Opponents of single-payer health care frequently claim that such a system might be wonderful in theory, but getting there would be too disruptive. Many Americans, the argument goes, have private health insurance coverage, and the transition to a government plan would be jarring.
“Half of America gets their health insurance coverage on the job,” American Hospital Association lobbyist and former Connecticut Democratic Rep. Bruce Morrison told The Intercept last month. Single payer would replace coverage for some 150 million people, he noted. “If you just leaped to Medicare for All, you would totally disrupt the expectations of all those people. And that would not be a good idea.”
But roughly 10,000 Americans make that transition every single day. We call them seniors who are enrolling in Medicare for the first time.
The latest bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would not “just leap” to Medicare for All, but would gradually lower the eligibility age until the full population is covered. So instead of 10,000 per day, several times that would become eligible in a rolling fashion.
So we asked some of those seniors who went through the transition what it was like. They described lower medical bills, great access and choice, and much less fighting with insurance companies for coverage.
Just ask Doug Merschat. He is a long-time Republican who has been loyal to the party since Richard Nixon, although in the last election, he chose to vote for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson instead.
He turned 65 in September 2015, meaning that he was finally able to enroll in Medicare. Although he kept a private Blue Cross Blue Shield plan as supplemental insurance, he told The Intercept that his costs have gone down considerably.
“[They] have been reduced to about one-third of what I used to pay for health insurance with a group plan through my business, and my coverage has improved greatly,” he said. “I no longer have deductibles or copays because of the supplemental, and the policies are accepted by my health providers. It covers everything I need for health care.”
The cost savings have convinced him that the plan should be universal.
“What I don’t understand is why everyone cannot be on Medicare,” he said. “Our business suffers a hardship to provide health insurance for our family and for our employees due to the huge expense of regular group plan coverage. … Having seen how much difference there is in my current health coverage with Medicare and my supplemental, I am in favor of Medicare for everyone.”
Elayne Sieckmann credits Medicare with helping her get preventative treatment. “It saved my life. For 32 years I couldn’t go to a gynecologist due to money,” she told The Intercept. “I went for first time this year, and they found pre-cancerous cells on my Pap smear. Two procedures later, I’m cured.”
She supports Sanders’s proposal and cautions against those who say that charity can serve those without coverage. In the year and a half before enrolling in Medicare in February, she relied on charitable clinics for care, and the quality of coverage was inadequate, she said.
Ernest Beck is a freelance writer and editor who recently had his 65th birthday. “I turned 65 on September 3, and I was definitely counting down the days to going on Medicare because my wife and I are both freelance writers, and our health insurance bills have been astronomical over the last two years,” he told The Intercept.
His bills went from over $1,000 a month to closer to $130 a month to pay for his supplemental insurance. He had a birthday party and joked to his friends that it was also a celebration of enrolling in Medicare.
Gail Frevert Schuman recently enrolled in Medicare. As a nurse and health care worker, she had comprehensive health coverage through her hospital and thus the financial differences are minor.
However, there is one big benefit she has noticed: She is no longer limited to a small set of doctors and facilities she can go to. “Now, I love it, no stress,” she wrote to The Intercept, noting she can go anywhere she wants to receive care. She also cited having to fight private insurance companies to get care for her patients, but said she “never” had to do so with Medicare after decades working in the health field.
Tracy Finklag is part of the population that gains access to Medicare prior to the retirement age because she has a disability. “Medicare has been literally a lifesaver for me,” she wrote to The Intercept. “I have it pre-retirement due to SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), from having leukemia”
She noted that her prescription drug costs went from $100 a month to $7 a month. She now pays around $350 a month for supplemental plans that include dental insurance. “It’s awesome and I wish everyone could have it, too,” she concluded.
While these experiences with Medicare are anecdotes, they reflect broad public sentiment. A Gallup poll in 2015 found that Americans who have government health coverage are the most satisfied with their plans.
Top photo: Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., hold signs during an event on health care Sept. 13, 2017 on Capitol Hill in Washington.
u.s.a. the only ‘developed’ country in the world to not have universal health coverage.
well, china and russia have universal health, but more in name than in practice.
when trump and the extremist republicans and supporters take over the u.s.a. and declare it a white nationalist empire of trump – they can do the same. set up a system that nobody is allowed to use much.
I’m retired, so would that 3.3% tax come out of my Social Security benefits and my IRA distributions?
Under H.R. 676, National Improved Medicare for All will provide ALL medical care for ALL American residents from ALL medical providers, hospitals, doctors, clinics throughout the nation—without any premiums, any deductibles, any copays, any medical bills of any kind. In place of those premiums and deductibles is a 3.3% payroll tax—for the average family earning $60,000 a year, this amounts to $1,980. Under Obamacare my family pays $27,000 a year in premiums ($14,000), deductibles ($6,000) and out-of-pocket co-pays ($7,000). Hmmm. $2,000 vs. $27,000. I know which I would rather pay.
You cannot seriously believe that a single payer system would go forever without copayments. Moreover, you are thinking about yourself. Basically you are just looking at your savings in premiums.
When you switch to a single payer system while your premiums might go down, the tax paid by others towards healthcare might be higher than their premiums. Those individuals can use your argument: “I know which I would rather pay”.
That’s the core problem in the US healthcare debate. Americans do not want to understand that most the savings will be indirect and it will affect the society as a whole.
