[ymck]

"Quality Federal Health Insurance for all" = yes "Medicare for all" = Terrible idea

Medicare is insufficient coverage. Almost all folks on Medicare need supplemental insurance, or a state plan to actually get the care they need. Medicare under pays on claims, typically under the costs of providing care. Every industry group, union, medical association, who has looked at all the various plans has said it would lead to more hospital bankruptcies, particularly in rural areas.

Now, if you want to break the current system and force a government take over of the whole system it's not a bad idea, but selling it as something that would give folks the care they need is very disingenuous.

[claudeganon]

Medicare for All isn’t an extension of existing Medicare benefits to everyone, it’s an expansion of those benefits, for everyone, under a single-payer system.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medica...

[ars]

You didn't understand what the person you replied to said, and he's right.

Medicare is NOT good insurance. Its reimbursement rates for hospitals is lower than their costs, and it doesn't fully cover people, it only covers 80%.

Like the person you replied to said: Most people on Medicare need to buy supplemental private insurance - it's called Medicare Advantage, and it may be government funded.

We need good insurance, and Medicare is NOT good insurance.

[TheCoelacanth]

They clearly did understand what they said. The "Medicare for All" proposals do not simply extend existing Medicare benefits to everyone, they also expand what Medicare covers for the people it covers.

[claudeganon]

I understood perfectly and they and you are both incorrect. Medicare for All is not Medicare, it expands and closes the gaps in coverage under the current regime using a single payer system (which is not even really a form of “insurance” to begin with).