is a trusted commenter Verona NJ 6 hours ago
Medicare For All is a very realistic, reasonable idea when facts are viewed plainly instead of with right-wing hysteria and conservative horror.
55 million Americans are already on single-payer in Medicare
74 million Americans are already enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP
9 million Americans are already enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration
A total of 138 million Americans – 43% of Americans – are already enrolled in an American single-payer program.
These three health insurance programs are not perfect, but they are working, AND they also serve the sicker and more elderly part of the population which makes them more expensive than the remainder of the insurance pool which the private ‘for-profit’ insurance industry has organ-harvested for trillions of private profit.
Extending Medicare to all Americans would result in Medicare getting a relatively healthier crop of enrollees than it currently has and its average cost per person would decrease.
As for the ‘scary’ tax increase that would be needed to fund Medicare For All, America is already paying that tax in the form an annual $1 trillion surcharge for healthcare expenses attributable to America’s current 17% of GDP ‘free-market’ psychopathic pricetag – a whopping 5% (or more) of GDP higher than the price of healthcare anywhere else in the world.
Medicare For All would dramatically lower administrative costs and regulate healthcare extortion.
The only thing holding us back is common sense and Greed Over People.
Dr. Steve Aherbach
ny 9 hours ago
In fact Sanders did propose several examples of how to finance single payer later the same day. And there are several published specific proposals for replacing the regressive system of premiums, copays and deductibles (where rich and working class pay the same) with progressive taxation, notably from Physicians for a National Health Program and related allies grouls. In fact over 95% of people and families would pay less with single payer, and have guaranteed coverage and greater choice of doctor’s, clinics and hospitals. State and County and City government would pay much less with national single payer. Employers that currently help provide coverage for employees would pay less. See models of financing proposed for HR76 the House singe payer bill (that ready has a majority of House Dems co-signing) and NY State single payer analyzed by economist Gerald Friedman and California single payer by economist Pollin. And over 20 years of analyses by Lewin Group. Please report on these.
is a trusted commenter Outer Slobovia 9 hours ago
I’m tired of hearing the same tired old tropes to explain to us non-wonks that we just can’t have nice things as a bankrupt-free healthy life because of soome dreaded “backlash.”
Let’s get really real here. The richest country on earth doesn’t have Single Payer because the corporations and oligarchs running the place don’t want it. This has little to do with people now insured through work becoming too “inconvenienced” if they have to change plans and simplify things. Nearly two-thirds of us want Medicare for All. Does Krugman mean to imply that most people either don’t work, or that their insurance has no stupid limits attached?
Ditto for the political “litmus test” so allegedly feared by politicians loath to quit taking bribes from the predatory insurance industry. Why protect these people? So that our health care system remains the most expensive on the planet, and our mortality and morbidity rates stay some of the worst?
Right now, there are millions of people suffering the mental and physical and financial trauma of two massive hurricanes. So what better time than right now to start incessantly demanding true universal coverage for them, and for all of us?
If Great Britain could establish its national health service after the Nazi blitz, surely we can do the same in the face of the even deadlier assault of man-made climate change.
“Pay-fors?” For starters, we can slash the Pentagon budget, and stop bombing people to death.