JustCare

Tag: Bernie Sanders

  • Five arguments for Medicare for All

    Five arguments for Medicare for All

    As we continue to debate how to move forward on health reform, it’s helpful to understand the key arguments for Medicare for All, a single-payer public health insurance system that would guarantee health care coverage to all Americans. As proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Medicare for All, like traditional Medicare, allows you to use the doctors and hospitals you want to use; and, it improves on traditional Medicare, adding benefits and eliminating premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and copays.

    Here are five key arguments for Medicare for All:

    1. Medicare for All guarantees health care coverage to everyone with no out-of-pocket costs, increasing access to care, promoting equality in our health care system, and eliminating the rationing of care based on ability to pay. It offers more comprehensive benefits than private insurance or Medicare today, including dental, vision, hearing and home and community-based care, along with standard benefits.
    2. Medicare for All simplifies the health care system. It alleviates a lot of confusion, bureaucratic headaches and stress that come with allowing multiple payers to each have their own set of rules. It also makes it easier for businesses to compete in the global marketplace, relieving employers of the responsibility of providing their workers health care coverage.
    3. Medicare for All covers care from virtually every hospital and doctor anywhere in the US, giving people far greater choice of providers than most have today and ensuring continuity of care from one year to the next. It also means an end to surprise medical bills.
    4. Medicare for All brings down health care spending. It reduces administrative costs and provider rates by hundreds of  billions of dollars a year. It eliminates as much as $500 billion a year in administrative waste–the costs imposed by private insurers stemming from rate negotiation, medical underwriting, and claims processing. And it eliminates hundreds of billions more in excess prescription drug and provider rates. There’s no reason Americans should pay twice as much as people in other wealthy countries for our drugs, and equally no reason that a hip replacement or an MRI should cost four times more in one hospital than in another.
    5. Medicare for All reduces administrative costs for doctors and hospitals, saving them tens of billions of dollars each year. They would no longer have to hire as many administrative staff to deal with scores of insurers on prior authorization, referrals, provider rates, copays, claims processing and appeals.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Older adults will play a big role in 2020 presidential election

    Older adults will play a big role in 2020 presidential election

    Older adults represent a large and increasingly larger voting bloc. They will play a big role in the 2020 presidential election. In 2016, they voted for President Trump. But, the Wall Street Journal reports that the jury’s out on whether they will do so again in 2020.

    In 2016, older adults supported President Trump by a 52 percent-45 percent margin. Today, according to a June Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 48 percent of older adults favor a Democrat, any Democrat over Trump; 41 percent of them support Trump. Still, 46 percent of older adults say they approve of Trump’s performance.

    Only one in three younger voters between 18 and 34 support Trump. But, to win, the Democratic candidate will need substantial support from people over 65, who represent nearly 25 percent of voters. Older adults are also most likely to actually go to the polls. Two out of three older adults cast ballots in 2018.

    A July Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that older adults prefer Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. Support for Biden was 55 percent to Trump’s 43 percent. Support for Sanders and Warren beats out support for Trump by seven and eight percentage points respectively.

    Some older adults like Sanders because he stands for working-class people. But, others are wary of supporting a Democrat because of Democrats’ position on immigration. Older adults also do not like socialists, a label the Republicans have unfairly pinned on some of the Democratic candidates.

    Shockingly, it appears that older adults are not focused on the fact that President Trump’s budget would slash Medicare, driving up health care costs for older adults. They also do not seem to care that Trump has done nothing to address high prescription drug costs. Moreover, Trump, like Republicans in Congress, is opposed to strengthening Social Security and has been closing Social Security offices.

    The last time older adults supported a Democratic presidential candidate over a Republican was in 2000, when they supported Al Gore.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • With Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders moved the Democratic Party left

    With Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders moved the Democratic Party left

    Osita Nwanevu reports for the New Yorker on how Senator Bernie Sanders has single-handedly moved the Democratic Party left on health care with his vision of Medicare for All. Medicare for All would improve traditional Medicare to fill all coverage gaps, add important benefits including home and nursing home care, allow people to continue to use the doctors and hospitals they want to use and eliminate all out-of-pocket health care costs. Virtually all presidential candidates now include at least a Medicare option in their health care reform proposals. 

    To be clear, a Medicare option, sometimes called a “public option,” recognizes the value of public insurance at reining in costs and guaranteeing people health care, but keeps private insurance as an option for people as well, thereby failing to bring down costs adequately or ensure people access to care. Only Medicare for All delivers affordable care to all. It does not ration care based on ability to pay.

    Some Democratic presidential candidates see Medicare for All as “bad” policy, including John Delaney. He appears to object to “free health care” because he thinks it is the wrong message for Democrats to be sending out. He appears to be OK with limiting access to care based on costs.

    Delaney proposes a universal public program that would not meet people’s basic needs. He would offer people a public plan with gaps in coverage. People could buy private supplemental coverage to fill gaps in the public plan. One question is how his plan would ensure people do not find themselves broke or being donned by collection agencies because their out-of-pocket costs are unaffordable. Another question is how his plan would be paid for.

    Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants you to believe that his plan to allow people to buy into Medicare–the public option–will ultimately mean that private plans  will wither on the vine. I once believed that as well. Then, I saw how Medicare Advantage plans, which were billed as less costly than traditional Medicare, have been ripping off taxpayers by overcharging for their services, while being engaged in what the Office of the Inspector General calls widespread denials of care and coverage. Still, the Medicare Advantage plans have been working with the Trump administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to steer people into their plans.

    Senator Kamala Harris aims to let people transition to a public or private Medicare plan over ten years. However, her plan does nothing to address the $503 billion a year in administrative expense that private plans bring to our health care system. It does nothing to prevent gaming by Medicare Advantage plans; Harris has no answer as to how she plans to hold them accountable. And, it does nothing to guarantee Americans affordable care. 

    Morning Consult reported last month that 55 percent of Americans support Medicare for All once they understand that they can continue to use the doctors and hospitals they want to use. Its poll of 1,472 voters, taken between June 29 and July 2, found that 56 percent of Independents support Medicare for All if they are told they can continue to use their doctors and hospitals.

    Americans need to have faith that the new public plan they would get through Medicare for All is better than the plan they currently have through their employer. Given how many people can’t wait to get on Medicare, which offers less generous benefits at greater cost than Medicare for All, it simply should be a matter of time before the vast majority of Americans support Medicare for All. None of the other health care reform options would ensure health care affordability for all Americans. 

    If you support Medicare for all, please let Congress know. Sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • KamalaCare leaves health insurers running the show

    KamalaCare leaves health insurers running the show

    There’s no question that the American health care system is a crazy quilt that leaves health “insurance companies in charge,” as Senator Kamala Harris appreciates. Unfortunately, her health reform proposal, “KamalaCare” does not match her rhetoric. It leaves health insurers running the show.

    Harris’ proposal relies extensively on for-profit health insurers to provide coverage. But, they are the reason health care is unaffordable and the reason people are often faced with denials of care and coverage. She claims her plan will hold the health insurers to account if they game the system. That sounds great in theory, but how exactly would it work in practice?

    Like Senator Bernie Sanders’ and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All legislation, Harris’ proposal makes an improved traditional Medicare public plan available to all Americans. Unlike Sanders and Jayapal, after a ten-year transition, she keeps the for-profit health insurance industry in business, offering Medicare Advantage plan options to people who want a private plan.

    Harris does not explain what her multi-payer plan would do to reduce the $503 billion a year in administrative costs in our health care system. She also does not explain how it will rein in doctor and hospital rates. She does say that she would cut prescription drug prices so that we pay what other wealthy countries pay for our drugs. And, while that could save as much as $250 billion a year, it is not the hundreds of additional billions in savings we achieve from the Sanders and Jayapal Medicare for All bills.

    Consequently, it is hard to see how Harris makes health care affordable. Today, annual out-of-pocket limits in Medicare Advantage plans are $5,059 for in-network care alone. What would change?

    Putting costs aside, like many other pundits and candidates, Harris believes that people want health insurance plan choices more than they want affordable health care. But, in my entire professional career, I’ve never met anyone who said they cared about having the choice of commercial insurance plans. To the contrary, they don’t like making that choice. The choice we all want is the choice of doctors and hospitals we want to use at an affordable price.

    Moreover, Harris fails to explain why private insurers will be any more accountable under her proposal than they are today–largely unaccountable. She does not seem to realize that Medicare Advantage plans, from their inception, have failed to comply with many of their contractual obligations, threatening the health and safety of their members; and, the federal government has lacked the power to punish them effectively, let alone to get them to comply with their legal obligations.

    Medicare Advantage plans can’t even manage to provide their enrollees with up-to-date provider directories. They engage in widespread denials of care and payment, according to the US Office of the Inspector General. And, they won’t turn over data, required by law, that would reveal the services they provide their members to allow an independent assessment as to whether they are meeting their members’ needs.

    Federal audits of Medicare Advantage plans have not helped to keep Medicare Advantage plans in line. Short of a provision in the law that either held Medicare Advantage CEO’s personally liable for failures to comply with the law or put them out of business for failing to comply, how exactly will Harris’ proposal induce them to behave properly? Or, is Harris prepared to call for these severe penalties?