At 3.3%, in order to make it more economical to pay for a similar private insurance plan a person would need to make almost $1,000,000 a year. For simplicity sakes, let’s just say that if you make more than $250,000 its cheaper to buy private health insurance (this is dumb I know). With only about 1.5% of Americans making more than $250K Medicare for all would result in DIRECT savings to 98.5% of Americans soooooooo your understanding of the core problem is askew. The indirect savings will come later as the overall cost of healthcare will get lower and lower as we are able to, through prevention and accessibility, make people healthier. Those individuals who will pay more in tax than in private health insurance should beware of the pitchforks that WILL eventually be taken up, If they want to keep most of their money they need to be okay losing a little of it.
“At 3.3%, in order to make it more economical to pay for a similar private insurance plan a person would need to make almost $1,000,000 a year”
It would be very interesting to find out how you guys are coming up with those numbers. 30% overhead costs, 60% expenses paid by the government and now this! Really, where do you guys get those numbers?
1) According to US Census Bureau approximately 10 million Americans make $150,000 or more as of 2016. (10 million Americans = the whole population of Delaware, Louisiana, and Connecticut.)
2) According to ehealthinsurance the average premium for an individual is $321 a month. That is 321* 12 = $3,852 a year.
3) According to your 3.3% plan 10 million Americans will have to pay at least 150,000 * 3.3% = 4,950. Remember that value is the MINIMUM.
4) McKinley makes the argument “I know which I would rather pay”. 3,852 vs 4,950, that is 10 million Americans who can make exactly the same argument.
5) According to the US Census Bureau 4.3 million Americans make 200,000 or more. According to your plan that is 200,000 * 3.3% = $6,600 a year those 4.3 million will have to pay as opposed to 3,852. That is 4.3 million Americans who will definitely say “I know which I would rather pay”. Your current president who is against even the individual mandate lost 3,000,000 votes and still got elected!
Even when I ignore the simplistic nature of your plan mainly
1) you want to tax personal income not taxable income (low income individual will be very upset)
2) flat tax worsens income inequality, which is a serious problem in the US
Your own argument goes against your plan by a large number of people who can (and have) change the outcome of elections.
How do Norway, Germany, UK…get away with their system? Because most of the wealthy people in those countries understand and accept that the healthier the whole population is the wealthier they become thanks to the savings that go to the whole society. In the US society even middle class, and low income individuals are complaining about the individual mandate! This quote was not from a rich person:
“Why do I have to pay insurance if I have never been to a hospital all my life?”
Your politicians and activists need to start answering that question properly and educate those people instead of whining about big pharmaceutical companies. Big pharma still make billions in countries with single payer system.
The ‘shock’ that they’re worried about is NOT the American public being shocked at how difficult health care on ‘medicare’ is, but rather the SHOCK that the Republicans (and too many Democrats) were so blatantly lieing about single payer health care. That sort of shock is the sort of thing that would turn lifelong (even generational) Republican voters into Democrats, and the Democrat voters into actual left wing voters.
Anyone who has ever been to the DMV and think the government should be in charge of healthcare is a special kind of stupid
This is great, anyone can play!
here’s my go: Anyone who has ever served in the military and thinks the government should be in charge of health care is a special kind of stupid.
I never have a problem at the DMV. Lines are long bc not as many employees hired as should be. Ever been to the Walmart restrooms where water is SO restricted trickle the food handlers cannot wash?? Everybody drives. It is a money thing. If you get it?
Anyone who enjoys paying tens of millions to executives plus stock options, opulent offices, golden parachutes, company cars and dividends to stockholders all predicated on denying you coverage is also a ‘special kind of stupid’.
Gee, this is fun. Thanks for the invitation!
If you think single payer means government run healthcare you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what single payer is. You’re thinking of socialized medicine, or the VA (which is the most efficient expenditure of health care dollars in our country), or what the UK has (which has absurdly better healthcare outcomes at a fraction of the cost).
Single payer is not government run, it’s government PAID. Government does the bookkeeping not the delivery and administration. We pay taxes, government pays privately run hospitals and clinics.And although there are significant advantages to socialized medicine that is not what single payer is. Stop being a sillyhead
So, what exactly does ” . . . totally disrupt the expectations of all those people. ” mean? Just what are these ‘expectations’ that would be disrupted? You mean the expectation that they’re no longer going to have to pay a high price for craptacular coverage? Gee, what a disappointment.
Transition policies are essential, especially for those who are employed in health care payments reconciliation.
And transition policies are essential to ensure that employers do not pocket the difference between current health insurance costs and whatever costs are shifted to working people in taxes.
Begin with 50 cents of the tax dollar going to military and “security” agencies. Business would be free of the health care burden. Medicaid is the largest health system in the US. Medicare runs on 5% overhead compared to 30% plus adding in profits and “insurance” companies. You are paying double the rest of the world already just in premiums. Get sick and maybe you are under the bridge. That is the choice. Kick them under the bridge or be a nation and not an oligarchy.
Actually the overhead cost for Medicare and Medicaid is about 2%. You are correct about the overhead cost (including profit and gigantic CEO compensation) for private for-profit insurance companies is 30%, or close to $1 out of every $3 Americans spend on medical care. Some of that is spent employing the 450,000 people who are mostly dedicated to finding ways to deny you care, which is how the insurance companies make their profit. Killing you. Bankrupting you. That’s what they do. That’s the “service” they provide. The rest—the profit they make from denying you care—is, well, profit. Why do we stand for this? What a malignant and utterly irrational system. For-profit health insurance is killing us and bleeding us dry. Why do we stand for it?
