قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Endorsing Berniecare becomes a colossal blunder for 2020 democrats

Endorsing Berniecare becomes a colossal blunder for 2020 democrats



The decision by several of Bernie Sanders' rivals for the democratic presidential election in 2020 to approve his proposal for health care becomes a colossal blunder.

Professor of Health Policy and Author Aaron Carroll observed Tuesday ] "It is a little confusing to me that the debate [amongst] Democrats has been referred to for a discussion as to whether we would completely ban private insurance under Medicare for Almost no universal systems in the world have completely banned private insurance. "

But there is a very simple explanation for this.

When Sanders unveiled his "Medicare for All" plan in 201

7 and updated it in April, four of his colleagues and 2020 participants came to him both times: Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand. At that time, they wanted to coordinate an idea that seemed to have a strong succession and not leave space on their left as a key issue of the campaign.

But by taking this approach, they were not only unnecessarily linked to the most extreme position in the field of health, but they made considerably less flexibility in formulating their own vision of the issue during the campaign. Specifically, they allowed a plan to effectively eliminate private insurance by: 1) transferring all Americans to a single state plan within four years; 2) To prohibit any private plan covering all the same benefits as the State Plan and 3) offering such a wide range of benefits at the State level that it would actually leave something for private plans to cover. Meanwhile, Sanders, the lead author of the bill, has repeatedly argued that it would get rid of private insurance other than cosmetic surgical coverage, which Margot Sanger-Katz helpfully points out even though New York Times t exist.

There was no reason why these candidates could make Sanders their health guru.

If they hadn't approved the Sanders plan themselves, Harris and Warren (co-sponsors with the highest odds of having the nomination) would have been free to explore a variety of approaches. One would have been designing a plan that offered a government opportunity for anyone without explicitly requiring everyone to abandon their private insurance to join it. There is nothing to suggest that it would have made them seriously harmful. People who support the abstract concept of "Medicare for All" do not necessarily require the Sanders version or the bust. A June Kaiser Family Foundation study found that among those who supported a national health plan, 89% described it as "very important" that the plan offered coverage to all compared to only 38% who said it was "very important "that it eliminated private insurance.

Although Harris and Warren ultimately decided to move everyone to a government war plan, they still had opportunities for those who were not Sanders' approach.

Harris has used the primaries to fall into the role of private insurance before coming to his current unsustainable position that she supports the Sanders bill, which effectively eliminates private insurance while stressing that there will be a role for private " supplementary "coverage. As shown above, would effectively be non-existent.

However, if that is the position she wants to take, she could have spoken to a system similar to that of Canada, where everyone has the government's plan for their primary coverage, but about two-thirds of the public also has private coverage for the vision, dental, prescription drugs and other services not covered by the national plan. It would at least have given some meat to her argument about "supplementary" coverage. However, under the Sanders plan that she is stuck to being approved, such coverage would not be possible because his plan promises to cover all of these services and brewed private insurance companies from offering duplication coverage.

There are some liberals who did it early by approving the Sanders plan, besides others, democratic candidates would leave the door open for various approaches. Warren in March argued that there were more roads to come to universal coverage. But this argument did not require approval of the Sanders plan.

When the Sanders plan came out, instead of participating as a co-sponsor, Warren could have said something about "I support the idea of" Medicare for everyone, "but I will publish my own plan for my own vision on the health service. "

Instead, as she once went down the road to become a co-sponsor, the cost of going away and suggesting something else was greater. So in the first debate she found herself wrapped up to include the elimination of private insurance, which currently covers nearly 180 million, and declares "I'm with Bernie". So the nozzle has been thrown, although she later emits another plane.

Sure, in a general election matchup against Trump everything is possible. But by letting Sanders set the conditions for the health care debate, his rivals created an unnecessary responsibility for themselves by ensuring that the fight for universal health care would be fought on the least favorable terms.


Source link