 Let's read the bill. So when you go to section 107 of Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill It states very clearly that duplicative care is prohibited. It states quote It shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this act or an employer to provide benefits for an employee Former employee or dependence of an employee or former employee that duplicates the benefits provided under this act So very clearly it outlaws duplicative care now. We'll talk about the specific implications, but there's also a follow-up here section 107 b states quote Nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits Not covered in this act. So I get why there's a lot of confusion It seems contradictory for Bernie Sanders to say well if you support Medicare for all You need to commit to getting rid of private because it says right here This is not to be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance However, we need to talk about the way that this bill is designed and what it intends to accomplish because ultimately the goal of This bill is to get rid of private health insurance companies So if it outlaws duplicative care, that is anything covered under Medicare for all cannot be offered Supplementally through a private health insurance company then what's gonna be left? Well, let's look at the actual bill and see what it provides We'll look at section 201 and as you can see here the benefits are comprehensive like this is true universal health care It covers virtually everything almost everything is covered here So there's not really going to be need for supplemental insurance of any kind and even the Washington Post Who's no fan of Bernie Sanders writes quote? It's worth noting that Sanders plan would be more sweeping in its coverage than just about any existing universal health care system For instance, Canadians must buy private insurance for prescription drugs Dentists and optometry while Britain has a parallel private system that about 10% of the population Participates in so think about that what Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal's bill does is it offers health care coverage? That is so comprehensive if we get that bill passed as it is We will have a stronger universal health care system than Canada and the UK Now let's get back to this prohibition on duplicative care and let's put two into together So if duplicative care is outlawed by Medicare for all but simultaneously if Medicare for all covers basically everything What's the implication of that? We're effectively getting rid of private health insurance companies. See you don't have to explicitly outlaw them to accomplish the same goal What we're essentially doing the way that these bills both Bernie's and Jayapals are designed is to basically Regulate these private health insurance companies out of existence So we make a bill so comprehensive and then outlaw duplicative care that There's nothing left for them to do They don't have any way to offer some type of supplemental care because Everything is covered under Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill. So going back to section 107. Yes I understand it very clearly says that it doesn't prohibit the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits Not covered. But you see the thing that's important is that it covers everything It's better than Canada's it's better than Britain's so that's a good thing We don't want to water down Our own Medicare for all bill to find some way to accommodate these For-profit health insurance companies that just want to rip you off. No We are constructing a universal health care system that covers everything So if there's not going to be much left for them to do Then we're effectively getting rid of them because they're not going to stick around if they can't profit off of health care But that's a good thing. But Mike, I know the I already know what you're going to say You're going to comment saying Mike. What if I want a facelift? Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan doesn't cover cosmetic procedures like a facelift And yes, that is correct. So you've got me there However, this still doesn't necessarily mean that we will be keeping private insurance companies because let's ask ourselves this Let's say hypothetically speaking. I wanted to get a facelift. How would I pay for that? Am I going to be able to find a private insurance company that will cover the cost or even a fraction of a percent of the cost of that facelift? um No, that's that's not gonna That's not going to happen because they can't profit off of a facelift So what you'd have to do is you would have to finance these types of procedures Where you get a type of credit card like care credit and then they will pay for that procedure And then you pay them back in monthly installments and then you pay interest on top of that That's what we do now if you want a facelift and that's what we would continue to do Under a Medicare for all system. So do you understand if we don't use insurance companies for facelifts now? Why would we be arguing that they're going to exist to provide us with like facelifts and breast augmentation surgeries when they don't do that Anyway, because again, let's remember what these companies are about these insurance companies They're not going to cover something unless they believe they can make money. So here's the thing. What do you think is going to happen? Let's say we get Medicare for all past, right? It's passed as it is and we don't water it down and we outlawed duplicate duplicative care explicitly Do you think it's more likely that these health insurance companies are going to take a magnifying glass And go over this Medicare for all bill and see where the gaps are so they can offer coverage for you know, these This dozen or so procedures hypothetically Or will they just likely go out of business? You and I both know that if they can make enough profit The investors are going to bounce and they're going to go on to the next money-making adventure. Therefore They're probably just going to go out of business. So do you understand? We are regulating them out of existence So if you support Medicare for all this should be a goal for you And we shouldn't be arguing. Yeah, you know, we're gonna keep supplemental too because if we do that We're making an argument for the health insurance companies There's virtually nothing that we will need private insurance companies for If we get Medicare for all and understand if you