the system mean for all the people who work in health administration? Presumably there'd be alot fewer jobs?
We can joke, but if you know what is going on in Oakland... well, the situation is not great as it is now. If Kaiser Permanente closes and 12,000 lose their jobs, it will be hell. The economy will sink. And it will not be just Oakland...
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/faq_2018.pdfWhat will happen to all of the people who do billing or work for insurance companies? The new system will still need some people to administer claims. Administration will shrink, however, eliminating the need for many insurance workers, as well as administrative staff in hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. More health care providers, especially in the fields of long-term care, home health care, and public health, will be needed, and many insurance clerks can be retrained to enter these fields. Many people now working in the insurance industry are, in fact, already health professionals (e.g. nurses) who will be able to find work in the health care field again. But many insurance and health administrative workers will need a job retraining and placement program. We anticipate that such a program would cost about $20 billion, a small fraction of the administrative savings from the transition to national health insurance. PNHP has worked with labor unions and others to develop plans for a jobs conversion program with would protect the incomes of displaced clerical workers until they were re-trained and transitioned to other jobs. Both H.R. 676 and S. 1804 allocate funds for this purpose.
So they admit that anyone working in health insurance will be out of a job. Not particularly encouraging.
More health care providers, especially in the fields of long-term care, home health care, and public health, will be needed, and many insurance clerks can be retrained to enter these fields. Many people now working in the insurance industry are, in fact, already health professionals (e.g. nurses) who will be able to find work in the health care field again.
We can joke, but if you know what is going on in Oakland... well, the situation is not great as it is now. If Kaiser Permanente closes and 12,000 lose their jobs, it will be hell. The economy will sink. And it will not be just Oakland...
This isn't what would happen though. Its illogical fear mongering.
Most of those people with important skill sets (nurses, doctors and medical professionals) will not lose their jobs as we will still need just as many nurses and doctors if not more. And to all the completely unnecessary jobs in medical billing and insurance that should never have existed to begin with? That's what strong unemployment, free state education, green new deal and UBI are for.
Its funny how conservatives whine till the cock crows about how "government is wasteful, lets cut all the gov jobs" but they fight so hard to protect wasteful unnecessary jobs in the private sector.
Yes. But actually in Oakland they have headquarters, a couple of skyscrapers and so on. The majority of the 12,000 workers are administrators. But even for their hospitals, it is not easy to "nationalize" them. There is zero experience in this country with that. Creating a federal level infrastructure to replace all the insurance companies is not a trivial task. It is not "fear mongering", these are real, practical problems. A lot of ideas in life sound great, and in practice they fail.
is it worth saving 50,000 lives if someone who makes $18 / hour denying claims from an office in [OAKLAND] has to find a new job?
Yes. But actually in Oakland they have headquarters, a couple of skyscrapers and so on. The majority of the 12,000 workers are administrators. But even for their hospitals, it is not easy to "nationalize" them. There is zero experience in this country with that. Creating a federal level infrastructure to replace all the insurance companies is not a trivial task. It is not "fear mongering", these are real, practical problems. A lot of ideas in life sound great, and in practice they fail.
you know...my heart bleeds for all the para.... I mean people working in the health Insurance industries.
get Real jobs. FFS
Bernie should use this as a talking point.
Needless to say a lot of people are going to be out of work and there's no guarantee they will obediently cross train into government positions. The exuberance of going this route has to be balanced by the hard realities of what may actually happen.
lets balance that against lives that will be saved.
Now that is the reality.
People can get other clerical jobs.
This sort of honest is missing from the debate.
What is dishonest about the answer I pasted?
The response you quoted from that website reads like a pleasant brochure of what will ideally happen to the workers. There's no guarantee any of that will happen. People who work in healthcare may have private career tracks with retirements and not want to become government bureaucrats.
A key feature of Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act is the just transition it promises to the more than 800,000 private insurance industry workers who will be displaced.
While often treated as a perk intended to boost popularity, the PERI study proves that it is in fact a necessary policy component of the bill. Without offering generous benefits to workers from the abolished private insurance industry, the impressive macroeconomic benefits of the plan could be squandered due to a rapid rise in unemployment and income loss.
The Sanders bill provides a broad promise to guarantee assistance to displaced workers. The PERI bill elaborates on this promise with three concrete proposals: pension fund guarantees for all impacted workers; support for near-retirement workers, including 100 percent wage replacement for multiple years; and support for displaced workers, including job training and relocation support and total wage replacement for one year.
This fairly generous approach will cost $61.5 billion per year of transition. As we’ve already seen, Medicare for All can be expected to operate with a $30 billion surplus, which could be used to cover half of these needed funds. The PERI study proposes that the rest be raised through a 0.6 percent increase in the net-worth tax.
This sort of honesty is missing from the debate.
