More and more democrats are co-sponsoring (Single-Payer Medicare-for-all)

Two years ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a "Medicare for All" bill that would move the U.S. toward a single-payer healthcare system. He didn't get a single co-sponsor.

On Wednesday, the Vermont independent will introduce his latest version of the bill. Ten of his colleagues—about one-fourth of Democratic senators—have already signed on.

That includes four senators widely expected to run for president in 2020: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.

"The American people understand that now is the time for us to do what every other major country on earth does and guarantee healthcare to all people," Sanders told TIME in a hallway of the Capitol Building on Tuesday.

But Sanders' has been preaching the single-payer gospel for years. The question is why the choir behind him has grown.

One major reason is that President Obama is no longer in office. As the putative head of the party and the namesake of Obamacare, his Administration kept the focus on implementing and defending the Affordable Care Act.

The 2016 election also led to a paradigm shift for many Democrats, who felt that Hillary Clinton's campaign offered too many smaller initiatives, especially when contrasted with Donald Trump's all-caps promises to build a wall.

"Do we need to be a little bit edgier and bolder in our policy prescriptions in terms of how we talk about and address those issues? I think people do take that away as a lesson from 2016," one senior aide to Democratic leadership said.

Voters have also warmed up to the idea, especially over the last year. Sixty percent of Americans now believe the federal government is obligated to ensure healthcare coverage for all, according to a Pew Research Center poll published in June.

Jennifer Victor, a political scientist at George Mason University, says the increased support for Medicare for All is a sign of the split between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party.

"We're now seeing an intra-party struggle over what the spirit of the party is," she said. "The support that Sanders has gotten is a sign that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is quite a bit stronger and more vocal than it has been in the past."

More pragmatic Democrats, especially among party leadership, have made it clear that the priority should be sustaining and improving Obamacare, rather than pursuing a more ambitious overhaul. That's mostly a defensive strategy: Republicans, led by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, are eyeing a final long-shot attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act this month.

(Republicans remain just as skeptical of Medicare for All. Republican Sen. John Barrasso from Wyoming described it as a "complete government takeover.")

"Clearly there have always been, and still are, people in the Democratic Party who would like to see a public option," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday. "As a practical matter, we ought not to divert our attention from the immediate objective, which is making sure the ACA remains the law and that we fix it so it works for as many people as productively, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible."

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to give his specific thoughts on Sanders' proposal.

"Democrats believe that healthcare is a right for all," Schumer said. "And there are many bills out there. Many good ones."

The strategy favored by Democratic leadership is a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, which would continue to subsidize insurance companies that reduce out-of-pocket costs for low-income Americans.

It is a far cry from the universality of Sanders' single-payer system. But the growing chorus of Democratic voices backing the Sanders plan suggests that the issue isn't going away—though in terms of enacting policy, it will almost certainly remain a mostly hypothetical fight until Democrats regain power.

As one Senate Democratic aide put it: "We can't have a serious conversation about a Democratic bill that goes beyond [the Affordable Care Act] until we have the power to enact it—until we have the White House

It's "single payer" and not "universal health care" and there some potential structural pitfalls in this incarnation, but Sanders, Warren and the two dozen progressive and health activist groups who've backed this proposal are planting a flag and declaring that healthcare is not something that markets can provide -- it's the duty and right of civilized states to protect the health of the people who live in their borders.

The bill starts by sweetening the pot for seniors who may be wary about welcoming the rest of the country into their warm pool. It eliminates copays and deductions, except for name-brand drugs when generics are available, and adds dental, vision, and hearing aid coverage to Medicare where it didn’t exist before — huge benefits that have long been a goal of public health advocates.

At the same time, people aged zero to 18 would be eligible for the coverage in the first year. In year two, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45. The next year, it would drop again to 35. In year four, the age restrictions would be eliminated.

The history of the expansion of the New Deal shows that once benefits have been enacted, they are difficult to take away. Opponents of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been working to cut or privatize all three since the day each was enacted, but instead each has grown over time. (The major exception was Aid to Families with Dependent Children, better known as welfare, which was repealed in 1996.)

