Financial and Personal Prosperity: The Case for Medicare for All
By: Hayden Lacelle
Tags: Health, Bernie Sanders, Medicare For All, Healthcare, Medicare

Click here if you’d like to listen to an audio version of this article.

Right now, millions of people remain uninsured, and millions more are underinsured, even with the current Medicare and Affordable Care Act systems in place. We have an opportunity to change our healthcare system for the better, and we must take it. Medicare for All is a necessity in the United States because it saves billions in spending, while also expanding coverage and the range of care to every American, gives working-class families tax savings, and saves thousands of lives yearly.

One of the reasons why we need to switch to Medicare for All is because it would save us billions of dollars in national spending. This would be accomplished via the nationalization of multiple healthcare programs, as well as reformations to other parts of our system.

“This would require $3.034 trillion annually, $458 billion less than national health-care expenditure in 2017. Even after accounting for the increased costs of coverage expansion, [it] includes $59 billion savings on hospital care, $23 billion on physician and clinical services, $217 billion on overheads, and $177 billion on prescription drugs. Consequently, annual expenditure per capita would decrease from $10,739 to $9,330, equivalent to a 13.1% reduction. The expectation of savings is robust and remains following variation in [multiple scenario] input parameters. For example, if overhead costs only dropped to 6% of total health expenditure — rather than Medicare’s current 2.2% — … Medicare for All…would still reduce costs by 10.3%” (Galvani).

With all of the proposed reforms, changes, and other goals Medicare for All would amend to our country, our country would still save billions of dollars, even when you consider the expansion of coverage, not just in terms of who is covered, but also what is covered.

Being able to expand coverage to everybody, while also being even more fiscally stable than our current healthcare system, is a win-win for not just the people, but also healthcare organizations, workers, our government, etc.

PLOS Medicine “found that 19 (or 86% of) [studies from our research] predict net savings in the first year of operations, with a range from 7% higher net cost to 15% lower net cost. Increases in cost due to improved insurance coverage and thus higher utilization were 2% to 19%. Savings from simplified payment administration at insurers and providers, drug cost reductions, and other mechanisms ranged from 3% to 27%. The largest net savings were for plans with reductions in drug costs. Net savings accumulate overtime at an estimated 1.4% per year” (Cai).

Even research that comes to the conclusion that Medicare for All won’t have initial savings find that over time, there will be savings. Even with the possibility of initial overage of expenditures, Medicare for All would still work out not just for the health of our citizens, but also economically over time. If we’re looking to transition out of our current system, which, as studies show, has not been as fiscally stable, Medicare for All is the right choice to go, especially knowing that not only would we be saving money, but we’d also be bolstering coverage to every single American.

Expanding coverage to every American, as well as expanding the areas we cover to allow for more treatment and care for our citizens, is another reason why Medicare for All is a necessity in the United States. Under the Medicare for All Act of 2020, proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), it, and the most recent proposal, on top of what is covered under our current system by Medicare, would expand that coverage.

The coverage would include more “health, vision and dental benefits, and some long-term care benefits including hospital services, ambulatory patient services, primary and preventative services, prescription drugs, mental health, substance abuse, laboratory, and diagnostic services, comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care, pediatrics, oral health, audiology, and vision services, short-term [rehab], emergency services, transportation, and home and community based long-term services” (Wolf). While Medicare does cover some of the things in the excerpt, like some dental care, “Medicare coverage for many tests, items, and services depends on where you live” (Medicare.gov). And, unfortunately, “you’ll have to pay for the items and services yourself unless you have other insurance” (Medicare.gov).

By expanding care, as well as the range of care, to and for everybody, Medicare for All would eliminate a lot of these blockades for millions of citizens. On top of every single person being protected under Medicare for All, it would also have economic benefits for the United States.

Specifically, “expanding Medicare to a larger population could facilitate improved efficiency, [leading to a potential] $219 billion [savings] annually by consolidating all insurance schemes into the Medicare framework. [Medicare for All] would entail expanded use of health services by those who are currently uninsured and those who are insured but for whom cost, such as copays, imposes a barrier to health care…and patient choice will be dramatically expanded if a universal health-care system is adopted” (Galvani).

Not only does Medicare for All help with people’s coverage, but combining that with eliminating networks, co-pays, and deductibles, can actually save the United States money in national expenditures. This is, once again, while expanding services to every single citizen in the United States, and eliminating a lot of roadblocks that come with our current system. A lot of people who oppose Medicare for All claim that the plan will eliminate choice for Americans, but that is simply not the case, considering that Medicare for All erases networks, removing the barrier of limited choice, allowing everyone to choose where they want to go, who they want to go to, etc. Expanding Medicare to cover every single citizen in the United States, while also making sure they can choose who and where they go, is very important to the health and safety of people in the US, as they are not restricted by things like networks and co-pays, which could be a matter of life or death for some. When Americans are able to access more care and are able to access those points of care without the worry of financial burden, or wondering things like is this hospital in-network? or will I get a hefty hospital bill just for trying to get a check-up? It can be metamorphic for millions of Americans. Considering the fact that this would be going on, on top of expanding care to every single person in the United States, means that Medicare for All would not only be a fiscally expedient option but also a moral option. However, some say that even with this, there could still be financial issues down the road.

Everything mentioned before now still might not mean that Medicare for All is 100 percent perfect. While multiple studies show that a Medicare for All system would save money overall, there are other studies that suggest that lower to middle-income families could feel burdened by the major cost of the healthcare system.

