HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT?
ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS FOR SINGLE PAYER
- “Economists in Support of a Medicare for All Health Care System: An Open Letter to the Congress and People of the United States”, 209 economists write to Congress supporting M4A. Read more..
- “Projected costs of single payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses.” A meta-analysis of 22 in-depth studies of the economic impact of Medicare for All, published in Public Library of Science|Medicine (PLOS), finds that 20 of 22 studies support M4A, January 2020. Read more..
- “Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA.” A study from Yale in Lancet, Feb 2020, demonstrates how Medicare for All alleviates the current crisis in U.S. health care. Read more..
- “Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves More and Cares for All of Us.” A study by the ultra-conservative Koch Brothers’ Think Tank, the Mercatus Center, was intended to make the case against Medicare for All, but revealed instead that the reform could save Americans trillions of dollars compared to business as usual. Read more.. Also , the full text of original study for the Mercatus Center by Charles Blahous
- “The U.S. Spends $2,500 Per Person on Health Care Administrative Costs. Canada Spends $550. Here’s Why.” Time Magazine (Jan2020)
- “Economists conclude that Medicare for All (M4A) could be considerably less expensive than the current healthcare finance system.” — an open letter from 20 leading economists re-affirms the economic benefit of Medicare for All. Report from the Hopbrook Institute, Amherst MA. Read more..
- “Bernie Sanders’ Plans May Be Expensive but Inaction Would Cost Much More.” In the Guardian Feb 2020 issue, Robert Reich–an economist,professor, author, served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, and member of President Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board–reminds us how much more our current practices cost now and how they continue to rise at a rate many times the rate of inflation.
- Both economic and health outcome arguments for Medicare for All, especially in the context of a pandemic from Alan Meyers, a founding member of PNHP, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at BU Medical School. Pdf of a PowerPoint (149 slides) and notes page.
- Read the report of 2019 poll of Oregon voters commissioned by retired businessman (and political conservative) Warren George, showing voters remained in favor of a tax-supported single payer system even after the financial requirements were explained.Find the report and its background: https://variedstrengths.com/
- Savings available from reduced administration are discussed and illustrated in “Healthcare Claims Processing” (June 2019), by Henry Broeska, a Canadian scientist who is now residing in California.He compares claims processing in the two countries and provides flowcharts in his article for the US and Canada, respectively, to tell the story.
- “Financing single-payer national health insurance: Myths and facts” (from PNHP)
- Handout: “How Will Single Payer/Medicare for All Be Paid For?”
- How_Will_SP-M4A_be_paid-for.pdf
- How_Will_SP-M4A_be_paid-for.doc
- From Healthcare-NOW: “Medicare for All Mythbusters” (a compelling 2024 look at how the stories about why M4A is too expensive are inaccurate) pdf (4MB), ppt (13MB)
Is Vermont a demonstration of State-based Single Payer plans?
NO.
It is easy to see how people can get this idea: it is practically all that comes up when you google “Single-Payer in Vermont.” It is however FALSE. In fact, there are three evidence-based reasons why VERMONT is NOT an example of single-payer’s failure:
- The VT bill (202/48) was never implemented, so it can’t have been an “operational failure,” although clearly a political failure.
- It was not a single-payer bill. (It was more like a “public option.”)
- Despite Gov. Shumlin’s conclusion, further studies show it would have saved money while covering more people–but less dramatically than the original estimates (and less than a true single-payer system).
Why is Medicare for ALL health care reform so important?
The Life and Death Impact of Differing State-level Policies
Paul Starr of the American Prospect (12/2023) shows shocking differences in the effects of policies concerning public health, taxes, the stinginess or generosity of public benefits, …gun safety, and many other things that affect the well-being of those living under those policies.
His data come from a “national experiment” conducted since the 1980s when more powers have flowed to the states to decide how tax money will be spent. The experiment allows us to see whether reforms (like Medicare for All) are likely to lead to better (or worse) outcomes in life expectancy and other measures of quality of life than are programs based on a more restricted role for government. According to the studies reported by Starr, it is as if the country set out to test this question: “What would be the effect on Americans’ well-being if we turned over a wider array of policies to states controlled by [leadership] with opposed agendas?” In other words, do we have evidence that progressive reforms are futile–or effective?
This graph gives a hint of divergences noted between states with “opposing agendas.”
