General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAtlantic: The Missing Pieces of Medicare For All
With the support of 15 congresspeople and significant grassroots and poll support, the bill is unprecedented, both in the scopeit would in essence nationalize one-sixth of the largest economy in world historyand in seriousness. Although the initiative is almost certainly doomed over the course of the next few iterations of Congress, its now a rallying point, one its creators and sponsors aim to make the center of Democratic policymaking for years to come.
The broad strokes of Medicare for All are simple enough. Sanderss plan would completely replace the existing patchwork of employer, exchange, and public insurancesave for Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Serviceand replace them with a plan that covers, well, everything. Medicare for All would cover doctor visits, specialty care, inpatient visits, drugs, home care, and mental-health services, while also taking care of vision and dental benefits. Save for a provision allowing some limited cost-sharing for prescription drugs, all of those services would be covered with no cost-sharingno deductibles, copayments, or coinsurancewhatsoever. Additionally, the plan bars private insurers from providing health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act, and would slowly expand to edge those insurers out of the market over the course of four years.
What takes shape over the 96-page document isnt really a scaled-up Medicare program, but something new altogether. As currently constructed, Medicare actually contains quite a bit of cost-sharingparticularly for prescription drugsand an entire industry of private plans exist to beef up Medicare coverage and provide additional services for seniors. Sanderss plan would more accurately be described as The U.K.s NHS on steroidsa entirely government-backed endeavor bounded only by the limits of the delivery system and of the tax base that pays for it all.
But that last point is crucial. Especially in a system with no artificial or individual limits on how people can use their health insurance, the funding structure is absolutely vital to understanding how the system as a whole will respond to the health-care choices of over 300 million people. And beyond the how will they pay for it? criticisms from both Republicans and Democratic holdouts, for all American health-care reformsespecially one this massivequestions of redistribution, the minutiae of tax policy, and how those economic factors shape and alter behaviors and health-care choices are important. In fact, those questions are as important in understanding if the policy actually meets the goals of covering people and containing costs as the specifications of Medicare benefits. And the Sanders plan, as of yet, answers none of those questions.
............................................................
Tax policy and the funding structure matter for each of those. They arent ancillary concerns; rather, they affect the nuts and bolts of how the policy works. Its not just about where the money comes from, but from whom it comes and how. Health and wealth are intricately connected. Health policy is tax policy.
Thats why the Medicare for All bill as it stands is fundamentally incomplete; an unknowable quantity. Again, some of that is by designthe legislation wont pass and the document serves mostly as a way to gain consensus on the vision. But while relegating the less sexy, and much more controversial funding elements to the background is perhaps politically pragmatic, putting it off can only hurt the policy in the long run. For example, its possible that somewhere in the foreseeable future, politicians, now enamored with the idea and bound by their pledges to Medicare for All, could pass it with a largely unsubsidized VAT, passing many of the consumption costs onto the poor people the program is meant to help.
Given the vision of Medicare for All as a paradigm that breaks the inequalities central to American medicine, it follows that the paradigms funding cant reinforce those inequalities. Ensuring the progressive vision means ensuring every cent is accounted for up front, and that the costs and mechanisms of managing those costs are known. In order to meet its desired potential as a policy that reshapes the country, the Sanders plan still has plenty of work to do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/medicare-for-all-tax-policy/539715/
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)That's why there's supplemental Medicare Part B, C and D. How much does the Sanders plan charge for these?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It doesn't cover long-term care (nursing home), Rx, dental, eyeglasses - like the M4A plan supposedly would.
Even Medicare recipients pay an average of 11% of their income in out of pocket health care expenses.
The newest iteration of Sanders' plan now includes co-pays, but that's not going to address the big missing spots in the plan.
It's political theater at this point, and people think it's the real thing.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and that little issue is not covered. I support almost everything Sanders says he does (in public anyway), but I want real plans, not anti-Democrat dreampipes to jab at us with.
Hillary... Elizabeth... Martin... If only.
All you 55-65 out there, you'd be eligible for Medicare next year at latest. If only.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....there are vague references to funding, but what one would consider only conceptually, not materially.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Yavin4
(35,441 posts)One such tax that could achieve both and has long been discussed in health-policy theory is the Value-Added Tax, or the VAT, which would function as a sort of national sales tax on consumption. While a broad-base VAT on a wide range of consumer goods might be a burden on the poor and the sick; rebates, subsidies, or exemptions could create a rich revenue source that places the burden on the middle and upper classes and doesnt affect investment or savings. The presence of a government health-care monopoly and questions of border-adjustment for pharmaceuticals and medical devices would complicate the analysis, but consumption taxes on extraneous health-care services, prescriptions, or in contracting between physicians and vendors could also be used as a control for utilization and government expenditures. Indeed, many countries with comparable high-cost universal-coverage systems supplement their funding with broad-base consumption taxes.
I've said it a million times. We should have single payer, and we need a national sales tax in order to fund it. Not only would such a tax provide the needed revenues, it would also provide political cover since everyone will pay into it equally. Everybody gets it. Everybody pays for it. And, Everybody will fight to protect it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And cherrypicking one part of one paragraph as contradicting the point of the article... which is that there are huge holes in the funding... is a real reach.
Even Vermont wasn't ready for the hike in taxes that single payer there would require.
I seriously doubt that the reps and Senators from the red states get behind a federal tax, when they won't even get behind a minimum wage hike.
genxlib
(5,528 posts)When he says the Sanders Bill as more accurately described as the UK's NHS, it is just a wrong comparison.
The NHS is true government health care in that the Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals all work for the Government.
Nothing like this is proposed. Health care delivery would still be private. Only the payments would be government. It is the replacement of the Insurance system, not the care givers system.
This bill is really more like a very generous Canadian system.
In my opinion, it is too generous. I don't see the point of trying to make it absolutely free (no premiums or co-pays). It seems reasonable to pay a nominal amount for treatment with the option of a means tested waiver.
Making it this generous is just a gift to the opposition to knock it down.