Section 107 of the Medicare for All Act says

SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

(a) In General.—Beginning on the date on which benefits are first available under section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under the Medicare for All Program; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under the Medicare for All Program.

This seems to me to be an unforced political own-goal. Of course nobody will actually buy this private insurance if they have Medicare for All, but saying that it is banned provides fodder for political attacks like from Heritage.

Why not instead require that any provider that accepts a duplicative plan accept Medicare for All? Then you will effectively destroy the duplicative plans while not opening up to a political attack.

What do you think?

Here are what some key figures say:

Donald Trump: "The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it's not good Healthcare. I'm seriously looking at alternatives."

Sabrina Corlette: "If Trump is elected president, a lot of people "could very abruptly lose their health insurance coverage."

Karoline Leavitt: "He [Trump] is running to make health care actually affordable."

Chris Meekins: "If there's a Republican president, it is pretty unlikely you would see those expanded [Obamacare] subsidies continue."

Read more here: https://www.verity.news/controversy/Will-Obamacare-be-affected-by-the-election-result?p=re3051

Canada's new Dental Care Plan (federally funded) took effect this year. Canadian residents 65 and older, who have declared a household income under $90,000 on their last tax form, and do not have dental coverage under another insurance plan. Teeth are no longer "optional add-on accessories" when it comes to Canada's universal health care system.

My wife and I are covered under this plan for these services:

• Preventive services, including scaling (cleaning), polishing, sealants and fluoride. 
• Diagnostic services, including examinations and X-rays. ​
• Restorative services, including fillings, crowns and dentures. 
• Endodontic services, including root canal treatments. 
• Prosthodontic services, including complete and partial removable dentures. 
• Periodontal services, including deep scaling. 
• Oral surgery services, including extractions. 

There has been some pushback to the plan from dentists, but surprisingly little. The plan went into effect very smoothly (as far as I know). Last week, my wife used the program for the first time: a routine cleaning and examination. She even received X-rays. All covered. The receptionist at the clinic told her, "We love the plan ... before, we had a lot of our older patients refusing treatment because they couldn't afford it."

So I can keep on smilin'!  

A nationwide PharmaCare program is in the works.

I wish we could have Medicare for all, but I don’t really see it happening in the current political climate. That’s ridiculous in my opinion but it is what it is. Has there ever been a push for a half step that everyone could agree on? Medicare for Veterans. Why not? The way I see it both sides shout from the rooftops saying they support our troops.

Both sides also have strong feelings about Medicare for all. We could use this as a test. This smaller group would be much more affordable. After running for a few years we could see how it affects lives and the cost to run the program. If it goes well they could use it as a model for Medicare for all. If it goes poorly we might find out it’s too expensive, as some claim.

To me it sounds like a win all around. For proponents of Medicare for all because they would love the data that says it’s a better system. For opponents of it because they would love the data to show why it can’t work. Having first hand data from a study run by the government would tell us a lot and it would be nice to have some definitive answers. Veterans obviously benefit. Both sides supposedly want that right?

If you’re confused and thinking veterans already get healthcare, that’s partially right. Barring special circumstances, veterans only get care for service connected issues. So currently, if a veteran goes in for something unrelated to service, say a cold, you would end up with a small copay. Just wanted to clear that up because I’ve heard that misconception.

The VA is pretty great already, it’s not perfect, but on the whole I’m happy with what they do tor vets. My proposal would mean any veteran can go to any VA (or care in the community if they live far from a VA) and have all medical services provided for free. The system is already in place it, works pretty well, and all you have to do is stop charging veterans the fees.

Funding is always an issue. But here we hopefully have something both sides could support. To have this really work and produce good data the VA will obviously need more funding, but I think it’s worth it.

Thoughts?