“You are correct about the overhead cost (including profit and gigantic CEO compensation) for private for-profit insurance companies is 30%”
Dude, profits are not costs!! Where the hell you guys get that 30%?
The Annals of Internal Medicine put overhead costs at 12.4% . (April, 2017)
The Center for Economic and Policy Research put overhead costs at 12.3%. (February, 2017)
The CMS put administrative costs and profits at 11% of private healthcare insurance spending.
And this is from the CBO in February 2016.
“All told, about 85 percent of premium revenues were used to pay health care claims, 13 percent went to insurers’ adminis- trative costs, and the remaining 2 percent constituted insurers’ profits (see Figure 6).” (Page 27)
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51130-Health_Insurance_Premiums.pdf
No, the first year ages from 0 to 20yo, and from 60yo on. The 2nd year, 20 to 25 yo and 55yo on thru. The next year, includes from 0 to 30yo and from 50yo all to death. In a few years, all included.
The US cannot do this and we have all those nukes for what then? To guarantee no decent basic healthcare is a direct hindrance to “happiness” ? What is the use? To divert all moneys to the WallStreeB$CEOs MIDDLEMAN? Remember the math of getting rid of the MIDDLEMAN. STILL WORKS. PRIVATIZATION REINSTATES THE MIDDLEMAN,
From 2007:
Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html
Of course Americans want health care for all. Now ask them whether they want a single payer:
“Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats – especially liberal Democrats – are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.” June, 2017
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/
Moreover, your executive, your senate, your congress are run by elected officials who made it clear during their campaign they are against a single payer system. Even against Obamacare!
if you want that 33% to go up, maybe you should convince your politicians to tell voters clearly how much more taxes they will have to pay, the benefits and the flaws of a single payer. Do Americans know how much taxes they would pay for a single payer? How much are they willing to pay for a single payer? 8% like the Germans or just include it in the income tax like Denmark?
As usual, people like you ignore the facts. Currently, employers and individuals spend $1.5 trillion annually on insurance and medical care. Do naysayers like you imagine that money just disappears without a trace? Don’t you realize that most of it will go to pay for Medicare fo All? There’s no need for increased taxes. All that’s required is a shift in how health care expense is currently distributed.
“As usual, people like you ignore the facts.”
Tell us exactly what facts I ignored. Be precise please.
“Don’t you realize that most of it will go to pay for Medicare fo All? There’s no need for increased taxes.”
The level of nonsense and ignorance I encounter on these sections is just unimaginable. You raise taxes in order to channel the premium that used to go to private insurance into the public payer! Private health insurance account for 33% of total healthcare spending in the US. When private insurance companies are replaced by a single payer the insured must pay the government as a percentage of her income. Hence the increase. A private insurance may charge you $500 a month regardless of your income (Switzerland). The government may charge you 8% of your income (Germany). See the difference?
What does it mean “naysayers “? Did I tell you you should not get a single payer system? Or maybe your head is so big you cannot accept that others look and analyze the ideas you support?
Americans spend $3.2 trillion every year for medical care. Sixty percent of that (about $1.8 trillion) comes from the government right now, already, through taxes (and Medicare premiums). Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and the like. That leaves $1.4 trillion to be paid for through our insurance premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket bills. Of that $1.4 trillion, the insurance industry consumes some 30% or $600 billion in overhead—payroll for their 450,000 employees, profit, marketing, CEO salaries, all costs not borne by Medicare/Medicaid (which consumes only 2% in overhead). So Medicare-for-All will save us $600 billion a year, leaving $800 billion to be raised in taxes (instead of premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket co-payments, and all other medical charges). A 3.3% income tax on the total U.S. personal income of $16.1 trillion, plus 3.3% match of employer’s payroll tax, yields $1.2 trillion—more than enough to cover medical care in America. A 3.3% tax on income for an average American family of $60,000 per year amounts to about $2,000. That’s instead of premiums, deductibles, co-payments etc, which for my family amounts to $27,000 a year ($14,000 in premiums, $6,000 deductibles, $7,000 maximum co-payment/out-of-pocket). Hmmm. $2,000 v.s. $27,000. I know which I would rather pay.
1) Your data:
“Sixty percent of that (about $1.8 trillion) comes from the government right now, already, through taxes”
According to CMS the Federal government is responsible for 29% of that $3.2trn. State and local governments 17%. So where did you get that 60%?
“Of that $1.4 trillion, the insurance industry consumes some 30% or $600 billion in overhead—payroll for their 450,000 employees, profit, marketing, CEO….”
That is a very confusing statement. Profits are not costs. CEO salaries are not overhead costs. Moreover, the US has the 80/20 rule, which prevents private insurance from using more than 20% of premiums for overhead. According to CMS and the Center for Economic Policy and Research the average overhead spending from 2008 to 2015 is $143bn per year. So where did you get that 30% and that $600bn? The profit margin for insurance companies is 3.2%. According to CMS the growth in spending in the private insurance industry is mainly due to benefits payments.
