Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Democratic naysayers are dead wrong on Medicare for All [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)It may be cheaper for some, but that is a great unknown on many levels at this point. And mileage will vary for different people.
If you take Medicare as it stands today, it wouldn't, for example, be cheaper, much cheaper, for a situation such as mine. I found this out just the other day when we had a meeting with a retirement/financial planner. When it came to the line he had proposed for annual expenses for health care in retirement (which would be Medicare), I was rather shocked to see a number that was double for what we currently pay under an employer's plan for no-deductible, 100% coverage (minus minor specialist copays). And believe me, that insurance was tested through a year-long bout with cancer where no procedure or hospitalization was questioned and 100% was covered.
Now, of course I know that the employer is paying that other half, and supposedly, under Medicare for All the employer will purportedly contribute into a pool of support that is equal to what they pay now (though how that number will be arrived at is totally unclear, as are the supposed revenues that are predicted to offset all the costs--many reputable economists have commented on the vast uncertainty of those monies in their own op-eds).
The point is, we have to look right now at how people view this, from a political standpoint. For some who currently trust their insurance, the uncertainty seems a very big risk; even for some who are not so happy with their insurance, the risk factor remains a question. For those who must buy from the private insurance pool with no subsidy from the government, it probably sounds like a risk worth taking. The problem is, of people who are currently insured in a private or government program, about 56.0 percent have some kind of employer-based insurance; those already on Medicaid or Medicare represent 19.3% and 17.2%, respectively; another 4.8% has military coverage. Only 16% use direct-purchase coverage, and of those, 87% receive some kind of subsidy under the ACA. It is probably that 13% of people in the private market (as well as the totally uninsured) who are most receptive to the sweeping, all-at-once MFA plan.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying that there are reasons people are not fully confident in it, and reasons that some politicians are taking a more graduated stance to achieving that goal over time.
But a single op-ed is a bad place to get any information.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden