Medicare For All – The Good, The Bad, The Facts

On Sept. 12th, Democratic candidates running for president in the 2020 election participated in the Democratic Debate. The debate focused on important issues, the policies they wish to implement, and how they plan to enact them. Some of these issues were gun control, the war in Afghanistan, climate change, and most prominently, health care.

Universal healthcare is a new policy in the U.S. which candidates aim to pursue in office and is one of the more important issues in the debates currently.

The current system of healthcare comes from private insurance companies (Aetna, United Health, Blue Cross, etc.). This is how it works: patients pay premiums, sometimes offset by their employer’s contributions, the amount of money an insurance company charges patients for private insurance and the company of your choosing pays for treatments, and the money goes to the providers of the health-care service. However, patients also pay a co-pay, which is the amount not covered by insurance.

The Medicare-For-All Act, drafted by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, would create a system in which all Americans would be automatically enrolled in a government single-payer system plan. This means the government steps in (rather than insurance companies) as the intermediary, or link, between patients and providers in health-care transactions. This act removes all private insurers. This is different from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implemented underneath the Obama Administration which lowers the cost of healthcare for families who are far enough under the line of poverty. As for the Medicare-For-All Act, this is how it would work: citizens would pay taxes to the government. These taxes would then pay for the treatments, and the money would be given to the providers of the health-care service.

A large issue arose during the debate between the candidates, and it is a standing issue with both the Democratic and Republican parties: where is the money coming from?

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts explained during the debate, “Those at the very top, the richest individuals and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more, and middle-class families are going to pay less.” The money comes from taxation. In short, those who make more money are taxed more.

This type of single-payer system plan is supported by only a few candidates. However, there is a modified single-payer plan supported by most of the candidates. Some of which include Former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. This is how it would differ from formerly proposed plans: citizens would pay taxes to the government, the government would pay for their treatments, and the money would be given to the providers of the health-care service. However, there would be an option to pay elective coverage, which would give the patient supplementary or complementary insurers and would also pay for procedures.

The single-payer system would remove most private insurance companies. However, this modified plan would keep some. Senator Klobuchar warns against getting rid of private insurance when she says, “On page 8 of the bill, it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it. And that means that 149 million Americans will no longer be able to have their current insurance.”

Advantages to the Medicare-For-All Act

A right-to-healthcare policy could lower the cost of healthcare in the United States in the long run. A study from the University of Massachusetts at Amhurst reports that total public and private healthcare spending could be lowered by at least $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years due to lowered administrative and prescription drug costs. A right-to-healthcare policy could also save lives. A research project from Harvard indicates that a lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States. It is projected if the healthcare policies were implemented, this number would go down as more citizens would have access to healthcare benefits.

Disadvantages to the Medicare-For-All Act

A right-to-healthcare policy could increase the federal debt and deficit. Medicaid, Medicare, and The Children’s Health Insurance Program took up 21% of the federal budget in 2012 and is projected to take up 30% of the budget by 2028. A study from George Mason University concludes government-funded healthcare could increase federal spending by $32.6 trillion. The committee for the Responsible Federal Budget estimates the act could result in an additional $19 trillion of debt. A right-to-healthcare policy could also increase the wait time for medical services. On average, the wait time in Canada to see a specialist is 60 days, while the wait time in the United States is 24 days.