By phasing in coverage, Sanders makes universal Medicare harder to repeal, and also easier for the public to understand. Everyone gets that transitioning when one turns 65 to Medicare is a relatively painless process. Under Sanders’ plan, people would begin transitioning, after the first year, at age 45 instead of 65. That’s not complicated.

The coverage of dental care will also be life-changing for millions of people who live in pain — some of whom, unable to afford proper dental care, are even forced to change their diets

Taxes in the US are going to skyrocket. When CO tried to pass this in the last election, it lost by over 60% and this was a state that went for Obama twice and Hillary in the last election. My taxes would have increased more than what I was already paying for health insurance, so in essence I would have been paying about $1000 per year more in taxes over what I was "saving" in health insurance costs.

Did you include how much your employer pays for your coverage (or are you on the individual market?).

I'd be willing to pay that much more to ensure that I'll never again get a bill in the mail for a medical procedure. My deductible is $3,000 for my SO and I, and I usually hit that every year. I haven't even had the misfortune of having to deal with a chronic illness yet. Could you imagine my bill for something like cancer treatment or dialysis???

Not to mention dental coverage...I've been putting that off for too long given how expensive it is.

But yeah, I'd pay $1000 more to have all that and ensure that those less fortunate than myself have coverage. Hell, I'd pay even more than that.

Quote:

Did you include how much your employer pays for your coverage (or are you on the individual market?).

I'm only including my own costs, my company covers a good portion of my insurance. I have 7 people on my insurance to include my wife and all 5 of our kids.

I should note that those calculations were based on just insurance for me and my sons before I was remarried this past June. My wife dropped her insurance at work and I added her to mine, my costs increased by adding her but it was cheaper to add her to mine then for her to carry her work insurance, so we actually save money this way. Would the calculations carry forward with the extra people on my insurance? Nope, my wife would also be paying extra taxes so it would continue to be a net loss for my family.

Quote:

I'd be willing to pay that much more to ensure that I'll never again get a bill in the mail for a medical procedure. My deductible is $3,000 for my SO and I, and I usually hit that every year. I haven't even had the misfortune of having to deal with a chronic illness yet. Could you imagine my bill for something like cancer treatment or dialysis???

You sure go to the Doctor a lot if you are hitting $3000 deductible. What do you pay per month for insurance?

Would the calculations carry forward with the extra people on my insurance? Nope, my wife would also be paying extra taxes so it would continue to be a net loss for my family.

Be prepared to be taxed out the nose for this. Have you seen the tax rates in those countries who have single payer? Have you seen the cost of living difference it costs to live in those countries?

I'm sorry, but that's just an assumption on your part, backed by no figures. Your employer pays a big percentage of your medical care, the plan you have through him covers much more than Medicare. You can't make comparisons between the two on little information and declare with any degree of accuracy that Medicare for all would cost you more. Besides which, if Medicare for all is passed,

there are certain to be all kinds of supplemental coverage plans, like dental and others, that employers can entice workers to join the company.

Yes, they have higher tax rates than us, but they also live longer than us.

Canada shares a continent and a culture with us and they live 3 years longer than us. Something that is rarely mentioned by those trying to scare us about single payer.

Not an assumption based on what CO wanted to do with a "single payer" plan. If only one of us was paying for insurance and we are both now paying extra in taxes for "medical coverage" how does it save us money? Not to mention all of our children who were getting free coverage from us are now also having to pay more in taxes for coverage they were not paying for before, that will turn into less money in their pockets.

If we have such great insurance from the govt, why would we need supplemental insurance? I pay more in taxes and I get to pay out more via my employer to get coverage for things the govt won't cover?

You don't seem to think personal choice in how one lives has anything to do with how long someone lives. Genetics also play a roll in how long someone lives. It's more than the govt taking care of you.

Canada shares a continent and a culture with us and they live 3 years longer than us. Something that is rarely mentioned by those trying to scare us about single payer.

Once again genetics and life choices have a lot to do with how long someone lives. Just because they have insurance doesn't mean they won't die. You have a long road to prove "single player" is the reason why people live longer.