For too long pushback against Single-Payer Medicare for All was coming from both the Right, the Center, and the Center-Left. Early on they could use the fact that the polls indicated that most Americans and specifically Republicans did not want it.
Senator McCain's last act of defiance was to prevent the total capitulation by Republicans to the capitalists by virtually overturning the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is not all that great for many, but it slowed down the rate of increased bleeding. The ACA is a stop gap measure until we can achieve a real moral health care system where we cover everyone. The article titled "Politicians screw us on health care because our gullibility makes us forget math" written right after the McCain vote points out the following.
We may have dodged another bullet. John McCain's decision not to vote for the Graham-Cassidy Trumpcare bill will temporarily maintain the status quo. Our healthcare system is severely defective, and it is our fault.
We allow politicians to obfuscate the math we all know by using smoke and mirrors to distract us from the reality we should be able to see.
If every major industrialized country in the world have health care that covers the entire population, why can't the United States? If they cover their citizens at a fraction of what it costs to cover Americans then how can, adopting a similar system cost more in the United States? If life expectancy and medical outcomes are the same or better than our country, how can we claim to have the best healthcare?
Politicians, Republicans and Establishment Democrats alike, want us to believe that there is something fundamentally different between Americans and the rest of the world. Why? Because if we understand that a French, Canadian, British, Swedish, or Danish person's health wants and needs are the same as Americans, then the debate will become a math-based discussion. That math-based conversation would show that the only logical conclusion is that America must migrate to a single-payer Medicare for All health care system.
The article further details the con and the reality. The piece "Why health insurance companies are doomed" does a reasonably good job of explaining why for-profit insurance companies are doomed in the long run. Progressives continued discussing and educating the masses about Single-Payer Medicare for all. Groups like Healthcare for All and Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) have been instrumental in that education process.
It is a mathematical certainty that having one payer for medical care is less expensive than having multiple payers. In other words, all things being equal, having several insurance companies pay your health care bill is very wasteful. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. They are asking you to deny math.
The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.
"Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well," Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, tells CNBC Make It. "The advantage of Medicare-for-all, which is much closer to how the rest of the world provides health care to their residents, is that you can achieve universal coverage at a lower cost."
The article points out that American dissatisfaction was partly responsible for the change in perception.
For at least a decade, most Americans have been dissatisfied with the country's largely for-profit health-care system, according to Gallup. In a poll last year, 71 percent of respondents said the system is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems." Health care in the U.S. is criticized primarily for its inefficiency, inaccessibility and ever-rising costs.
And testimonials that demonstrate the pilfer that occurs reinforces the need for a major change.
A single-payer system simplifies who is responsible for covering costs. That gets rid of some of the issues that stem from the complexity of the current American system, like balance billing. In a recent incident reported by NPR that's since gone viral on social media, Drew Calver, a 44-year-old teacher and triathlete in Austin, Texas, had a heart attack. He was rushed to an out-of-network hospital and had stents implanted.
A network is a list of hospitals, doctors and other medical providers who are covered by a person's health plan. Out-of-network providers are either not covered at all, or are covered at a much lower rate, leaving the patient responsible for much or all of the resultant bill. Almost 18 percent of hospital admissions end up with some out-of-network claim, often because someone goes to an in-network hospital but ends up getting care from an out-of-network physician. Among those who can't afford the ensuing costs, most say they didn't realize they were receiving care outside their insurance network.
Calver went home after four days. Though he asked from his hospital bed and was assured that his insurance would be accepted, his portion of the bill came to almost $110,000. That's "nearly twice his annual pay," NPR notes. "Under a pure Medicare-for-all plan, those issues would go away," Levitt says.
Americans are waking up. Politicians no longer need to fear that their constituents will view them as some sort of communist. Now if the politicians follow the lead of the Progressive grassroots, they will be brought home. If they follow the direction of the Plutocracy, we will ensure their eventual demise. Make no mistake about it.
It is incumbent that we steer our candidates to the reality on the ground as opposed to the reality presented to them by the generally failed consultants. After all, we've lost the house now in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 following their bad advice. Why would we repeat the insane methods that gave us those results?
If Democrats expect to win, they will need the support of voters who believe they are voting for a real change. Democrats, Progressives, Independents, and disaffected Republicans in most districts that normally vote Republican, will not support a Democrat with Republican Lite proclivities. If they want a Republican they will go for the real thing. Democrats' who do not support Medicare for All will lose more votes than any marginal votes they may get with a Republican Lite stance.