As an American, would you be willing to pay more tax so that health care is free at point of use for everyone in the US?
When I was in the US Navy, we had CHAMPUS. Our healthcare was paid for with taxpayer dollars through what basically amounted to a single-payer system. The only time we paid for our own healthcare was if we were given a choice for optional care, as in, if we opted to get a potassium IV for $8 instead of opting to not get the IV and eat a banana instead.By the time I’d joined the US Army, we’d switched to Tricare, which was public-private partnership granting the private insurance company a full monopoly by region and funded by the military. The cost to the military quadrupled, even though care started to be a bit harder to get. In fact, chronic conditions that are permanent still had to be tested for annually to confirm that the permanent condition was still permanent, and there were even cases of men being given pregnancy tests. One of the men in my unit in Korea had a hairline fracture in his femur, and was still told to take Ibuprofen, drink more water, and keep running for months before being given an X-ray. It was ridiculous.Now I’m out and living the civilian life where the insurance offered by my current job only applies to full-time employees who opt-in and cost 3 times our income for the first year, has a high deductible, and only covers a few conditions. Cancer treatments, diabetic supplies, women’s care (aside from the most basic annual check-up) were not covered at all until the ACA kicked in.So would I mind paying an extra $10 or so per year so we could scrap private insurance and public-private partnership monopolies and just switch to a more CHAMPUS-like system, aka Medicare for all? Not at all. I would gladly pay a bit more in taxes in order to save the lives of others, save thousands per year in insurance costs and out-of-pocket costs, and allow for a form of collective bargaining to keep the wealthy from just simply marking up life-saving medications and treatments by 5,000% to boost their profit margin to ridiculous levels.
Would a “Medicare for All” system work as many Democrats are proposing? What are the pros and cons?
Pros:Medicare-for-All is a consistent plan that, unlike the hundreds of plans out there now, doesn’t vary in coverage of certain types of care.The Medicare-for-All system laid out in (Medicare for All: HR676) covers dental, mental health, vision, podiatric care, etc. that often isn’t covered under current plans.Complete coverage—no one in a household doesn’t receive coverage, no co-pays, no deductibles, lower drug prices, no insurance premiums. Removal of restrictions on care based on ability to pay. No refusal based on preexisting conditions.The 78.5 million Americans who are not insured or underinsured will receive complete medical care without fear of going bankrupt.Maintain the ability to select your physicians.Nonprofit healthcare system.Increased efficiency.No Medical BankruptciesNet savings of trillions of dollars, even by conservative studies.Economy improves because consumers save money and are able to spend it in businesses.Cons:You don’t get to choose which subpar insurance plan you want.Taxes go up (however, net savings despite tax increases for the average American).