Misconceptions the "Medicare for All" Plan

There are some common misconceptions (or "misunderestimates" as the President would put it) about a national health insurance system. So much of the public debate surrounding our health care system is poisoned by the very financial interests and advertising campaigns that have corrupted the system itself. One of these misconceptions is that those who are uninsured are unemployed too. There are, however, so many people who could afford to contribute to a national health insurance program, but do not do so toward a private plan because of disqualifying health conditions. For others, whether independently employed or working for small businesses or companies which do not offer insurance, exorbitant rates become prohibitive. In any case, among the uninsured there are people willing and able to contribute to national health insurance, if only given the right opportunity.

When comparisons are made to the Canadian or many of the European health care systems, critics talk endlessly about rationing and long waiting lines. First, the term "socialized medicine" suggests that government would play a role in the delivery of health care; it would not, instead leaving the task to a mix of public and private non-profit hospitals and clinics. Stories of rationing and long lines are enormously exaggerated, and ignore the fact that we shorten lines simply by removing millions of people from them. Moreover, because the system we have now does ration on the basis of income and health condition, our emergency rooms-the only places where anyone can seek treatment-are far more crowded than in many industrialized nations. These nations also spend a great deal less on health care; if we spend what we spend now (more than double what other wealthy nations spend), but spend it more wisely, we may have both universal and better care. These need not be mutually exclusive.

We do need to look to other nations for examples of the effectiveness of a government single-payer health insurance model. Both Medicare and the Veterans Benefits Administration, despite serving the most at-risk populations in our country, have been much more effective in controlling costs through preventative care and cost leveraging than has the private insurance industry. Indeed, with the full power of the United States government keeping costs down and insurance risk spread over the entire population, the single-payer model would become even more efficient. Contrary to the claims of the President and others who tout private health savings accounts as a means to give people the power to make their own choices, a move to Medicare for All would allow for far more choices. A private insurance company can do a number of things (deny claims, raise premiums and deductibles, drop coverage, deny coverage) which a patient will feel is unfair, unjust. They can do this with little to no recourse for a patient. Yet in a system where government is the insurer, there is opportunity to make appeals for a change in policy-power rests with the people who are affected by its decisions, and if we do not accept the response of our leaders to the demands we make, then we may fire them and begin again.