2) Your logic:
“So Medicare-for-All will save us $600 billion a year, leaving $800 billion to be raised in taxes”
a) Your conclusions are based on inaccurate data. You are basically telling what you feel, not the facts. The average overhead cost is $143bn per year. If private insurance reach the same level of overhead as Medicare the savings would probably be around $100bn a year.
b) Savings in a healthcare system is realized mostly by preventive healthcare (immunization, early screening, education…) and by negotiated drug prices.
c) There is a difference between personal income and taxable income. You cannot possibly believe that an American will let you take $600 out of her $20,000 yearly salary!
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html
True— all those officials HAVE single payer!
From 2009:
Poll: Majority Would Pay Higher Taxes For Universal Health Care
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-would-pay-higher-taxes-for-universal-health-care/
A single payer “hybrid” and wiser use of R&D funds and IP and focus on diet and life style could cut healthcare costs damn near in half. We pay a lot for a Medical-IC that serves us poorly, allows sickness to develop and focus treatments on end stage disease were it is least effective and most expensive.
The concept is good but for practical purposes the cost is prohibitive. Even in just California they estimated that as a start every single worker would have to pay an extra 10% of their salary for this to succeed financially. Concepts are great but until the finances work, it’s a pipe dream to compare Medicare which is funded by payroll taxes for years with a single payer for everyone including the unemployed. You can only print so many bills until they lose their value.
Yes, and it might force the government to support MIU instead of MIC! What they cannot do that?
Cost would perhaps be prohibitive for any single state to implement this policy by themselves, but for the whole country it would certainly not. But even at 10% extra tax on peoples salary it would be a cost savings for strong majority of wage earners.
Your taxes are already paying for health insurance for the unemployed.
Sanders declares his allegiance to US imperialism
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/26/sand-s26.html
And imperialism is not the issue. Stick to topic. I really donot care at all. Anything valid?
Zaid is confused.
Sanders doesn’t want Medicare for all. It’s a gimmick.
Sanders is no critic of capitalism and imperialism. He’s all for the fraudulent Global War On Terror. Just recall his rhetoric about “ISIS” last year.
Because you can’t have butter when you’re paying for the guns that are turned on you.
Sanders health care bill: A cover for Democratic Party deals with Trump
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/14/sand-s14.html
That is why all the successful countries leaderships disagree and have this for their citizens and CrookdClinton was so wrong about this, she had to doublecross SenSanders! Am not a big fan of SenSanders but who are you. You must not live in the US or who pays for your car. On topic, here.
You sound as if you’re one of those Russian trolls that have been reported showing up on Facebook, Twitter, and Google…You know NOTHING about Senator Sanders…and offer up something totally stupid…I would never click on you supposed link…Go away…People such as you lack integrity…Like I said…Go away…
As most people, Zaid is wrong on some things and right about others. Being wrong on some things, does not make him wrong on all. Being right on some things, does not make him right on all. Illogical are you. You are as a flea, jumping from one thing to another, unrelated, illogical. Do wonder who pays for your healthcare since you are so satisfied. Pray tell us??
I’m sorry, but transitioning my wife to Medicare a couple of years ago (not time for me yet) was one of the most confusing processes I’ve ever encountered. Medicare supplement? Medicare advantage? Can I easily switch from one to the other? Can I easily switch back? No? Why not? There are *how many* Medigap options??
Yes, now that she’s settled into what we (finally) decided was the best option the benefits are great and the price is very low (setting aside the very real fact that her premium is low because every working American is chipping in).
So everyone in America except illegal immigrants of course would be taxed through the nose for this. Do you know what happens when your on government healthcare for all? Theres no more competition for your business. That means the medical professionals will have 0 reason to keep uou happy. Also when you need something special like a mri it will take forever to get approval and then they will have no repercussion for turning you down for the treatment. Just because you can say your on government ins does not mean you will get treatment. Just look at the Veterans Affairs program. Im in that and i can tell you it does not work. Do your homework
No, the Corporations taxes, the Inheritance Tax restored, maybe even the $1,500.00 /1 year every tax payer pays could contribute. Nothing prevents anyone rom buying more care if they want. Maybe doctors would quit overcharging and padding their bills?
As a Vet care user, I can tell you it works decently. And no one sells you procedures you donot need, just so they can make a profit.
Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Health, got 66 million in 2014 for What? Raise premiums, deductibles, increase profits for shareholders, and Deny Care. For profit insurance corporations swindle billions of dollars from us while providing nothing to health care delivery but setting obstacles in place and delaying/denying care. #medicareforall is what we deserve as a nation but the Republicans in Congress are being paid by corporations to thwart this advance and right now they are attempting to dismantle Medicare by vouchetizing it. They want this single payer model that has worked for decades to be gone. We need to contact Congress and tell them to Back Off our Medicare. We pay their salaries. They answer to us. Call them.
“OPPONENTS OF SINGLE PAYER health care frequently claim …”
I stopped reading there. Who cares what these lying assholes claim? It’s all BS, like the troll Swiss Cheese below.
Anyone who opposes single-payer health care should be considered a criminal.
Show us ONE comment from Swisscheese in which he opposes single payer. Just ONE comment please.
If you cannot find that one comment, then be a man and tell everybody you pulled that claim out of your ass.
(It a matter for US citizens pick the healthcare system they want.)
Just LOVE all the good rants! I can’t, as a practical matter, “thank” all of them as reply comments, so just let me say THANK YOU to the great many of you who have posted your rants here! Many of them are SPOT FUCKING ON and also priceless!
