We're fighting for a health care system that would end health disparities, effectively control costs, and assure that everyone has equal access to care.
The role of insurance companies would be vastly reduced. By one estimate, as many 2 million people who are paid to process insurance claims or argue about them would lose their jobs.
The Congressional Budget Office on Thursday released a report examining the costs associated with universal healthcare proposals that are based on Medicare's fee-for-service program and found that implementing a single-payer health insurance program in the United States would not only guarantee coverage for every person in the country but would also reduce overall healthcare spending nationwide.
What this means, Bruenig said, is that other studies estimating the effects of a single-payer system on administrative costs are "missing hundreds of billions of dollars of savings per year."
Many of those pushing for Medicare for All believe that health care is a human right, and many supporters believe that getting more people into the Medicare system can help rein in growing costs in the US health care system.
It's worth noting that Medicare is quite popular as it stands now.
As calls for radical health reform grow louder, many on the right, in the center and in the health care industry are arguing that proposals like “Medicare for All” would cause economic ruin, decimating a sector that represents nearly 20% of our economy.
What the US can learn from other countries’ health systems.
In Taiwan, everybody is covered. The Taiwanese health care system is built on the belief that everyone deserves health care...
The Vermont senator has staked his presidential campaign, and much of his political legacy, on transforming health care in America. His mother’s illness, and a trip he made to study the Canadian system, help explain why.
A panel of health policy experts helps you make decisions along five key dimensions.
The power of the establishment's money and lies wilts in the face of the moral imperative that is at the heart of Medicare for All: Everyone deserves, as a human right, affordable access to quality health care.
Supporters of Medicare for all were more approving of socialism and showed stronger support for the notion that the government should be responsible for ensuring universal access to health care for all Americans. When asked if they were comfortable paying higher taxes in exchange for health coverage for everyone, 79 percent said they would be willing, a substantially higher proportion than respondents in the other two groups.
Though Bernie Sanders’ (D-Vermont) version of Medicare for All would eventually eliminate all other forms of insurance, other Democratic candidates have varying degrees of support and versions of Medicare for All as a universal healthcare system.
The endorsement of Medicare for All from the large doctors group, the American College of Physicians, is notable because much of the rest of the health care industry has expressed opposition to the idea, including the largest doctors group, the American Medical Association.
It will wring out the duplicative and wasteful administrative costs of the free marketplace and provide powerful national negotiating leverage to stabilize medical provider and pharmacy costs.
Democrats mislead voters by appropriating the name of a popular program they actually seek to abolish.
t’s true that support for single payer declines as voters consider its cost and contemplate exchanging the insurance they have for something unfamiliar. The century-long quest for single payer has repeatedly foundered largely for that reason. Maybe 2020 will run true to form.
Matt Bruenig on what he worries about — and what he doesn’t — for Medicare-for-all.
Senator Bernie Sanders introduced his Medicare for All Act of 2017 on Wednesday with the support of a slew of prominent Democratic senators. It’s a bold move: While progressives have long rallied around single-payer healthcare, many Americans tend to greet the prospect of health-care overhauls with trepidation. But Sanders thinks he has an answer to these fears.
Another advantage to Medicare for America is that it would be cheaper than single-payer, at least so far as the federal budget is concerned. There are no public cost-estimates for the bill yet. But it would almost certainly save Washington money compared to the Sanders approach, because it would not require immediately transitioning the entire employer-sponsored market onto a government health plan.
Medicare for all is a pleasing combination of words. People who are on Medicare, the government-run health insurance program available to virtually every senior in America, are generally happier with their plan than Americans on employer-provided private insurance. Expanding that popular program is such an obvious idea that it attracts an enormous amount of support in polls, even among Republicans.
Consumers and the private sector drive the health-care systems in these countries, which accomplish exactly what Mr. Sanders and his supporters say they want—universal coverage, controlled costs, high quality and ready access. In contrast, Canada’s experience shows the dangers of the Medicare for All model.
The new class of Democrats is starting to put forth big, new reforms that would socialize health care. Those plans won’t pass, but our health writer Olga Khazan is here to explain why you should pay attention anyway. — Matt Peterson
Medicare for All would expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and abolish the current system of employer-provided coverage.
Up until recently, most of the Democratic hopefuls for 2020 have gotten away with being vague about what they mean by Medicare for all. But keeping up the ambiguity is getting harder because journalists keep asking one very particular question: Do they, or do they not, want to eliminate private health insurance?
It can be mystifying when people call of these ideas “Medicare for all,” as some in the debate have been doing.
A glossary of terms could make the debate less confusing. Let’s start with the basics.
A deep-blue state’s failure to enact a single-payer system shows why a national version is unlikely to succeed.
Fortunately, there are options. One viable way to proceed is what I call “Medicare Advantage for All” – to guarantee a right for anyone lacking insurance to purchase insurance under the Medicare Advantage program – a popular, relatively affordable program that is administered by private health plans.
“Medicare-for-all” has become a rallying cry on the left, but the term doesn’t capture the full scope of options Democrats are considering to insure all (or at least a lot more) Americans. Case in point: There are currently more than half a dozen proposals in Congress, which all envision very different health care systems.
But it would be a big change from the way Medicare works now. Hospital budgets would require a kind of government process that doesn’t exist now: a Medicare board that would decide the appropriate payment to every hospital and the set of priorities for hospital and nursing home capital improvements. The government would no longer set payment for each emergency room visit or knee replacement, but it would have to decide how much to pay one hospital versus another.
The continuing difficulty attracting health insurance companies to sell individual coverage in rural America could bode well for proposals to expand Medicare.
I have been researching the economics of health care for four decades. While I prefer a more comprehensive universal health care plan that covers all Americans, a simpler version would be much more affordable – and maybe even politically possible.
The Brits and Canadians I know certainly love their single-payer health care systems. If one of their politicians suggested they should switch to the American health care model, they’d throw him out the window.
So single-payer health care, or in our case “Medicare for all,” is worth taking seriously. I’ve just never understood how we get from here to there, how we transition from our current system to the one Bernie Sanders has proposed and Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and others have endorsed.
But Medicare for All could also eliminate 19% of total health-care spending. The largest saving, about 9% of total system costs, would come from dramatically reduced administrative costs in contracting, claims processing, credentialing providers and payment validation—all of which would be unified under one federal agency. Private insurers spend about 12% of their collective budget on administration, while Medicare operates much more efficiently, with administrative costs at around 2%.
We demand that every progressive in Congress refuse to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House until she publicly pledges to bring Medicare for all to the floor of the House for a vote in January. Force the Vote!
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 20,000 members and chapters across the United States.