12 Points in the case FOR M4A
I am politically independent and I tend to agree with a lot of conservative ideas. I am generally in favor of individual responsibility and limited government involvement in our lives. However, between our current Medicare for All proposed plans vs. our current insurance-based healthcare system that is tied to employment, I prefer Medicare for All. Here are the reasons why:
- The United States (U.S.) is currently a healthcare anomaly. Every developed country in the world can provide healthcare for their entire population, but the U.S. spends the most per capita and leaves 30 million uninsured and many more underinsured. If the U.S. is richer than most other countries, then we can afford universal healthcare.
- It is the fiscally responsible thing to do. America is currently spending 18 percent of its GDP on healthcare and fails to cover everyone, while Canada spends 11 percent and manages to cover everyone. Even with Medicare for All, I am sure the U.S. will spend more than Canada because of lifestyle. But, reducing healthcare spending to 12 percent of our GDP saves $1.2 trillion. The budget deficit for the fiscal year 2021 was budgeted at $1.1 trillion, considering Medicare for All, we can cover everyone and bring our deficit to a surplus.
- It will give more bargaining power to workers. Currently, many people depend on their employers for healthcare. People are less willing to switch jobs, start businesses, go back to school, etc., because they need health insurance. Workers are sometimes forced to take lower pay because they are at the mercy of their employers. With Medicare for All, employers can ask for higher pay or walk out of a job if they are poorly treated, forcing employers to pay higher wages.
- Small businesses would have an easier time hiring employees and expanding their business. Currently, business owners have to consider healthcare hiring employees. Business owners should not suffer from that burden with Medicare for All, that burden and extra overhead cost would be lifted.
- It will increase innovations and unleash creativity. Historically, Americans are creative, innovative people. However, many have creative ideas but are hesitant to try them because they are tied to their employment. If we take away that burden, more innovators will put their ideas to work, creating new products for the American people. Many talented, hard-working foreigners want to come here to work in the U.S. but are afraid of our healthcare system. With a single-payer, the U.S. will become a lot more desirable and attractive to them.
- It is the patriotic thing to do. When terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, the US spent trillions fighting in Afghanistan and. We are still there after nearly 198 years. Currently, 45,000 Americans die prematurely every year due to lack of healthcare. If we can justify going to Afghanistan to hunt terrorists, then we can justify creating a single-payer system to prevent people from dying because they cannot afford to pay the deductible for prescription drugs.
- It is good for the overall economy. I know that switching to a single-payer system will cause layoffs to health insurance companies. However, the net savings would be $5,000.00 per person. When people have more money to spend, more jobs will be created.
- It will simplify a messy system. Healthcare is a complicated issue, b. But the current system is way more complicated than the single-payer. The current system has way more overhead costs for doctors. Doctors would need a lot more staff just to figure out medical billings and submitting insurance claims. Sick people have to argue with insurance adjusters about what is covered over and what is not. It just creates a lot of wasteful administrative costs cost.
- It will give people better peace of mind. Life is very volatile and chaotic. It is not uncommon for people who are doing well to lose everything after becoming sick. If someone gets sick, they can not go to work. Eventually, they lose their job and lose their health insurance. Thereafter losing their insurance, they may end up losing their homes if they get sick again. This is a unique problem that only American faces.
- It will serve the needs of ordinary people better than the current system does. Conservatives will say single-payer is bad because of socialism. However, The truth is private insurance is socialism too because it is sharing risk. Also, the current system already has lots of government involvement. Before people used to be forced to buy overpriced insurance despite whether or not they could afford it or not. It is a total scam designed to extract wealth from ordinary people. Also, insurance companies are there to make a profit. Of course, there will be high deductibles and copays. Thus, there will be lots of exclusions. That is the nature of the business.
- Insurance-based healthcare is overall not a good idea. You buy insurance hoping to never use it. You have car insurance, but you do not have the intent to get into an accident. You have homeowners insurance, but you do do not intend for your house to get burned down. However, the thing is, getting sick is not something you can avoid. Also, when it is an emergency, you are not going to call different doctors to find the best price.
- As a counter-argument to the socialism claim: i. If you are against the government paying for healthcare, then why are you for the government providing roads, energy, defense, schools, etc.
I know Medicare has its problems. I do not know what is the best system is. If you can show a better system than Medicare for All, I will get behind that system.