A new study by Yale scholars says that “Medicare for All” (universal health care) would save Americans more than $450 billion and prevent 68,000 deaths every year.
However, evangelical pro-life groups regularly oppose universal healthcare by claiming it is “socialism.”
The study in The Lancet also says that “Medicare for All” would save more money than “Medicare for All Who Want It, “ a private insurance -public option model supported by Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg.
The lead author of the new Lancet study Alison Galvani — director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale’s School of Public Health — told Democracy Now about the study results:
Well, we found that Medicare for All would save over $450 billion compared to what the country is paying now. So, right now the U.S. is paying more than any other country for healthcare, yet we don’t even rank in the top 34, some key public health measures, including infant mortality and overall life expectancy.
And at the same time, there’s over 80 million people without adequate health insurance, so either without any health insurance or without health insurance that they can afford.
And the Medicare for All Act identifies a number of ways in which it’s going to save the country money. So, firstly, what people pay right now for hospital services doesn’t correlate with their outcomes, their clinical outcomes, and it varies widely. So, by applying Medicare rates to the entire country, that will save us $100 billion right there.
Another important point is that Medicare for All will minimize paperwork and will streamline administration and billing. So, currently, Medicare has an overhead of 2.2%, whereas private insurance, it’s over 12%. So, applying Medicare overhead to the entire country will save us $200 billion.
…So, while I just analyzed in detail Medicare for All, if we strip away the savings identified in Medicare for All and expanded healthcare through the Medicare for All Who Want It plan, we’d still have all these private entities, and we’d be continuing the inefficiencies that makes our healthcare system so expensive.
So, on the one hand, I would support the offering healthcare to everyone in the country. That’s paramount. On the other hand, Medicare for All Who Want It, it sounds good, but it’s a very expensive way to achieve it, rather than the single-payer plan that’s being proposed in the Medicare for All Act.
(Source: Democracy Now)