[rayiner]

People aren’t labeled socialist for fixing billing surprises. Trump is pushing a bill to do just that. People are labeled socialist for proposing new federal programs that will cost trillions of dollars more per year, on top of the $6-7 trillion a year that federal, state, and local governments already spend each year. Moreover, people are labeled socialist for proposing solutions, such as single payer, that are in the more government-run end of the overall spectrum of universal healthcare systems. Instead of trying to refine the ACA, for example, which would give us something like the Dutch or Swiss system, people are pushing for single payer and banning private health insurance, which is overall to the left of the various universal healthcare systems that exist.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> people are pushing for single payer and banning private health insurance

Single-payer does not mean abolishing private insurance.

Take the UK’s NHS for example - there’s a thriving private healthcare insurance and private healthcare provider industry there.

Trump’s bill is about price transparency - while the bill is not a bad thing it won’t solve the problem of inflated prices to counter insurance lowballing - I believe the end-result will be something like the “room rate” signs you see in hotel rooms in many states that show the maximum legally allowed billable rate for the room which is usually very high compared to the rate you’re actually paying.

As for the cost argument - people will NET save money because the tax increases to pay for universal coverage will be less than most people’s current healthcare expenses (assuming employers will pass on the savings from not having to pay for workplace health insurance as salary/wage rises for everyone).

[deogeo]

> banning private health insurance

I don't think anyone is opposed to letting people buy private insurance on top of the obligatory single payer. Does any country actually ban additional private insurance?

[javagram]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/does-medicare...

“ In fact, the bill would outright ban private insurance that provides similar coverage to the new Medicare for All plans after a short transition period. That means everyone with comprehensive employee benefits or a private plan through the Affordable Care Act today would be moved onto Medicare.

[. . .] Sanders has said he envisions these remaining plans covering a handful of items like cosmetic surgery that are left out of Medicare. For everything else, the only option is Medicare.”

[deogeo]

It's not entirely clear, but I think the plans that are 'banned' in that case are not "on top of" Medicare, but instead of. I.e. there's a contribution you'd pay to private insurance that you don't pay to Medicare under those plans. Because otherwise... why bother banning them?

[javagram]

I believe the reason they are banned is to avoid a situation where doctors refuse to accept patients who only have Medicare-for-all insurance, and only care for patients who have private insurance.

Since private insurance is willing to pay far higher rates than Medicare, this would lead to Medicare-for-all failing. Doctors already exist who refuse to accept Medicaid-insured patients because the reimbursement rates are low compared to privately-insured patients.

Everything I can read about this plan says it would ban plans “on top of” Medicare, and contrasts it with other countries like the UK, Canada, and Denmark, which do have supplemental private coverage for medically necessary services available.

[refurb]

Canada kind of does.

As a physician, you have to pick either the public or private system. You can’t practice in both.

[DaiPlusPlus]

Well... Cuba, I guess.

I wonder how travel health insurance works for tourists there.