The pages of the Wall Street Journal are now rife with Op-eds complaining the Democratic Socialists have "taken over" the Democratic Party - and are spouting fantasies like Medicare for All i.e.
Socialist Chic and the ‘Medicare for All’ Sham - WSJ
Recall Senator Bernie Sanders’s proposed (2016)Medicare for All Act would have scrapped private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone. An alternative plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would have created an optional public program that anyone could "buy into". Meanwhile, an earlier plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would have given all Americans the option to buy into Medicare, say from the age of 55. But let's not kid ourselves - any "buy in" would not come cheap - especially now after Trump's tariffs and war of choice have sent everything through the roof in cost.
Also, Medicare, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is no "entitlement" or freebie as the Right's media loons try to portray it. Your eye exams, glasses are not covered, and neither is your dental care. Over the past two years alone our mutual costs for just the latter have been around $5,500. Not a huge surprise when you reckon one crown can cost upwards of $1,350 and together we've had three. Add in dental cleanings, x-rays etc and well.....you get my point. Meanwhile our Medicare Supplement plans - the part needed to pay for procedures like my MRI and PET scans, Firmagon shots etc. - now exceed $350 each per month.
It is true that a single federal payer system — as such
proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption
that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible. But getting to such a system would be no 'walk in the park'. If adopted we'd more likely emulate the experience of countries like Canada
and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer. But such a system would
require dramatic changes from the status quo with private insurance, and would be a
tough political sell in a nation conditioned to low taxation.
But aversion to higher taxes and loss of private insurance
isn't all on Americans since we've learned Doctors, hospitals, drug companies
and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from
an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. The Partnership for America's Health Care Future claims that 'Medicare for All' will
require tax increases out of synch with what Americans want. In many respects they are not too far off. Basically most Americans are conditioned to want the 'goodies' but not to have to pay for them in higher taxes. Every Reep politico knows this, which is why 99% of their policy proposals embrace tax cuts.
The counterpoint to this are the social democracies in Europe. The citizens of European nations, like Germany, Denmark and Norway, understand that there is no freebie medical care. Thus they are willing to pay higher taxes to get the medical care (as well as free child care) they need. They are also wise enough not to elect as a leader anyone who'd blow open their GDP on wars, or military funding. In doing so they also shuck off the "socialism" label as American sour grapes, e.g.
Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman about their social welfare state PRESCIENT!
This is why many have refused to increase defense spending, including Spain's President Pedro Sanchez, because they grasp such a boost would force them to reduce social spending. Unlike here in the U.S. where the orange buffoon in the WH fantasizes increasing defense spending by 40 percent - to $1.5 trillion. The misfit wackjob recently has gone so far as to say the government ought to stop funding Medicare as well as childcare across the board, to focus on his war of choice with Iran. E.g.
Trump says government should stop funding Medicare, daycare to focus on war
Again, why can’t people simply be shucked into Medicare like the oldies
already are? Simply put, there aren’t adequate resources – neither nurses,
physicians, facilities, labs, testing equipment – to accommodate the
numbers. This is why Medicare for All
hasn’t gained serious traction since Bernie Sanders first seriously proposed it
in 2016. To support such a system it’s been estimated federal subsidies would
need to increase from between $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year by 2030. In order to even begin to achieve this at
least 2 percent a year would need to be lopped off the defense budget.
Bear in mind Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, for a
defined limited population (which had already reached age 65) and which was
already constrained in the benefits delivered, i.e. no dental care included, no
vision care or necessities. We have to pay out of pocket for those which can
reach several grand a year.
There are currently 70 million Americans who receive benefits
under the program, which like Social Security is partially funded by payroll
taxes. But to even remotely consider adding 25 million folks – say currently in
Obamacare- would literally break the system without higher taxes, payroll and
individual.
Even Abdul El-Sayed, the winner of the recent Michigan Dem
primary, conceded higher taxes would need to be paid in a Meet the Press
interview. As he noted: “We’d be paying
for healthcare in a different way” - noting
that the current way entailed premiums of “thousands of dollars a month”
So wouldn’t higher taxes of two thousand dollars a YEAR be
preferable? A rational person would think so but I am not sure how many
Americans would agree. They need to know front and center a Medicare for All Buy
in will be very costly and the tax system has to be adjusted to suit.
No longer can middle class folk expect tax cuts and government-
provided health care benefits in whatever guise. Higher premiums alone will not
cut the mustard.
These are serious issues Americans need to consider before voting for a candidate merely because s/he promises 'Medicare for All'. Especially without pointing out taxes will need to be raised.
See Also:
The Basics of ‘Medicare for All’ - The New York Times
Excerpt:
Medicare for all insurance would cover many services that
most health plans omit now, including dental
care, eyeglasses, hearing aids and home-based long-term care for people
with disabilities.
It would also make major changes to how health care is
financed in the United States. Now, we pay for health care through federal
taxes and state taxes, as well as premiums and cash when we go to the doctor or
the pharmacy counter. Under Medicare for all, federal taxes would pay for the
entire system.
Economists have produced various estimates. It’s probably most helpful to think about the range. Give or take, they said the Medicare for all system would cost around the same as the current system — government, employer and individual spending combined. But even the most conservative spending estimate would involve a huge shift of health care dollars from individuals and businesses to the federal government. Medicare for all would be an enormous expansion of government spending, and would almost certainly require large tax increases.
And:
by Thom Hartmann | August 11, 2026 - 4:58am | permalink
If Trump wants Republicans to win this fall, all he has to do is endorse Medicare For All and call it a Republican policy.
After all, conservatives across Europe are generally quite happy with their national healthcare systems and definitely don’t want them going away or to be replaced by for-profit insurance companies.
When I did did my show from Denmark’s Danish Radio’s studios, I interviewed multiple conservative politicians and to a person their response to my question, “Do you want to get rid of your healthcare system?” was, “Are you nuts?”
This may not even be all that radical by today’s Republican standards: after all, Trump’s embraced the purely communist idea of the federal government taking control of the means of production and distribution — the textbook definition of communism — by having our government take stock in over 30 companies over the past 18 months.
And:
by Tom Engelhardt | August 12, 2026 - 4:29am | permalink
from Tom Engelhardt's Substack
Talk about unjust, unfair, or just plain not right: Here I am at 82 years old with children, grandchildren, and old (and I mean old!) friends, and (like me) our country and our world seem to be all too distinctly on the downhill slope. I could, of course, have added aided by my president, Donald J. Trump, and (except for the “my”) that would be anything but inaccurate. And yet, the very fact that a near majority of Americans (46.4% in 2016 and 49.8% in 2024) elected him president of the United States should tell you that the process was already well underway; otherwise, such a… you chose the word… parody or atrocity (or both) of American politics would never have been possible.
In short, after all these years — 16 as an editor at Pantheon Books, a decade in a freelance editing (and writing) life, and almost a quarter of a century running and writing for TomDispatch.com, the website I created (and that’s now being run by the wonderful Nick Turse) — somehow, I still can’t believe (not truly) the world I find myself in. Phew! That was an exhausting sentence! (And no surprise there, since we’re on a distinctly exhausting planet.)
No comments:
Post a Comment