As the movement for Medicare for All gains steam, with the
new bill, HR-1384, being introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and 100
co-sponsors (video
available on PNHP Facebook page), the attacks have, unsurprisingly, started
coming. They are hard and soft, overt and subtle. The overt attacks on it from
Republicans who call it “socialism” are probably the least important. They, and
the folks for whom socialism is a buzzword that has them throwing up their
hands in horror, were never going to support it or any effort to have universal
health insurance, and are probably not going to support any less-extensive
compromise. On the other hand, they could learn something by reading about the
experiences of people in the
all-the-other-industrialized-countries-in-the-world who have some form of
universal health care. For example, the
recent piece in the Washington Post by
an American studying in Taiwan,
uninsured in either country, whose abdominal pain nonetheless led him to
go to the ER at 3am. He was seen and given treatment in 20 minutes, had lab
tests and imaging studies, was diagnosed with a stomach virus and given 2
medications, and sent off. Total cost: $80. (March 1, 2019)
The real threat, unsubtle and incredibly well-funded, is
from the insurance and hospital corporations (and “non-profit” health systems)
who are responsible for about 30% of all dollars spent on health care in the US
being for administrative costs (including their huge profits) and not actually
health care. They are a major cause of the high cost of health care in the US,
and stand to lose the most if Medicare for All is implemented, because it will
be funded in large part by taking that money away from them. Thus, they are highly
motivated to attack any such attempt, organized to do so, and are already doing
it, as clearly presented in Health
Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’, NY Times February 23, 2019. This will
ultimately be the real fight, incredibly wealthy companies that would lose a
lot of money will do almost anything to keep it, even though it will prevent a
change in the current crazy, costly, poor-result non-system that we currently
have, that would benefit the health of all the rest of us.
The more subtle attacks, or perhaps “criticisms”, are from
other Democrats and ostensibly liberal media, like the Times. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) sponsors a single-payer
Medicare for All bill in the Senate, S-1804, and many of the current candidates
for the Democratic presidential nomination are co-sponsors, including Sens. Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand
(D-NY), and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a cosponsor of HR-1384. Sen. Amy
Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Julian Castro (D-TX) are not. S-1804 is not quite as
good or comprehensive as HR-1384 (the even-better successor to the old HR-676),
but this is not the reason almost all of them (except, of course, Sen. Sanders)
have stepped back a little from, or danced around, their position on a
single-payer program in various interviews with the press. They worry it might
go too far, and while want support from single-payer fans, they fear alienating
others, or believe that Medicare for All cannot happen, and talk about
compromise. Several senators have introduced another
bill that would allow people over 50 to buy into Medicare ('Medicare for
More', but only if they pay). The Times, however,
is getting more supportive; in their February 16, 2019 editorial ‘How
Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care?’, they move to focusing
on the cost and practicality, and no longer say single payer or Medicare for
All is not a good thing.
Of course, other
leaders of the Democratic Party do not even pretend to support Medicare for All,
and cling to the falsehood that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be enough
if the GOP had not let many of its components expire, and GOP governors had not
refused to institute expanded Medicaid in so many states. The classic rendition of this song was performed by House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in an interview in a recent Rolling Stone. Dr.
Don McCanne, in his great Quote of the Day, correctly
says of Pelosi’s comments:
‘Perhaps
most disappointing have been the responses of those who would prefer to
continue to support the Affordable Care Act and add a public option - a
Medicare buy-in for some…."All I want is the goal of every American having
access to health care. You don’t get there by dismantling the Affordable Care
Act." Further she says, "When they say Medicare for All, people have
to understand this: Medicare for All is not as good a benefit as the Affordable
Care Act." Has she been practicing composing Trumpisms? The Jayapal
Medicare for All Act is vastly superior to ACA - absolutely no contest.’
“Compromise” is often touted as a good thing, and sometimes
it is. Maybe it means you and your partner take turns deciding what movie to
see or what to have for dinner. But often compromise is, as noted by business
guru Stephen Covey, it is a “lose-lose”, where everyone gives up
something they want. If we can find something that is “win-win”, it is of
course better. Medicare for All might actually be a “win-lose”, a win for the
American people (comprehensive health care for less money) but a loss of enormous
profit for the big health and insurance corporations (no tears here).
The most obvious flaw in the logic of the mainstream
Democrats is harping on the cost. Yes, it will cost a lot, but the average
American family will pay less than they are now in premiums, deductibles and
co-payments. The big saving would be in the elimination of the money being made
by insurance companies, drug companies, and health systems, and apparently
Speaker Pelosi is not ready to cut off their access to the trough. Already, the
government pays almost 60% of all health costs (Medicare, Medicaid, coverage
for government employees, tax breaks for employer contributions to health
insurance, etc.) This means that, in our country, the government already pays
more per capita than in most countries that cover everyone. Yes, HR-1384 would
expand the benefits of Medicare (‘Improved and Expanded Medicare for All’) to
be basically everything with no copays or deductibles, and this would be
costly, but those of us who can afford it pay for them anyway, and those who
cannot currently do without.
But there is another flaw. All of the folks advocating for less-than-universal-coverage,
Medicare-for-More, buy-in to Medicaid for folks not poor enough to qualify now,
let’s-not-let-the-perfect-be-the-enemy-of-the-good, are missing something. What
they are missing is those people who are not covered or covered with poor
insurance that won’t meet their needs if they are sick. All the compromise
politicians and pundits seem to forget that these are real people, not just
numbers (yes, if fully implemented the ACA covers 90%, but is that enough?). As
I wrote in my very first blog post (“Universal
Health Coverage”, November 28, 2008), ‘When was the last time, even in
private but certainly in public, you ever heard someone say “I’m really suffering without health
coverage, but don’t worry about including me and my family in your health
reform plan. We don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”?’ Those
advocating for less than universal coverage need to get out there and tell us
who it is that they don’t think needs good health coverage, who can be left
out. You? Your Uncle George or Aunt Minnie? Your neighbor? Who are the
Americans who they are advocating leaving out?
I can tell you one thing. It won’t be them or their
families.