Will somebody please help take out the TRAASH? Stop Trumps Republican Almost Affordable Sanctions on Healthcare. Support a single payer universal healthcare system. Medicare for all! The problem with TRAASH is that it builds up in the corners and needs to be taken away from time to time.
I suffered through private insurance all my life until going on Medicare. There is no comparison as to how much better Medicare is. We need Medicare for all. Money aside, the reduction in stress is life saving.
Junk statistics and sloppy reasoning.
==========================
Death rate for 65+ (2004) was 14,000 per 100,000, or, since that year 65+ age group was 12% in a population of 292,800,000, 13,476 people per day (12*292,800,000/100=35,136,000 65+ population; 35,136,000/100,000 * 14,000 = 4,919,040 deaths per year, or 4,919,040/365 = 13,476 people dead per day).
So the claim 10,000 a day are added to medicare is a lie. Hence the counterargument against those who say adding 140,000,000 to medicare is nonsense.
That is not to say that it cannot be done, but rather that it might be a serious problem. More important, though, it, yet again, expose the sloppy and brazen usage of data with little to no verification infesting contemporary progressive journalism. Neo progressives had pick, in recent years, the bad habits of right wing propaganda outlets like Breitbart, InfoWars, and Fox news, and in so doing abandoned the only advantage they had, namely a strict adherence to facts in the formation of political opinions and policies.
I had to stop night driving waiting for my Medicare to kick in.
I am in Los Angeles and only collect my Social Security. I chose to live with one of my sons and help out with my young granddaughter and as a result I also qualify for Medi-Cal.
I chose UCLA as my provider and as a result had a pro do my cataract surgery from Jules Stein. Then I fell and broke my hip and needed my hip pinned and I had a great surgeon from UCLA.
THEN I discovered some odd spots on my face and went to UCLA dermatology and both cancerous lesions were removed with Moh’s procedures. Add to that a benign growth on my wrist that was removed under general anesthesia and in total I paid only out of pocket for crutches and eye drops!
I realize that having Medi-Cal and SCAN helped keeping the costs down, but after working in the trenches and breaking my back for forty years as a Registered Nurse, I feel like I earned the care I have received!
Oh! Speaking of breaking my back, probably all of the lifting over the years plus the fall where my damn hip fractured caused severe back and leg pain. Two sessions of cortisone injections into my spinal area by a great UCLA pain management physician has allowed me to walk again with NO MORE VICODIN for pain!
It is a shame that ALL the American public can not enjoy the EXCELLENT care I have received with the UCLA model and great physicians at minimal expense out of pocket.
Considering the BILLIONS spent on the MIC every year and the resultant death and destruction it causes (not to mention the shame
all Americans should feel), I believe 100% that Medicare for All’s time has finally arrived (and it SHOULD cover dental including twice a year cleanings!).
“Baby-Boomers who worked all their lives are actually being gracious by advocating Medicare for All. Many of them (us) have been paying into the system for 40+ years.
The US as a so called advanced society; is the most dysfunctional on the planet. For those of us living in advanced countries outside of the US; we cannot believe the shambles; that is the US Health System, as a single aspect of that dysfunction. I live in New Zealand, where Universal Health is taken for granted. Like the NHS in Britain; it stemmed from Labour (Social Democratic) policies going back to the 1930’s. This was happening at the same time; that the progressive ‘New Deal’ was taking place in the US, following the end of the Depression.
In recent years in NZ, there have been attempts by right-wingers; to introduce destructive monetarist US practices. In Britain; likewise. So far, the collective will of the people; have kept that at bay. In NZ, we also have a Universal Tax-funded scheme called ‘Accident Compensation’ or ACC. It’s a cover scheme, that pays for medical expenses in the event of accidents. But it’s even broader than that. Overseas tourists for example, are able to access ACC without being NZ Citizens or taxpayers. ACC was introduced more than 40 years ago, to mitigate the cycle of expensive litigation that is a corrupt industry in the US. Yeah, it comes out of our taxes; and we’re managing it just fine. There are however problems besetting our Health System like underpaid nurses, overworked junior doctors and the logistical nightmare of outsourcing catering to private companies at the opposite end of the country. “But that’s ‘capitalism’ for ya.” But its also the influence of the US Neo-con/Neo-lib method; that we bloody well don’t need.
here in the US we bloody well don’t need it either. We are the poster child for what happens to a society that kneels to greed, elitism, exceptionalism, complacency, and self indulgence. In that light – we’re here to be an example to the rest of the world…a BAD example.
US citizens do want universal health care. They are just not willing to pay for it. There is a myth that US and Norway or even Germany are the same. Germans or Norwegians understand they have to pay extra taxes to get healthcare. Those societies came to that understanding long time ago. This is something that rich, middle class, poor understand.
US citizens want universal healthcare until they notice how much they will have to pay for it. It is not really the rich. The rich can afford whatever healthcare they want. The middle class and the poor do not want to understand the savings to society as a whole associated with healthcare. They look at their paycheck and they get upset because they pay more taxes than before.
Oh difficult transition my a$$. It is about priorities. We just increased the damn war department’s budget by hundreds of billions of dollars. Christian Taliban honorary member Mike Pence just wasted nearly 250,000 in US tax payer dollars to fly to a football game and stage a publicity stunt. Fascist Trump has put banksters and corporate CEOs in charge of every government agency where they get to legally exploit and steal from the American people to finance their high crimes and treason.
