Contrary to the image painted by critics, Medicare-for-All would increase access to care and grow the economy, according to an analysis by Public Citizen. This analysis, which reviewed several research studies, concluded that such a policy would reduce administrative waste and reduce profiteering from health care.
Let us look at three things Medicare-for-All, or other single-payer plans, would do. First, they would cost less while covering more.
The country spends more than $10,000 per person on medical care each year, more than any other country in the world. Yet, we have worse health outcomes than any other highly industrialized country.
Studies show that single-payer plans could reduce our total health care spending while expanding coverage to everyone in the United States and improving access to needed care. They do this by reducing administrative costs and leveraging the full bargaining power of the federal government on behalf of all Americans.
Second, Medicare-for-All would end the fear of medical bills or losing coverage. Americans who have medical coverage through private insurance or employer-supported plans face rapidly increasing premiums and continuing risks of massive surprise medical bills. Between 2006 and 2016, the average cost of employer-sponsored family coverage rose from around $11,500 to more than $18,000 per year.
Further, unaffordable or insufficient coverage under the current “system” are sources of chronic anxiety for many Americans. These anxieties are warranted as an estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcies each year because of medical bills.
Medicare-for-All would end the fear of unexpected medical bills. Medicare-for-All would also protect Americans from rapidly rising premiums because there would be no premiums or out-of-pocket costs.
Third, Medicare-for-All would improve health care for families and providers. Some opponents of Medicare-for-All suggest that wait times would increase; however, Medicare-for-All would naturally build on the success of the existing Medicare program, which has a strong record of providing timely access to medical care for its enrollees.
Studies show that many Americans routinely avoid getting needed medical care due to cost. Medicare-for-All would ensure that Americans receive the care they need.
Contrary to some expectations, medical provider salaries would not have to be limited under Medicare-for-All, because provider compensation is only ten percent of the cost of medical care. Instead, providers would tend to have increased income, as everyone would be able to afford medical care services. This may be why more than 55 percent of medical doctors support Medicare-for-All.
Medicare-for-All is commonsense and achievable. Of the 25 wealthiest countries in the world, the United States is the only one that does not provide universal coverage for its population.
Medicare-for-All is supported widely–by over 70 percent of the American public. This includes 52 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent of Democrats.
According to researchers at the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute, Medicare-for-All would save about $5 trillion over a decade through several means, including reducing high administrative costs–like health insurance from private companies–and negotiating lower prescription-drug prices. So what is the holdup?
Might it be medical care special interests, which spend an estimated $600 million each year on lobbying? For-profit corporations, like health insurance companies, are opposed to a medical-care system focused on the well-being of the American people instead of corporate profits.
Health insurance companies would not play a significant role as they do now because they would not be needed.
What I have described is a typical full single-payer plan. Unfortunately, some proposed plans may differ as a result of influence by opponents.
