She has 1,700 signatures, spoken to Dem committees across Delco, & is forcing the question — why won't a congresswoman representing a county without a hospital co-sponsor Medicare for All?
Politicians like Scanlon are the exact reason why you need term limits in Congress. Get them out before they get too comfortable and maybe you would get more things accomplished for constituents.
I appreciate your thoughts on Medicare for All. We both agree on the importance of a healthcare program that citizens can fully support. While the public option does offer a choice of selecting private alternatives, that choice would still require taxpayer money to support private insurance company profits. We are already spending two times what other advanced nations spend so the offering of another "choice" is a red herring that does nothing to address the costs and access which only the single payer system can do most efficiently. Do we need a choice of fire departments or police? These diversions are just that and are directly related to the "market based" mentality that commodifies everything for sale.
Although some are satisfied with employer-sponsored insurance, we currently live in a system where the only alternative is often having no insurance at all. Furthermore, employer healthcare expenses directly impact worker salaries. If employers were not burdened by high insurance costs, those savings could be passed on to employees through increased wages.
For example, consider education costs in one local school district. Teacher salaries are 71% of the budget, while prescription costs jumped $600K (more than 31%), and medical costs are up $328K. As a Medicare for All advocate, I believe this identifies an enormous potential for savings; school districts would no longer be responsible for healthcare premiums of teachers, staff, and administrators. This shift would provide substantial fiscal relief to every school district.
Medicare for All legislation guarantees both equal and comprehensive coverage through a single public program. In contrast, public option plans, however, would compete against private insurers in a market-based system that perpetuates unequal coverage, underinsurance, and high out-of-pocket costs that we experience now.
Our responsibility as advocates is to promote the best possible healthcare system and explain that having a choice is not the best option if that choice is inefficient. Watering down this carefully constructed legislative package would mean that the American people would lose out on the best plan available. We need to cover our citizens with a single, public program.
As a person on Medicare, I appreciate all it does. I would love Medicare for all but fear the push back. I hope you are right and that I am just anticipating opposition that may not arrive
Politicians like Scanlon are the exact reason why you need term limits in Congress. Get them out before they get too comfortable and maybe you would get more things accomplished for constituents.
I appreciate your thoughts on Medicare for All. We both agree on the importance of a healthcare program that citizens can fully support. While the public option does offer a choice of selecting private alternatives, that choice would still require taxpayer money to support private insurance company profits. We are already spending two times what other advanced nations spend so the offering of another "choice" is a red herring that does nothing to address the costs and access which only the single payer system can do most efficiently. Do we need a choice of fire departments or police? These diversions are just that and are directly related to the "market based" mentality that commodifies everything for sale.
Although some are satisfied with employer-sponsored insurance, we currently live in a system where the only alternative is often having no insurance at all. Furthermore, employer healthcare expenses directly impact worker salaries. If employers were not burdened by high insurance costs, those savings could be passed on to employees through increased wages.
For example, consider education costs in one local school district. Teacher salaries are 71% of the budget, while prescription costs jumped $600K (more than 31%), and medical costs are up $328K. As a Medicare for All advocate, I believe this identifies an enormous potential for savings; school districts would no longer be responsible for healthcare premiums of teachers, staff, and administrators. This shift would provide substantial fiscal relief to every school district.
Medicare for All legislation guarantees both equal and comprehensive coverage through a single public program. In contrast, public option plans, however, would compete against private insurers in a market-based system that perpetuates unequal coverage, underinsurance, and high out-of-pocket costs that we experience now.
Our responsibility as advocates is to promote the best possible healthcare system and explain that having a choice is not the best option if that choice is inefficient. Watering down this carefully constructed legislative package would mean that the American people would lose out on the best plan available. We need to cover our citizens with a single, public program.
As a person on Medicare, I appreciate all it does. I would love Medicare for all but fear the push back. I hope you are right and that I am just anticipating opposition that may not arrive
Please consider one change.
Medicare for all sounds like the government is giving you no choice. That is guaranteed to generate automatic push back.
A public option, like Obama tried to pass, reinforces choice. A more gradual acceptance route might be more feasible.
Thank you,
Hey @Betty Ann Director, see @Kae comment. I think she was replying to you.