And we are to believe we dont have money to give every single person in this country affordable access to quality health care? I mean I know why A-holes like Trump say what they say, but why do people believe them?
Maybe if the US didnt spend most of its resources devising ever newer ways to KILL people and this planet, it could actually afford using its massive resources to do good for once.
I am so sick of people who are just an impediment to true change and progress in this country: sick of the racists, bigots and gun nuts, the xenophobes and dumb as sh!t morons who vote against their own self interest, election after election. These stupid and vile people of this nation man, THEY are the ones who need to be deported, along with our pussy grabbing Parasite-in-Chief and his floozy of a wife and that daughter of his he wished he could f-ck if only they werent related.
Bravo! Well said.
Does it matter?
Schoolkids claim … “I have a stomachache” … and that’s why I can’t go to school today.
Criminals claim, … “he/she had it coming” … and that’s why I did what you say I did. But I didn’t do it.
Employees claim … “I’m the best employee here” … and that’s why I deserve a raise.
People trying to quit smoking claim … “but I’ll gain weight” … and that’s why I need to keep smoking.
Medical lobbyists claim … ““If you just leaped to Medicare for All, you would totally disrupt the expectations of all those people. And that would not be a good idea.” … so you should expect to pay for our extortion scam from now on … or until you die your untimely death if you don’t pay us to protect you. Capisce?
…but who pays?
You can have whatever healthcare system you want as long as you can pay for it. Make sure you tell the voters how much more taxes they will have to pay for the single payer.
Since you don’t appear to live in the United States, you can probably be forgiven for not knowing that this was exactly what was debated back and forth during the most recent Democratic primaries. There are numerous ways to skin a cat, of course, but Sanders and others have indeed presented plans that detail how much such a system will cost. In general, it is actually cheaper for most middle class and “working” class families (a term I use for lack of another) in the aggregate, probably even the rich – at least where the costs of healthcare alone are concerned.
Maybe you have trouble with your eyes. One of the anecdotes noted the medical premiums were lower and the medical care easier to obtain.
Private insurers add about 30% to the cost of medical insurance. Medicare eliminates much of this “overhead” , and having everyone paying taxes for better access to medical care for all ages is a decided plus. The total cost of medical care drops with “single payer” systems.
I’ve had both private work insurance and now Medicare for the last five years. My experience echoes that of the article.
“Maybe you have trouble with your eyes.”
Use your insurance to see an ophthalmologist. Afterwards, come back and read my comment again.
Sorry, the real problem here is the swiss-cheese brain that’s thinking Bruno has it wrong!
Use your brain ( if you have one) and try to understand my initial comment.
(Hint: you don’t need to use all your brain. A four year old kid would understand it easily)
What you and others are trying to hide is the facts behind Bruce Morrison’s disruption for about half of the population that gets their insurance through their employer. This multitude is subsidized by their employer and many pay nothing for their high quality coverage. Under single payer they would have to pay all of the costs that remain after the savings are deducted, this is a $Trillion disruption.
To get full coverage with Medicare today requires about $250 a month and if Medicare was expanded to supply full coverage for all these people the cost would certainly be much higher even for retirees.
Oh BULLSHIT; that “subsidized by employer” stuff simply means that those expenses are a part of employee’s earnings. You can be SURE that that’s how the employer looks at it; what’s my cost per person? etc. Simple accounting mathematics. AND you can be sure, all businesses paying that would love to ditch it so that there’s “a level playing field” between them and their competition who doesn’t offer coverage.
Germany seems to have a lower per capita tax revenue than the United States. Compare total tax revenue from the US and Germany to the population size. I get something like ($600 billion / 82 million people) in Germany, vs. something like ($3000 billion / 300 million people) in the United States. You can do the math, can’t you? Seems like it’s a question of priorities, doesn’t it?
Incidentally, how come you never talk about taxes when promoting some idiotic U.S. foreign policy agenda, or the $600 billion a year military-industrial complex bill? Do tell. . .
Dude, you have no idea what idiotic means. You looked at the data on Afghanistan from 2001 to 2016 and you concluded Afghanistan is essentially the same.
Dude! Why aren’t you complaining about the cost to taxpayers of waging war in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia?
Again, you have no idea what idiotic means. You should read its definition. If you are capable of understanding that definition, then you will notice how idiotic your comnents are.
(Hint: whether US dollars should be used to wage wars is a matter for the US taxpayer to decide, not for the Mexican or the Swiss taxpayers. The Swiss and the Mexican can only give their opinions about those wars. They cannot tell a sovereign state how to spend its own money. Maybe now you can see how idiotic it is to ask a foreigner who does not pay US taxes and has no right to tell you how to use US taxes why he is not complaining about how US taxes are spent.)
I would much rather have my taxes go up $3000=$4000 per year instead of paying the $1000 per month premium. That’s an $8000 a year savings. And! there are no copays, premiums, deductibles. There is no liability. If you make $50,000 a year your taxes will increase by $2,256 and there will be no copays, premiums or deductibles. That is a considerable savings for someone with that salary. So, make sure you tell the voters how much more in taxes they will pay, but also make to to tell them how much money they will save. I think they will understand.
