I’ve known lots of folks over the years who’ve felt tied down to a job because they were the only member of their family to have health insurance, and they couldn’t afford to risk their spouse or children getting sick.
At this point we are just paying to avoid the Obamacare tax penalty.
Medicare for All, definitionally, offers single-payer access. The Heritage Foundation was trying to prevent exactly that.
Also, I can tell you’ve never spoken to Congresswoman Jayapal, because she doesn’t make vague or noncommittal statements (source: I’m a constituent and have been to several of her constituent coffee events.)
What are you referring to?
The other problem with government healthcare is that you're basically giving the government some control over your body. It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills.
Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance.
> It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills.
First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right?
Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.
Yes, this is the case in the UK. Public sector spending for 2019 is around £842 billion for the UK. £256 billion is spent on "social protection" and €166 billion on public healthcare. That's 18-19% of the total budget being spent on healthcare. Keep in mind though that healthcare in the US would be much more expensive. US healthcare workers earn more compared to GDP per capita than UK healthcare workers. I think it would be rather likely that healthcare such as this would rival social security in terms of cost if it applied to everyone.
 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-docum... - under section 1.7
>First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right?
I think it's likely that it will increase, but now the government has more of angle to argue why they should have the right to control your behavior.
>Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.
Most people don't want to be told that they're not allowed to eat X, because a bureaucrat living a thousand miles away says it's bad for you, especially when the evidence isn't stellar. It also allows for corporations to lobby harder on laws around people's habits.
If the government finds that using "a screen" for more than 8 hours per day is bad for you, you probably wouldn't like it if the government would now argue that they should be able to monitor your usage of screentime and potentially penalize you in some way, right?
This seems more like a pro than a con, considering currently through lobbyists the government is more likely to encourage to you indulge in too much sugar, etc.
If the Clintons had been a little less ambitious back in the early 1990's and proposed lowering the age for Medicare coverage by 1 year each year, we could have learned gradually how good an idea this is. If that had worked well, everyone over 40 would now be in (way more than 50% of the health care money), and we could have some confidence that Medicare covering everyone would be a good idea.
The course of urgent progress is seldom smooth.
If your demographics suck, use technology to increase healthcare productivity. If your practitioners are too expensive, train more so their wages are in line with other developed countries.
These are not unsolvable problems, and I do not trust anyone who says they cannot be solved.
If everyone in the US were to be shifted into this program it would likely be the largest private property grab by a government anywhere in the world in modern history.
Don’t take my word for it, start here and do your own research:
Not saying a better aporoach to healhcare isn’t necessary in the US. It is. Just saying this is not a good idea.
I'm reminded of how when Obama was in office, the House attempted to repeal Obamacare 61 times  and it seems it was entirely symbolic.
If congress can put a healthcare bill in front of Trump that can be branded as "medicare for all" for one audience and "we repealed Obamacare" for another audience (the possibility of the latter branding being a necessity in order to get any Republicans in congress to vote in favor of the bill) then Trump will almost certainly sign it. It doesn't actually have to provide "medicare for all" or "repeal Obamacare". It just has to look enough like it does to pass it off that way to the American public. He just wants to be able to say "look everyone, I repealed Obamacare" whether or not it's technically true.
The "which news is fake news" circus and people's increased skepticism of what they read and see on the news should make the latter part much easier because it gives Republicans more wiggle room to vote for something that looks a lot like Obamacare 2.0 or "medicare for all" and then turn around and act like they repealed Obamacare in front of their base in 2020.
I for one am hopeful. This seems like a potential win for everyone (well, scummy insurance companies notwithstanding).
Come to think of it, if this passes, I'm going to lose access to a medication that I'm taking right now. Insurance denied coverage for it because they want me to try a half dozen others first, even though all of them have significantly worse side effects. I'm only able to get what I'm currently taking because the manufacturer covers the cost through their charitable foundation for anyone who can't get insurance / insurance approval.
