Should US adopt medicare for all?

[mileslunn]

Mine is depends on details.  I understand many Americans don't like current system but as a Canadian who has seen flaws with ours, I would suggest if going to universal continue to allow private and don't outlaw it.  Make insurance compulsory with a public option but allow those who like their insurance plan to stay on them.  Likewise no nationalization of hospitals or doctors like you saw in UK, keep them independent.  An option to pay for faster or better should continue to be available like is is in UK, but is not in Canada.

At same time I get high cost huge deterrent as higher taxes not popular and not sure if a single payer is feasible without raising taxes.  Almost every country with a single payer has higher taxes.  Off course depends how extensive.  If just covers basics like Canada less costly than if more comprehensive like UK which covers quite a bit.  Canada covers doctor and hospitals, but still must pay for prescription drugs, dentists and many other things.  UK doesn't cover everything, but covers a lot more than Canada does.

[BothSidesEnjoyer]

Depends on details. If we can afford it, then why not.

[MarkD]

How is it going to be paid for? Raising taxes on rich people?

[politicallefty]

I support a full and absolute universal healthcare program. I've generally thought Medicare for All is the best solution, but it isn't necessarily the only solution. The goal should be to ensure that all Americans are covered with at least a basic benefits package that should otherwise be free of cost other than what is paid through taxes (i.e. no premiums, copays, or deductibles). How we do it is up for debate and I don't think there is one solution to the problem. What I do not think is up for debate though is that every single American should have a basic healthcare benefits package as a right guaranteed under law.

[MABA 2020]

Oh yes absolutely, it's unfortunate that the healthcare debate seems to have taken a backseat since Biden was elected.

[TML]

This is a no-brainer. The main reason why this hasn't happened is because of intense lobbying by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

[mileslunn]

Oh yes absolutely, it's unfortunate that the healthcare debate seems to have taken a backseat since Biden was elected.

Narrow margin in senate and house meant no chance of passing and I also think Biden was in favor of expanding Obamacare not a single payer system.  While a single payer may sound good, I think logistics of creating one challenging.  For starters 10th amendment might not allow one federally and instead leave to states.  For any state to have one would put it at a disadvantage on taxes leading to many leaving state as already seeing with some high taxed states like California and New York.  They could like with medicaid do opt in and hope enough states would opt in as would be popular.

Other reason is to pay for one, would need large tax hikes which aren't too popular or big spending cuts elsewhere, most likely military and entitlements.  In addition insurance industry is massive in terms of its impact on GDP and number of people it employs so ending or even reducing its role would mean many lose jobs. 

Now universal health care I think is more feasible.  Adding a public option to compete alongside private insurers could work.  Or even make getting insurance with that is mandatory as Netherlands and Switzerland do and heavily regulated doable.  I think the Dutch or Swiss models are much more realistic for US then the Canadian or British models.  Although even those two rely on government subsidies for low income and have lots of rules that US insurance companies wouldn't like.

Canada and UK contrary to popular perception do still have private insurance but much less so than US.  In Canada, private health insurance is banned for services covered by public plan, but offers supplemental for many things government plan doesn't cover including prescription drugs, ambulance, private & semi private room at hospitals, dental care, long term care, eye care, physio.  Sanders medicare for all plan covers many of those thus likely limit private insurance to things like cosmetic surgery, over the counter drugs and travel insurance.  UK covers a lot more than Canada thus unlike Canada where 2/3 have private health insurance, only 10% of Brits do.  However unlike Canada, it is not illegal to purchase private health insurance for things covered by government.  Indeed with long wait times, many who can afford to buy private insurance to get quicker access do.

Sanders plan in some ways is more socialistic than any country that actually has universal health care as comparable to most comprehensive like UK and Nordic Countries (far more than Canada or Australia), bans user fees and co-pays which most like France & Japan still have although UK & Canada don't and bans private health insurance for covered procedures which only Canada does, no one else. 

Where Sanders plan is not as socialistic as some is it doesn't nationalize health system so like Canada but unlike UK, doctors would still work in private practice and not be employees of state.  But unlike US but like Canada, they would bill government not patient or insurance company as do now. 

[Samof94]

I support UHC of course, but prefer a different plan than Sanders.

[Super-Size the Freedom Fries]

I believe in as many choices as possible - so Medicare for those that would like to have it, private insurance, or maybe a combination of the two.  I'm a little confused by what Obamacare did - it seems like so much energy was spent on that in the previous decade, but the costs are way too high.

I too would like to see health care be spoken of a lot more.  It's extremely important in people's everyday lives and we all need quality health care that is either very low cost to the point where it can be afforded easily even on a bad salary, or that is it funded by public taxpayer dollars.  I definitely support expansion of the current social safety net, and feel that Medicare is a reliable, time-tested program that should be available to any person.

[S019]

No, I also don't think the electorate would accept healthcare reform anytime soon after seeing how the last three attempts at it ended up (all had massive backlash and only one was ultimately successful).

[Dr. MB]

No, I also don't think the electorate would accept healthcare reform anytime soon after seeing how the last three attempts at it ended up (all had massive backlash and only one was ultimately successful).

the American people possess a false consciousness which prevents them from recognizing the true nature of their situation

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why exactly would Americans have to pay higher taxes for universal health care when the US government already spends (that's right...JUST US goverment spending...I'm not talking about the private sector here) more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than other developed countries?

[mileslunn]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why exactly would Americans have to pay higher taxes for universal health care when the US government already spends (that's right...JUST US goverment spending...I'm not talking about the private sector here) more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than other developed countries?

That is interesting point and I guess in theory could lower but not sure would as very hard to change the structure of something already in place.  Would only be possible if scrapped medicare and medicaid and started from scratch and not sure public wants that.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Not the solution, but still a step in the right direction

[Frodo]

Ultimately that should be our goal, but we should only get there incrementally.  Nationalizing Medicaid (by that, I mean taking it out of the hands of states completely) and installing a public option into the Affordable Care Act would be big steps in that direction. 

[Senator Incitatus]

I support more generous healthcare in the event of illness or catastrophe but also believe health policy should be primarily focused on inputs, i.e., diet, exercise, and stress. To the limited extent a universal backstop would create a moral hazard problem for the baseline health of Americans, I'm opposed, but this just means I strong favor a policy drawn to improve baseline health with more generous catastrophic healthcare, which could even be cost-efficient.

[1776 Becky Edwards Patriot]

The U.S. should obviously adopt universal healthcare. Obviously not the Canadian eugenics program or the British nationalization version though.

[21 Young Gun Salute]

Yes, because it's the most viable option for the progressive left. But from my readings, Germany's healthcare system tends to be more successful than Canada's or the UK's. People who make under a certain income are automatically enrolled in the statutory system, and those who want private options can opt-out if they make more. Patients can seek almost any type of care whenever they want it.

Sadly, no one's interested in debating whether a fully-public system or a mixed system is the best way to go, because we haven't even agreed whether healthcare is a basic right. And nobody's interested in debating that either, because this country is more concerned with banning drag queens and transgender people in sports.

The media has done an excellent job distracting people from real things that affect their material lives with culture war garbage - all while we bitch about the debt while under a healthcare system that's bankrupting the US!