I will explain Single-Payer Medicare for All in straightforward terms. If one reads it subjectively, it will be evident very quickly why it is the only economically viable alternative to our immoral, corrupt, and draconian health care system. I will use common sense answers to refute all the naysayers’ statements. If you think I miss answering any leave me a comment.
A detailed explanation of Single-Payer Medicare for all is here. But let’s explain one possible implementation from the patient’s point of view.
- Every single resident of the United States by being born will have cradle to death access to a basic level of health care as agreed upon by the citizens of the United States through their Representatives in Congress.
- Health insurance companies will no longer cover standard health care, a single payer, we the people, the government will.
- Instead of paying premiums to insurance companies, one pays taxes based on one’s income for health care coverage.
- If one gets sick, they go to a doctor of their choice.
- If one needs hospitalization, they go to the hospital of their choice that can handle their condition.
- The patient never has to pay a bill. At no time is money exchanged but measures will be implemented to protect against fraud.
A: Will Single-Payer Medicare for All cost more than today’s health care system?
No. If there is only one entity paying the bill, here are the huge savings that can go towards ensuring everyone is insured.
- Million-dollar pay to the many executives of hundreds of insurance companies eliminated.
- We pay billions to shareholders as dividends from profits eliminated. Profits increase as more health insurance companies denies services to their customers, the patients. Thousands of health insurance claim adjusters are unnecessary.
- Several hundred thousand insurance adjusters in doctors’ offices are unnecessary.
- Thousands of insurance salespeople and with that billions in commissions are unnecessary.
- Billions of dollars different insurance companies spend on advertising are unnecessary.
- We save billions of dollars from not having to have different database systems to manage health insurance customers.
- We save billions as patients get health care before the expensive progression of many illnesses.
- I am sure I forgot quite a few other savings.
B: Will Single-Payer Medicare for All cost less?
Yes. Even a Koch Brothers study inadvertently pointed that out.
C: Will all Americans get coverage?
That is the whole idea. Everyone gets covered, and it will cost less to do so.
D. Will a lot of people get laid off?
Yes. But that is taken into account in H.R. 676. There will be disruption, but the bill has provisions to take care of those who get laid off by retraining and placing.
E: Can health care improve in this country at a lower cost?
Every industrialized nation that spends less than America has better health outcomes.
F: So why are we wasting so much money?
Plutocrats try to convert everything into a product to make money. They falsely claim that competition and market forces can bring down the cost of health care. That is a mathematical impossibility. Private business can only deliver market-based insurance if the expenses mentioned in (A) are present. Single-Payer Medicare for All eliminates those costs. The second reason is that when one gets sick, they do not have many options to shop around. Each insurance company acts like a mini-government restricting the doctors you can see and the drugs you can take.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
Unfortunately, I think that this quick view continues the seemingly ever-present conflation of health care and health insurance. Today, the cost of the former necessitates the existence of the latter, e.g. if health care were affordable you wouldn’t need health insurance (in keeping with the over simplified explanations). Because of this, shifting how health care is paid for to a single payer will not, unfortunately, reduce health care costs. It has a very good chance of reducing the costs of health insurance but until we, as a country, separate the concepts of health care from health insurance we will continue to be ineffective in combating rising health care costs. What does this mean? Simply put, the cost of single payer coverage will continue to increase in the same way that private insurance premium costs do. Until we begin to take a hard look at how health care is provided and begin to limit the profit capabilities of health care, we will continue to see these costs increase. Numerous studies point to profit margins for physicians in the 12%-15% range (hard to begrudge that), hospitals in the 20% range, pharmaceutical manufacturers in the 50% range, etc. So, today, under the ACA, you paid a $100 premium monthly a minimum of $80 would go towards health care, roughly $15-$17 toward the administration of your employer sponsored benefits, and $3-$5 in insurance carrier profits. It’s the $80 we need to be focused on rather than the $20. But we keep focusing on the $20 through various single payer initiatives because the media has us conflating our health care with our health insurance. Broken apart, I think most people would rather pay attention to the $80.