Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like "liberal" and "conservative".
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as "to the left" or "to the right" of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By u/Atlanticbboy At 2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM | Source
The idea is Medicare for all as baseline, and private market on top of that. Every country with single payer health care also has private market clinics. The idea that private markets would be outlawed is a misunderstanding, and when pushed by those who would make less money under a single baseline payer system, is misinformation.
Interesting I did not know that. Would MFA lead to increased private insurance premiums over what they are now? Would less subscribers lead to many providers not being in network?
Still not an ideal situation if women and LGBT were forced onto even more expensive private plans for coverage.
At any rate I think most people want universal coverage it's just our politics and system is so complicated that there is a lack of trust leading to concerns and confusion. Plus I knew people who died being denied coverage by Medicare, so the name itself is tainted for many. It probably should be called something like Healthcare for All.
When basic healthcare is universally covered, premiums or out of pocket just for anything considered an extra service aren't directly comparable to premiums for insurance for all Healthcare. They will be much less, because they cover less, because anything the government designates a core service is provided at no cost.
Private insurance or just out of pocket costs (they are lower costs, cut out the middleman of insurance) on top of universal health care systems can be upgrades to included services - like getting a private hospital room rather than having a roommate - or could be going to clinics that only have private patients and offer services outside what the government plan covers. For insurance plans (as opposed to out of pocket), the specifically private network would be smaller because the general care government plan would cover almost every provider, and the private plan is just adding on a few on top.
I believe Medicaid (for certain low income people) unfortunately has much higher barriers to coverage than Medicare (for over 65s), but any insurance is going to have a denial rate. No system has infinite money to cover every service, and setting expectations for coverage like what Medicare provides today is realistic.
Sadly, I don't believe it is true that Americans broadly want universal healthcare coverage. The idea that people less healthy and poorer than citizen X deserve nothing from the society they live in is really widespread. Even if the efficiencies of having a one payer system are brought up (so much money is currently spent navigating the multi-labyrinth of our multitude of different insurance companies), there is some feeling that less healthy people who can't afford care deserve to suffer. I encounter this occasionally even in liberal spaces like lemmy, and it is pervasive if I lurk in more conservative platforms.