“[Commonly, Medicare for All bills propose] a wealth tax, a bank levy, and premiums paid by employers and employees. But that only raises about half of what is needed, meaning that payroll taxes and income tax increases would necessarily have to be part of the plan” (“Reviewing The Research: Medicare For All Comes With Many Costs (Both Known And Unknown).”).

Medicare for All does have a good amount of costs — everyone agrees on that. However, what those who are concerned about a Medicare for All single-payer system bring up is that even with taxes on the rich, and other premiums inflicted on corporations, it would only cover a half portion of the costs and that the rest would have to go to the average taxpayer, increasing their taxes. Middle and lower-income families could feel the potential tax increases that come with a Medicare for All system. Even with certain administrative savings and other points of income, those against the system show that those might not entirely cover the costs associated, and as such, the rest would have to be transferred to the taxpayer. These concerns are much valid and do raise good points when it comes to this aspect of funding a Medicare for All system. However, these concerns often leave out important fundraising techniques and primarily focus on taxes and administrative costs, not other sources that would help keep the system financially healthy. There are multiple ways that Medicare for All could be funded, and combining a variety of these resources will make it so not only will our country be able to afford a single-payer Medicare for All system, but also give lower and middle-income class families much-needed tax savings.

The Political Economy Research Institute supports the claim that Medicare for All saves money, as well as utilizing different sources of funding, including “the same public health care revenue sources that presently provide about 60 percent of all U.S. health care financing, including funding for Medicare and Medicaid. Existing public sources of funds will provide $1.88 trillion to finance Medicare for All. Given our estimate that the overall costs of Medicare for All will be $2.93 trillion, the system, therefore, needs to raise an additional $1.05 trillion from new revenue sources” (Pollin). These new revenue sources would include things such as “[cutting] business health care premiums by 8 percent relative to existing spending per worker, [which would generate] $623 billion, a 3.75 percent sales tax on non-necessities, [which would generate] $196 billion, a net worth tax of 0.38 percent, [which would generate] $193 billion, and taxing long-term capital gains as ordinary income, [which would generate] $69 billion” (Pollin). With all these resources in mind, “Medicare for All can promote both lower average costs and greater equity in financing health care. For example,…for middle-income families, the net costs of health care will fall sharply under Medicare for All, by between 2.6 and 14.0 percent of income” (Pollin).

Taxing corporations, as well the very wealthy, isn’t enough to fund a Medicare for All system. However, with all of the revenue sources that could easily be utilized, the funding issue could very well be solved. On top of all this, because the funding issue would be solved, and even exceeding the potentially needed costs, lower to middle-income families’ taxes would go down, saving them money. There are a large number of ways Medicare for All can be funded, and when they are used cooperatively and efficiently, it will not only cover the costs that would be pushed by Medicare for All but save money for the people that need the money the most. Medicare for All, using the right methods and a mixture of different funding sources, will help our economy in a way that not just works for the government and businesses, but also for the middle-income taxpayer, on top of the potentially life-saving benefits everyone receives from the expanded range of care and coverage.

Another reason Medicare for All would be beneficial for everyone in the country is that compared to our current system, we would save thousands of lives every year. With Medicare for All, we would not only expand coverage but also make sure everybody is covered, which would lead to great relief for middle-income families.

We would be able to “save more than 68,000 lives every year compared with the status quo” (Galvani). Compared to now, where “10.4% (27.9 million) of the nonelderly US population remains uninsured” (Cai), including even more underinsured under the current status quo, leaves people in the dark, and with little choice, meaning worse outcomes for the population’s health.

Medicare for All would allow everyone to be covered, as well as expanding what is covered (as previously mentioned), meaning that people would be able to get the care they need in much more efficient time. Allowing people to get the care they need that they weren’t able to before, whether because they weren’t covered, or the care they needed wasn’t covered under our current system, is not only beneficial for Americans but can also be life-saving for many as well. 60 percent of these deaths could easily be prevented, according to the CDC.

Because of the areas of care that Medicare for All expands to and improves, as well as coverage, Medicare for All would allow “treatment of health problems before they become life threatening. It would also improve access to treatment for chronic conditions, which would reduce life-threatening complications of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and other common disease” (“Medicare-for-All Saves Lives”).

Right now, our system does not amply allow for providing proper care to our citizens when they need it most. The unfortunate truth is that right now, thousands of people die and get sick every year in this country because of the limited access to care, and for some, if any. Allowing people to get treatment, care, and checkups that they need, especially with the health problems that are common today, can not only save lives but also improve the health of the overall population. Utilizing a Medicare for All system, and working hard to ensure everybody has coverage, is shown to not just have economical benefits overtime, but the biggest benefits being with our population’s health, and people not needing to do things like rationing their insulin, or prolonging their wait for urgent medical care.

In the United States, we need change to our current healthcare system. In our country, we could expand coverage to every single American, while also expanding what is covered to them, and saving thousands of more lives. We could do all this while preserving billions of dollars, and relieving working-class families of unnecessary healthcare tax costs. Even with the changes our current healthcare system brought, it unfortunately still leaves millions in the dark, including those who are fully insured, with unnecessary premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. Eliminating these tedious costs, as well as getting rid of the limiting restrictions of networks, giving people more choice, is an important part of a single-payer Medicare for All system, and is something that our government and politicians should fight for to help out our people, especially those in need.