It is unlikely you will maintain a single payer system with no co-pay forever.
Moreover, in a single payer system, the health care tax is usually a percentage of your income. You can earn $100,000 without seeing a doctor for the last five years, but you still pay more than somebody who earns $50,000 and sees a doctor twice a year. The savings is for the society as a whole. The top earners benefit from it indirectly. The Germans, Norwegians and even the French understand that principle. US citizens do not see it that way yet. They look at their paycheck not at healthcare in the society as a whole. US politicians spend more time whining about pharma companies than explaining the issues to voters. Pharma companies still make billions in countries with single payer systems.
Pre-cancerous cells – let me tell you how Dermatologists got together and improved the number and frequency of office visits, insurance reimbursements, and bottom lines: “let me remove those pre-cancerous cells on your face.”
Hogwash.
If I had a dollar for every idiot with a working tongue who said, “it’s too hard; it’ll destroy your jobs; it will cost you more; government bureaucrats will decide for you,” I could retire in Monaco.
…oh, and “it’s too soon.”
Only corruption prevents us from having a national single payer system.
35 OECD countries spend only 10% of GDP on single payer health care, cover everyone with zero bankruptcies. The U.S. spends 20% (and rising) with millions uninsured and 80% of bankruptcies from medical bills go to those WITH health insurance.
Today, most Americans support a single payer system. In most democracies that means we would have it. Health care is the signature issue in American history that exposes the depth of corruption and immorality of the U.S. government.
The discussion about health care in the U.S. has never been about health care; it’s always been about corruption.
The notion reeks of BS the basic infrastructure already exists. The health for profit industry put this ridiculous notion out there. The robber barons will throw everything at Medicare for all to try to stop it.
Good article. And it reminds me of primary criticism (and new Hillary excuse book) of characterizing Sanders as promising unicorns without offering details. He does offer that. But by the time that happens the meme is concrete.
I’m also, as anyone should be, aghast at the recent $70 billion increase to the DOJ, non-partisan, very little objection. How much would $70 billion a year that instead went to suffering Americans towards health care do? How much if the defense budget was cut in half? Would $350 billion a year for that outweigh weird people who insist a Sanders-care or whatever is unfeasible?
I’ve been on medicare for around 15 years after I was beset with severe mental problems (anxiety) and unable to work. If that, nor Section 8, nor SSDI existed, I’d be homeless. Through no fault of my own. Was an exceptional worker and efficent–from temp to supervisor in 6 years. But then bam–mental illness. Tried again at another job. Then more problems. Finally got on the public dole.
That said, Medicare doesn’t mean all healthcare is free. Nor that all (or any locally) medical professionals accept it. Nor does it mean, or might even encourage, a huge wealth of unnecessary tests based on something minor, in order to get them Medicare bucks. I guess that’s a minor complaint–but it is my claim that if everyone is eventually covered by Medicare, there will still be some hijinks going on. Over-diagnoses and over-tests for example. And of course the pharma industry would still exist, and unless all drug costs covered, the expense, even $20 bucks a month as copay or something, would be untenable for some people.
Private insurance and private drugs need to be burned from existence, in any civil society whose primary reason for existence is the welfare of its citizens.
The past two years I have been caring for my elderly mother who has mild dementia (primarily short term memory issues). I had absolutely no understanding about how her medicare coverage worked and had far too many other things going on to get up to snuff until the day she passed out while taking a walk and we had to make a trip to the ER.
They put her through a battery of tests and decided she was just having a bit of trouble adjusting to some of her meds. We got that sorted out and then I started waiting for the bills…..I had so much anxiety because she is on a very limited fixed income…..and they never came.
It was marvelous.
Good to hear that, caregivers have quite enough to worry about.
“OPPONENTS OF SINGLE PAYER health care frequently claim that such a system might be wonderful in theory, but getting there would be too disruptive.” These are what’s known as lying sacks of shit. They know full well that what they are saying is false, but they don’t care, as long as they can convince others they are sincere in their beliefs, that’s all that matters.
The GREED of the medical industrial complex and “free” capital market medicine has cook their own goose. Medicare for all plus some supplemental for most is a good alternative. Cost can be more fairly gauged and negotiated. Peripherally, how we do R&D and develop drugs and devices and services might also be more easily, reasonably and cost effectively practiced.
“Medicare for All” as embodied in Bernie’s bill and Conyer’s bill also, is really “Improved Medicare for All”. It is a true single payer system financed by taxes. There are no premiums, deductibles or copays. Supplemental insurance will not be necessary. Insurance cos. can sell coverage for things not covered, but since the only thing not covered is cosmetic surgery, it will be a very small market and will not impact the Medicare program.
Dental isn’t covered.
If Medicare would cover dental visits, it would improve people’s health and the program vastly. Imagine not being able to eat because your teeth are missing or hurt – infections in teeth, gums, bones, or a combination of the preceding.
As far as all insurance goes, they should study and investigate on an ongoing basis what procedures/treatments/medications should be moved from unneeded to necessary – or something that would add to people’s welfare. Whatever the criteria is, it’s arbitrary enough to be stupid.
Lodging a dispute or protest and asking an insurer to okay a treatment (Eastern, for instance) is inviting them to deny care.
Most Medicare supplemental providers offer optional dental and vision care.
Insurance will cover just about any contingency if you want to pay for it.
I’m referring to basic coverage.