accept the premise that Private health insurance companies can and should exist Under a Medicare for all system then you've already compromised before negotiations began because you're buying into the premise That maybe there should be a role for private health insurance companies And if you do that if you give them an inch They're going to take a mile because that's how capitalism works They're going to say oh, so you think that there should be a role for us Well, should it be this big or this big or this big or this big? Do you really want to open that door because I don't want to open that door? I want to shut out all these capitalistic forces that will pick at whatever weaknesses in our Medicare for all system And I want them gone completely We neutralize the threat and we get the profit entirely out of the health care system That's what we should be arguing in favor of not trying to find a way to make an argument on behalf Of the health insurance companies unwittingly because I think that that's what we're doing If we're trying to rationalize different ways that you know These private health insurance companies can still exist And I think that adam gaffney of the nation put it best Quote the only way to make room for a significant role for private insurance in the american context Is to make the public system Pultrier or skimpier to impose onerous co-pays and deductibles or to let the rich Preferentially displace working-class people from hospital beds and doctor's offices But it doesn't seem to make sense to punch holes in your own floor Just to create work for a carpenter that is particularly true If your floor is your health care and your carpenter is an extractive insurance giant We don't need private health insurance companies We need to get rid of them completely and argue that that's what we should be doing And force republicans to take a stand where they are the ones defending these for-profit health insurance companies that only exist To profit off of us and rip us off But you see I think a reason why there's so much confusion here is because as americans We can't grapple with the reality of a health care system where private insurance Doesn't actually exist So what we end up doing is trying to find ways To think of things that they can do well, maybe they can do this Maybe they can do that But what we need to do is grapple with the reality that if we truly care about the delivery of health care specifically and exclusively Then there's no role for private health insurance companies So if you support medicare for all then you should agree that bernie sanders and promila jai paul's bills Are stronger because they're designed to get rid of private health insurance companies Rather than going out of our way To argue that they can and should still exist under medicare for all in order to make people who don't really understand it Feel better that isn't very productive as leftists We need to be educating people about why getting rid of private is a good thing and here's the thing Let's say hypothetically speaking that there is a weakness in bernie sanders medicare for all plan Is it designed so technically? There can be Some role for private insurance. So let's say hypothetically speaking. It doesn't cover hip replacement surgery It does but just for argument's sake. Let's say that It doesn't cover that and we removed that from the bill can a private insurance company technically step in And fill that gap and offer insurance for that Technically, yes, they wouldn't again because they're not going to offer insurance for one procedure Like a facelift like anything Because again, they're only going to offer you coverage if they can profit off of you But a private insurance company can technically do that. So how do we make this argument as progressives? Do we say well, look, you know what if a private insurance company wants to take care of that? That's fine No, that shouldn't be our argument our argument should be let's strengthen medicare for all To stop these private insurance companies From stepping in and filling that role if there's any perceived weakness or actual weakness in these bills Then we shouldn't argue. Hey, let's let private insurance take care of that We should be arguing to improve medicare for all even more. It's already incredibly solid and strong But if there's any weaknesses, we shouldn't just instinctively pivot to saying hey, okay I found something for you to do private insurance companies. We should be arguing. All right. Let's improve the bill That's what our line of argument should be and we all need to get on the same page about this Our message collectively as members of the progressive left should be abolish private Keep your doctor or you can use a doctor stay private goes away something along those lines not. Oh, no No, I promise you we're not going to get rid of you know private insurance There's going to be some role that shouldn't be our message Because it's misleading and you're getting people to focus on the wrong thing We shouldn't be focusing on keeping supplemental insurance and emphasizing that small little portion of section 107 b Because again medicare for all is designed to effectively get rid of these private insurance companies Again, you don't need to ban them to accomplish that goal of regulating them out of existence So let's argue from the position of strength that we want to get rid of private insurance companies And if you want to defend private companies, you can do that pramila jaipal and bernie sanders They didn't just come up with these designs for these medicare for all bills You know on a whim last year these bills are the latest iterations of medicare for all proposals That have spent decades being fleshed out by medicare for all experts and activists So for those of us to step in and say we need to find some role for supplemental I promise you we won't totally eliminate them. I mean we're kind of undercutting the grassroots and what they've been fighting for We don't need a profit motive and these you know these for-profit companies in our system trying to corrupt it Trying to get medicare for all to offer less so they can come in and profit off of offering us more the goal Say it with me is to abolish private but keep your doctor Let's all get on the same page here because it's important details matter And if a candidate doesn't support getting rid of private then please educate them and don't just Accept that they have the correct vision for medicare for all