If "medicare" for all banishes not only private coverage but all private care, and that extends to coverage for drugs, I'm f*cked. Death Panels indeed :(
1) We already have medicaid programs for the poor
2) We already have medicare programs for those not in the workforce (age, disability, etc)
3) We already offer subsidies for those who cannot afford traditional plans but don't qualify for a medicaid or medicare program
4) Medicare still costs money. It's a public insurance plan, not "free for all". So no, it won't give millions basic coverage that they couldn't already get.
I'd prefer my death to be a bit more meaningful than fulfilling getting some politician political points, because that's pretty much all it would do under such a system. The above points don't add up to a perfect society; maybe we could work on improving those instead.
Edit: For those not in the know, elderly pay for medicare out of their Social Security income. Anyone who reads "Medicare for all" as "Free healthcare for all" is either misinterpreting what's being offered, or what's being offered is a lie.
Edit: read my response below before downvoting. There will be non-participating private providers.
So there will be private providers that do not participate.
The same thing happens in the UK - you could visit a private hospital if you want to (and many people do) but if the institution is a public-funded one then they don’t get to offer different levels of care for different people.
You can absolutely have a private, non-participating hospital or practice under the proposed plan.
This is incorrect. Many NHS hospitals have private wings, and since Lansley there's no laws or regulations to stop hospital trusts providing basic service for all and better service for paying customers.
Yes is a real possibility. I was born in a country where government is largely trusted and live in another. It's a mixed story depending on branch, but by and large people trust the government no less than they trust the average bigco, and partly more.
But you're in the US, which seems different, so maybe not. And I've always wondered: Why is that? You Americans seem to distrust your government so much. Why do you vote as you vote and get a result you don't like?
Singler payer healthcare works a lot better if everyone is covered because then resources can be allocated more efficiently.
Part if the issue is that the incentives in the US today encourage the poorest people to get health care at the most expensive places (emergency rooms), as well as the insane amount of wasted effort coordinating insurance providers, billing people, verifying copay amounts etc.
I do agree with this.
Not really. But I trust them to fuck it up in a way that sucks less than the status quo and when they fuck it up we have more recourse than we do with the status quo.
It's the classic choice between the devil you know an the devil you don't except that most other countries have chosen a different devil than we have and are doing better for it so I think it's worth a shot.
I trust the government more than I trust insurance companies.
I've seen a similar sentiment from citizens of smaller EU members who feel that Germany and France are willing to push for changes that benefit themselves and the EU as a whole, even if the changes are detrimental to the smaller states.
Here's my personal ranking:
When it comes to "I trust the government not to send a bunch of thugs to kick down my door and shoot my dog for no good reason" I personally rank them local > state > federal
For "I trust the government to spend my money wisely" it goes state > federal > local
For "I trust the government not to pass legislation that makes my life worse" it goes federal > local > state.
My local government is inept, corrupt and burns money like a German housewife in 1923 (A 100ft ladder truck when the tallest building is 3-stories, a boondoggle of a new highschool, a town run pet cemetery for Christ sake!!!) but mostly harmless.
My state government is hell bent on screwing over certain classes of people and passing laws that annoy everyone for political virtue points (and it is a 1-party state so there's no stopping them) but they mostly spend their money wisely.
The feds wrongly harm a lot of people (some violently, some not so violently) and aren't all that great with money but they're too gridlocked to enshrine any real stupidity in law.
I'm speaking as someone from a country with pretty much the same system (the UK). Voting for anyone other than the candidate you dislike the least is essentially a wasted vote. I and plenty of others in my country really wish we knew the answer (and so do many Americans, from what I've seen).
I'd be interested to hear where you are from. From what I know about Japan I gather that people are generally satisfied with their leadership. Maybe New Zealand as well?
I guess the concern is similar to the public vs private school situation, where some areas have bad public schools because everyone with any money chooses a private school and has no incentive to fund the public system.
Still I find the idea of government-only medicine to be scary. In the past we've had politicians who have decided that things like abortion, stem-cell therapy, and medical marijuana were all moral evils. I am glad people had private options to get those things.
I feel this is going to be a major talking point... Canada's system kinda works like this. Basic coverage with additional coverage you can purchase.
Insurance companies are able to negotiate better rates as they get larger.