I like a hybrid system were patients, providers, government Medicare, and individuals and insurers ALL got skin in the game, efficacy verses cost in the game. Of course the poor can not pay much supplemental. I also like deductibles coupled to a mandatory progressive health saving plans. Healthcare begins with the patient’s “judgement” on lifestyle, diet and when to see a doctor.
Drug discovery / research isn’t done by INSURANCE companies, so that doesn’t have to change, and we can use universities paired with hospitals to do a lot of research to keep drug development going. We can also take the cost AND profit out of drug development so that we get better drugs – we really know if they work or not because the people developing them don’t have a huge financial incentive to lie.
Re university research, it is already happening and is generally funded at least in part by pharma firms, who insist that any results become their property. So simply having universities involved is insufficient.
What needs to happen is for the Federal government to fund university research in drug development, with the resulting products becoming Government property. The Government can then contract out production to the pharmaceutical industry, using competitive bidding procedures to foster true competition, with the possibility of multiple awards. Alternatively, the formulations could be released so that anyone could produce them.
Naturally, companies could remain involved in drug research, under Federal funding. But they should be prohibited from using their own funding unless they waive the right to assert proprietary claims.
Other reforms should include a prohibition on advertising for prescription medications in public media, and reform of testing to establish efficacy at the 1.0- or (preferably) 0.1% significance level, as opposed to the 5% level they currently employ. That would result in fewer ineffective drugs reaching the market, and far greater reproducibility of test results.
When I made my suggestion, I didn’t (and still don’t) have time to fully flesh it out but we’re largely in agreement… You and I are essentially “on the same page”, even if we may have slightly different views on the best approaches.
Research is largely funded by the public in taxes to organizations such as NIH and individual contributions to academic research institutions and charitable organizations. Pharmaceutical companies generally give some contributions to institutes and organizations often with IP strings attached. They also do in-house R&D. The problem is the system plays to the money and conventional ideas. Both my humble pioneer invention for receptor drugs (Fc receptors as drugs see below) and the major invention and inventor of MRI imaging was rejected by NIH.
The “system” of drug R&D has become a little more flexible with generic drug companies but Big Pharma is what it is. I am currently updating my invention possible new article and patent application tittle “How We Screwed It Up and What to DO About It.”
paper on some of my immunotherapy work:
https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1726-4901(16)30184-8
Yes I know where drugs come from I invented one (see below) and the process is mostly big money, me-to drugs and is as corrupt as the rest of the Medical -IC.
https://www.google.com/patents/US5189014
This “pioneer” patent immunotherapy (field is not “new” dates back about 5 millennium to Imhotep) drug invention was one of the first uses of a receptor as a drug.
Things might be better when the government has a vested interest in keeping people healthy. We are not the only ones who do healthcare research.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-scientists-grow-drugs-chicken-eggs-055951820.html
I get World and historical healthcare. Published a article on it in The Journal Chinese Medical Association. I think you might like?
https://authors. elsevier.com/sd/article/S1726-4901(16)30184-8
This article describes bridging tranditional and modern medicine, my invention of Fc receptor drugs and also my passed work that proposes anti-inflammatory compound(s) and drug(s) synergy to develop a pharmacopeia of anti-inflammatory therapies for many diseases. Of course such existing compounds and drugs would be difficult for Big Pharma to control. This last idea got me pushed out the door of government R&D. My Commander’s quote for the day “This could hurt the very “people” ( corporations are people?) that will employ us when we leave government service.” I was stopped cold from publishing further on this subject from within my Institute.
I never quit shot of dying. “I’ll be back????
Sorry to hear that you were gagged by the government. We need less secrecy and more punishment for those who abuse the nation’s secrecy laws.
TheTyranny of Secrecy must end.
Was not secrecy but the other s words self-interest and stupidity.
Will we have to pay for supplemental plans or will we be fully covered? I thought we would be covered under Sanders’ plan, similar to the health care plans of other countries. My mom pays almost 200 dollars a month for supplemental insurance for her medicare. She still has to pay copays for office visits and ER.
fred:
I don’t know where you live or the age of your mother, but $200/mo. for supplemental seems high. There are only several (7) certified supplemental plans available to Medicare recipients, you may want to assist in making the most cost effective selection. I have Plan N and the premium is only $111. (I’m 70.)
My wife pays $200/month for supplemental coverage too. Hers is with an HMO (Kaiser). And like Fred, there are still co-pays.
Let me guess: she is on one of the AARP-sponsored plans with United Health Care. I had one of those policies too, but by shopping around I found a better plan with Blue Cross for $152 a month.
Insurance companies are into heavy gaming of their supplemental policies. You might think that a plan that had copays and large deductibles would have higher premiums than one with a small or nonexistent copay and small deductible, but that is not always the case. It is worthwhile getting quotes for several plans then figuring out which is really the least expensive, given your anticipated expenses. And that goes double for the Medicare Rx plans. Their pricing structures are almost incomprehensible.
I asked this question as soon as I heard Sanders’s plan. Medicare For All is nowhere near as good as single-payer, because single-payer doesn’t require any supplemental coverage and there are no copays.
Some single payer systems such as the ones in France and Germany require co pays. Single payer means a single entity will pay most of the medical expenses for the citizens. It is not realistic to expect all single payer systems to finance 100% of all medical costs forever. The government has other programs to finance.