Combating the talking point about “taking away people’s choice in insurance” or “getting kicked off their plan”

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

I wanted to post this topic here, not only for all of us to help with phone banking and discussing Bernie with others, but also because I know some of the campaign staff read this sub and I am hoping this is an attack we can start to address better. I'd love to share my thoughts and hear from the community on this if this seems impacftul or if there are other ways to tweak this or address it better.

Right now we are on the defensive and I think this talking point has some traction. I also think we have the opportunity to use the notion of "freedom of choice" to go on the offensive and turn this to our advantage.

The approach today: The main approach from the campaign seems to be saying "people don't love their insurance." Fair, but also know people tend to fear loss and change. So while many supporters agree, I am dubious how this is landing with the average voter / person we want to support MFA.

The proposed approach: Re-frame choice as being about choosing your doctor, hospital, and care instead of worrying about how it will get paid for. This both promotes benefits of MFA and shows a weakness of other candidate's plans.

Here's an example of how I think it could be framed during a debate – even if it would need to be trimmed down / tweaked. For this example, let's assume it was Joe Biden who brought up the loss of choice:

It's interesting that my colleague brings up the issue of choice and that people could lose their current insurance plan under Medicare for All. Look, I am a big proponent of giving people the freedom of choice. And I agree that Americans should be able to decide what's best for their families. But here's where I disagree with Joe.

I think that the choice that matters to people and the choice I want to give each American is the freedom to chose their doctor and their care. Under Medicare for All, you can pick your doctor and agree with your doctor on your care. And if you find a doctor you like and trust, who knows you and your family – you can keep them for life. That's the choice most people care about. And today and under my friend Joe's plan, your insurance could decide tomorrow the doctor you chose is no longer in-network or certain care options are no longer covered. Your employer could change your insurance plan tomorrow. You could change jobs or lose your job and suddenly, you've lost the doctor and provider you've chosen and who knows you best. Suddenly, you've lost your freedom to choose and have been "kicked off your doctor and off your chosen care."

Today, the idea of choosing insurance only seems relevant because in the current system each plan has a different network with different doctors. They have different premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. It's not a fun choice. It's stressful and for many American's, this choice amounts to which of my employer's plans do I choose – the one with lower monthly premiums and high out of pocket costs or extremely high premiums, but lower costs if I get sick. Under Medicare for All, you no longer have to worry about this. It becomes an unnecessary choice as you don't have to worry about your medical bills getting paid. You get to focus on choosing your doctor, your provider, and the treatment that's right for you. That's freedom of choice.

So the question I would have for my colleagues like Joe is why are you advancing a plan where people can get "kicked off their doctor" or "kicked off their treatment plan" they've chosen with their doctor. Medicare for All takes away any worry about what is covered or who is in network. I would be concerned that your plan, while it does let people pick which private company might pay their medical bills – it takes away their freedom of choice over their actual doctor and healthcare decisions. Medicare for All gives people that peace of mind and gives them that trust and that more important freedom of choice.

Opponent's rebuttal:

The main rebuttal to this in my mind would be if someone claimed that under the current system, even if someone's insurance plan changed and their doctor was out of network, they could choose to change insurance companies or they could still go to the doctor and pay out of pocket.

But both of these seem pretty easy to refute. Insurance plans not subsidized by your employer are extremely expensive and while you can technically go to an "out of network" doctor, many won't see you if you don't have insurance they are covered by. And even if they did, beyond a routine check up – any treatment could easily cost you $ 100k+. And for 99% of Americans, that's not really a choice, since they cannot afford to choose $ 500k in medical bills to get a procedure done by their "chosen" doctor if they are out of network.

Thoughts?

submitted by /u/Sptsjunkie
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – bernie

Bernie must awaken the world to their consumer power

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

The political system can restrain the worst abuses of the corporate elite. But consumers making conscious informed decisions have power far beyond regulation.

Bernie is an incredibly inspiring figure, able to start a political revolution because he has earned the trust of the world. Could he inspire a consumer revolution to work in conjunction with his political revolution? I believe he can and should to really transform America.

submitted by /u/revolution2018
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

My Litmus Test was Standing Rock, Sanders was the only one who stood with the protesters, while the Democrat and Republican leadership twiddled their thumbs

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

I don't understand why this contrast hasn't been drawn really at all, with regards to Sanders unique integrity, and ability to stand when it matters.

Warren was my original Sanders, but her silence during the Standing Rock protests was deafening, as Native Americans were attacked using dogs, shot by armed mercenaries, and sprayed with freezing cold water in the dead of winter.

The protests went on for months, and Obama proved he could have ended the violence against the peaceful protesters at any time… by eventually denying the Dakota Access Pipeline permits after enough public pressure. Clinton mean while basically took the side of the executives trying to ram the pipeline through.

Warren finally released a statement in unity with the protesters… on the same day Obama denied the permits, acting in an entirely opportunistic fashion. Where the f*** was she when it mattered? I wasn't mad that she thought she was Native American (I'm not interested in debating her DNA either), I was mad that she had the gall to get in the mud with Trump over her ancestry after abandoning Native Americans when they needed her most. You get zero points for taking the right side of history after the fact, that is not bravery is cowardice.

I really don't think she will fight for us, let alone any establishment Democrat in this race. If you want to see M4A die, or compromised into a useless semi half measure like AHC, then vote for Warren.

https://www.inquisitr.com/3772119/elizabeth-warren-disappoints-progressives-again-with-late-statement-on-standing-rock-opinion/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/06/elizabeth-warrens-shameful-exploitation-of-standing-rock-victory/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtFGv1pQlNw&list=WL

I'm done playing games, we have one chance to have a truly transformative President, he may be the only one in our life time, and that health scare has made me realize just how mad I am at his competition, and those trying to now exploit his hard work from 2016.

submitted by /u/attosama
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Bernie Sanders: The President of the United States should not make significant national security decisions impulsively, by tweets after a single phone call. I strongly condemn Trump’s reckless decision to abandon our Kurdish allies to their fate at the hands of Turkish President Erodogan.

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Bernie Sanders: The President of the United States should not make significant national security decisions impulsively, by tweets after a single phone call. I strongly condemn Trump's reckless decision to abandon our Kurdish allies to their fate at the hands of Turkish President Erodogan. submitted by /u/bronzewtf
[link] [comments]

SandersForPresident: search results – bernie