The flawed M4A debate

[fridi]

The media is badly botching the Medicare For All debate, WaPo writes

We've just been through a week in which two Democratic billionaires declared that Medicare for All was unaffordible, it would bankrupt the US economy.

I would think billionaires can think more clearly than this, but obviously these two can't. The question is not how much M4A would cost, the question is how much it would cost compared to doing what is being done now.

Right now, the answer appears to be about 60% of the cost of what is being done now. Don't people get rich taking advantage of cost savings of that magnitude?

As a former Obama official explained it - it's not that it would cost more; it's that the money would come out of different pots than people are used to.

But yeah, after all, Medicare for all takes away shareholder profits.

Comments

[mahnmut]

The ACA is better than what went before. But it's based on requiring everyone to pay private insurance companies, companies that have proven they can no longer offer a reasonable product for a reasonable price. That's buggy whip territory and it's time for a change.