Let’s accept that there is no perfect policy solution for improving our health care system, such as it is. The question becomes which health care system is better designed to guarantee good affordable health care for all? And, to that, there’s only one answer. Medicare for all.
Like Medicare today, Medicare for all would mean the government would cover medically necessary care from virtually all physicians and hospitals in the United States. Instead of corporate health insurers deciding which providers you can see and second-guessing your treating physicians or delaying your care to maximize profits, the government would be in charge.
Yes, Medicare for all means relying on our government to ensure we get the care we need. And, we all know that our government has its limitations. But, Medicare for all also means not relying on corporate health insurers for our care, and these for-profit insurers have even greater limitations. Corporate insurers cannot rein in hospital and physician rates or prescription drug prices effectively, and they too often control costs by denying and restricting needed care. They put their profits ahead of our lives.
Medicare for all is the only way to bring down health care costs substantially. How? It would regulate provider rates and prescription drug prices. If you want your doctors and hospitals to be able to charge whatever they will for their services, as they generally can today, you don’t want Medicare for all. If you don’t want the government to negotiate prescription drug prices, you don’t want Medicare for all.
On top of price regulation, Medicare for all cuts out hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative costs that our highly fragmented health care system requires. When everyone is in the same risk pool and you take out most administrative costs and regulate prices, you save an enormous amount of money. Any alternative to Medicare for all that includes corporate health insurance won’t save nearly as much because it builds hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative costs back in, and then health care costs become a barrier to care.
For these reasons, Congressional and Presidential candidates on the left are starting to call for Medicare for all as the way to make health care affordable in the United States. Juliana Stratton, Illinois’ Democratic nominee for the Senate, supports Medicare for all, as does Graham Platner, who is one of Maine’s Senate candidates, and Abdul El-Sayed, a Senate candidate from Michigan.
Yes, Medicare for all requires tax increases, but for almost everyone except the very wealthy, the increases are much less than the cost of health insurance and health care. Medicare for all also requires people to give up the health insurance they have. But, would you really notice if you switched insurance, spent less on health care and were to continue to use your hospitals and doctors?
President Obama made a mistake when he said that people would be able to keep their health plans under his health reform proposal. At the end of the day, it’s a struggle to remember the name of your health plan, as it’s always changing. And, people have little if any control over the plans their employers offer.
People want to continue to see the doctors and hospitals they currently see and they want to pay less for their care. That’s what Medicare for all offers.
Here’s more from Just Care:
- Most Americans want the choice of a government-administered health plan, like Medicare
- Medicare for those who choose it, a first step to guaranteed affordable health care for all
- To save billions, federal government should set hospital rates
- 2026: Trump’s drug price deals haven’t stopped drug prices from rising
- Medicare for all would save $600 billion a year in administrative costs
