Why I left the Democratic Party

No argument there. But there's no need to argue that it will cost millions oif jobs. That's simply fearmongering. Leave that to the Republicans.

But I think it will likely cost at least a million jobs. I think this is a great feature of the program, provided the program is implemented over 10-20 years and job retraining is available and funded.

It isn't fear mongering. Were do the people go who work for the insurance companies, you know there are more than just CEO's involved. Do they all just transfer into govt jobs doing the same thing?

Most "socialised" health care systems implemented in modern capitalist economies are not "socialist". Not in France nor Germany nor Canada (source: Beth). That's because the state-run insurance scheme covers the low end of the market only. There's always significant room left in the health insurance market for private health insurance providers, and also for mutualist insurance, i.e. offered by cooperatives of users.

While the state-run system finances cures for the basic, public-health and life threatening diseases, there is a non-negligeable co-pay that some people want to insure against. Private and mutualist insurances also provide better dental and eyesight coverage, and a slew of other things from thalasotherapy to massages. People who buy a "mutuelle" or a complementary private policy are in essence buying the power of collective bargaining to get the best prices from medical service providers. A power which is also weilded by the public insurer on a larger scale.

This co-existance of public, cooperative, and private insurance companies in the same market would I suppose apply to America as well, meaning many of the people you think shall get laid off may in fact keep their jobs.

And finally, the US job market is healthy. I wouldn't worry about that.

Like everything the devil is in the details. Any 'plan' theorized right now is absent any details.

A Medicare for all plan may not mean everything you outline. Medicare already pays for a huge portion of the national healthcare costs (maybe 30-50%?) and while there are supplemental insurance options for those over 67, from what I understand it's not much.

It's entirely likely that it will. What more, the jobs lost are geographically spread out (in local doctor's offices and hospitals, as well as smaller insurers in individual states) and the jobs that will be added back in are not (the 'new company' won't be hiring in 50 states, they'll centralize). So this doesn't solve the essential problem for the Congress Critter being tasked with voting for it: THEIR district IS going to lose jobs, period.

Cycloptichorn

I suppose so too, but I need to look her up.
Yep, I found it in this article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/11/07/transgender_democrat_danica_roem_defeats_bob_marshall.html

that's pretty much what happened in Canada

the numbers of claims didn't decrease

the same number of front-line staff were still needed - until automation started cutting them out

__

when auto insurance started to be under government control in my province, the # of jobs went up for a while (again, til automation kicked in) as government regs are (in my experience of this happening in a few jurisdictions including Michigan) more complicated and weird to adjust than the policies insurers write

the biggest money-sucker we see when we look at US treatment costs v Cdn is doctors/hospitals (particularly room charges). we hire companies to work the bills down - often 70 - 80% - they're still making money but not the stupid amounts they're billing.

now here's a weird thing

American medication costs are often less than they are in Canada unless they're provided by a hospital or clinic. Then the mark-ups go to crazyville. It's one of the reasons we fly people home as soon as they can safely travel. They can hit policy limits in a couple of days in a US hospital.

Nobody disputes that there may be job loses but there will also be gains. And the magnitude of the net loss is not proven, you can say "millions" until you're blue in the face, it doesn't male it true. I don't see any reason why medical assistants would be affected, for instance.

So either you can link me up to some serious quants, or I will have to keep not believe in fear mongers.

Some time ago my wife had some serious liver problem. The Italian family doctor ran some test and was puzzled. He sent said wife to a Roman hospital specialised in weird and/or tropical diseases. You had to wear a mask over your mouth and nose during visits...

They boarded her for two weeks, ran every single test they could think of including RMI. Discharged her cured and healthy.

They charged us nothing. Zero (0) euros. That's the Italian welfare state for you. And we're not even Italian...

They never found what she had though.

She should be an interesting delegate. :-)

Job losses versus curing the ill. Bizarre.

You may be one of the most dishonest posters here.

Why would they need jobs, they will have free health insurance.

Scary time. Glad it resolved, however that happened.

On their health system, there was a now long ago time I hoped to move there ('Lucy in the sky with diamonds', I was off my rocker re ability to do that and go back and forth to the US.)

I differ on that. You are two different guys, both with smarts.

Emotions occur.

I suppose I need to say that my last post re my wanting to move there included a metaphor.

Going from coal to other energy sources costs jobs. Which is why there is retraining available. When progress takes jobs, we help the new jobless until they get work.