    If not, what is she thinking? Other wealthy countries manage to guarantee health care to everyone at half the cost we pay, and they rely on private insurers. But, for the most part, their insurers are non-profit. And, the insurers are regulated like utilities. It feels like a fantasy to believe that our for-profit, shareholder-accountable, health insurers are going to behave any differently than they behave today. They have money and power, which they will continue to wield to make sure they can operate without accountability.

    In sum, 200 economists have united behind Sanders’ and Jayapal’s Medicare for All single-payer proposals because Medicare for All saves money and guarantees affordable health care to all. Harris’ health care reform proposal introduces new rules for private health plans without any meaningful cost savings or insurer accountability. Regardless of what Harris believes, her health reform proposal will not give people the affordable health care they want and need.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Democratic Presidential candidates debate health care reform

    Democratic Presidential candidates debate health care reform

    One of the biggest differences among the Democratic presidential candidates is where they stand on health care reform. During the debates last week, we saw that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are big proponents of Medicare for All; and, Kamala Harris understands the value of Medicare for All and the costs of relying on commercial health insurance to cover our health care. Most of the other candidates mistakenly seem to believe we can lower health care costs sufficiently through a “public option,” sometimes called Medicare for some.

    Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, and Beto O’Rourke are not calling for Medicare for All, even though it guarantees people coverage with full choice of doctors and hospitals and no out-of-pocket costs. They say they want to give people the choice of Medicare, because it offers more choice and let’s people keep the coverage they have if they’d like.

    These candidates want to allow people to choose costly private health plans with restricted networks of doctors and hospitals. What they don’t seem to appreciate is that public option plans (Medicare for some) may sound good, but they do not drive down health care costs sufficiently and keep health care unaffordable for most people.

    Virtually every American wants access to private health care from private doctors and private hospitals, which is exactly what Medicare for All offers.  Do people really care whether public or private insurance pays their bills? Do they understand that only if public insurance pays their bills will their costs come down?

    Mayor Bill deBlasio of New York City, another supporter of Medicare for All, challenged O’Rourke on his position. “Congressman O’Rourke, private insurance is not working for tens of millions of Americans when you talk about the co-pays, the deductibles, the premiums, the out of pocket expenses. It’s not working.” “How can you defend a system that’s not working?” O’Rourke had no good answer.

    Former Congressman John Delaney did not appear to appreciate the twisted logic of his argument against Medicare for All, which he based on statements from hospital CEOs. Of course, they oppose Medicare for All. Their self-interest is in ensuring they receive as high rates as possible.

    The majority of candidates demonized pharmaceutical companies and said they want lower drug prices. But, you need to read between the lines. Senator Klobuchar wants Medicare drug price negotiation, which does nothing to help the 170 million people with job-based coverage. She appears to want to allow working people to import drugs from abroad, which is at best a short-term solution.

    In sharp contrast, Senator Cory Booker is sponsoring Senator Sanders’ bill calling for international reference pricing for drugs, essentially, paying the average of what other wealthy countries pay. That proposal should cut drug prices for everyone in half.  Senator Warren has her own bill to bring down drug prices for everyone.

    If you support Medicare for all, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • In Canada, insulin costs 90 percent less than in the US

    In Canada, insulin costs 90 percent less than in the US

    Need insulin? More than seven million Americans with diabetes depend on insulin to live. But, many of them can no longer afford the US price. When possible, they travel across the border to Canada where the Washington Post reports they can get insulin for 90 percent less than in the US.

    The Health Care Cost Institute reports that between 2012 and 2016 the cost of an insulin prescription almost doubled in the US, from $344 to $666. Moreover, there was significant variation in price depending upon the state in which it was sold. In Maine, the price of insulin was as high as $865 in 2016. In California, the highest price of insulin was $407.

    Why is the price of insulin so high? Insulin was discovered 100 years ago. The cost has almost doubled only because Congress allows the pharmaceutical companies to charge what they please for it. There is no meaningful price competition.

    In Canada, you don’t need a prescription for insulin, so you can also avoid the cost of a trip to the doctor. The Canadian government appreciates that the only people buying insulin are people who need it. Moreover, the price is transparent, predictable and affordable. Diabetics do not have to choose between their insulin and other basic needs as they often do in the US.

    In the US, you never know what your insurer is paying and what your copays will be. They are always changing. The cost of insulin is so high that people must search for coupons or rebates. And, still they don’t know what they will have to pay for it.

    Congress is looking at ways to address high drug prices. And, the Washington Post reports that there appears to be some bipartisan agreement that people should be able to import their drugs from Canada. Importation is a fine short-term solution. But, that’s already happening, if not legally, apparently without the US government attempting to stop it or penalize people who import their drugs for personal use.

    The long-term solution to high drug prices needs to be government price regulation. The simplest solution is for Congress to set drug prices at the average of what other wealthy countries pay, as Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Ro Khanna and others have proposed. That’s a market-based solution. Today, Pharma holds all the power to set prices.

    If you want Congress to rein in drug prices, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Sanders calls for Justice Department to criminally enforce antitrust laws against Teva and other generic drug companies

    Sanders calls for Justice Department to criminally enforce antitrust laws against Teva and other generic drug companies

    Back in May, forty-four states filed a lawsuit against 20 generic pharmaceutical companies, including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Mylan for illegally conspiring to drive up generic drug prices as much as ten-fold on more than 100 generic drugs. Since then, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Elijah Cummings have sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting it prioritize criminal enforcement of the antitrust laws against generic drug companies. Their goal is to bring down the price of generic drugs.

    The letter expresses deep concern about the Justice Department’s failure to enforce federal antitrust laws against generic drug companies. Only one company, Heritage, has been held to account for corporate criminal activity. And, that company was able to settle the case against it with a mere $225,000 criminal penalty–hardly enough to deter future bad conduct.

    Sanders and Cummings state that any civil enforcement by the Justice Department is insufficient if the charges against the 44 generic drugmakers have merit. Criminal enforcement will be needed.

    The state lawsuits included evidence that the generic drugmakers may have conspired to fabricate responses to Sanders’ and Cummings’ 2014 investigation regarding generic drug price hikes. It appears that Teva and other generic drugmakers responded to Sanders’ and Cummings’ queries with “polite f-u letters,” designed to obstruct the investigation. According to Sanders and Cummings, the generic drugmakers gave reasons for their price increases that were at best grossly misleading and may have been false statements to Congress.

    Sanders and Cummings are requesting a briefing by the Justice Department on June 21 as to how it is protecting the public from anticompetitive practices of the generic drugmakers. Sanders has a bill to lower all drug prices through international reference pricing, essentially having the US pay no more for drugs than the average of what other wealthy countries pay. Click here to see my Facebook video on drug pricing for Bernie Sanders.

    If you want Congress to rein in drug prices, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Brand-name drug prices remain staggeringly high

    Brand-name drug prices remain staggeringly high

    PharmacyChecker has released new information on brand-name drug prices in the US and around the globe. These drugs have no generic competition. And, the prices in the US remain staggeringly high relative to the rest of the world.

    PharmacyChecker looked at 10 popular brand drugs with no generic substitute. The savings from buying these drugs online from a verified pharmacy in Canada is 75 percent. Put differently, a drug that costs $100 in the US costs just $25 in Canada. Savings are even greater–a 90 percent discount–if you’re willing to buy your drugs from verified pharmacies in other parts of the world.

    For example, Vesicare (solifenacin) treats overactive bladder (OAB). In the US, with a discount card, it costs $1,202 for 90 pills. In Canada it costs $188, 84 percent less. Discount cards are available for free from PharmacyChecker.com and GoodRx.

    Of course, if you are considering importing drugs from abroad, you should know that it is prohibited under federal law. But, no one is ever fined, much less prosecuted, for importing drugs for personal use. If you opt to buy your drugs from abroad, as millions of Americans do, make sure you use a verified and properly credentialed pharmacy. Keep in mind that there are rogue online pharmacies that sell counterfeit drugs or just take your money.

    Congress is currently considering legislation that would lower brand-name drug costs considerably. The most comprehensive and most fair legislation, the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, was introduced by Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders. They propose that drug prices in the US be set at the average of what people in other wealthy countries pay for their drugs, international reference pricing.

    If you want Congress to rein in drug prices, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Nearly half of older households have no retirement savings

    Nearly half of older households have no retirement savings

    A new GAO report, based on a Survey of Consumer Finances from 2017, finds that nearly half of all households headed by someone 55 or older in the US have no retirement savings. Most households have low retirement savings. The US retirement system needs improving.

    There is a good likelihood that many Americans will outlive their retirement savings. Health care costs and other expenses are keeping people from being able to save pre-retirement. On top of that, an increasing number of people are retiring and living longer.

    At the same time, more and more companies are eliminating pensions and replacing them with one-time payments that are worth far less. The Treasury and Labor Departments, which oversee these employer plans, are not focused on protecting workers’ retirement security, reports Josh Gotbaum for The Atlantic.

    President Trump recently issued an executive order that calls for expanding workplace retirement plans as a way to strengthen people’s retirement security. But, there are already thousands of these retirement plans. The executive order is, in fact, a gift to Wall Street. It gives financial-services companies more ways to collect workers’ money and receive fees for their work. It does nothing to ensure that Americans can retire with dignity.

    Americans should demand retirement security from our elected officials. Social Security needs strengthening as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman John Larson have proposed. The Social Security 2100 Act would fully fund Social Security for the rest of the 21st century. No Republicans are co-sponsors.

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care: