By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Health insurance premiums are expected to experience a significant surge, potentially the largest in years, attributed to factors such as Republican actions and trade war threats. According to reports, costs could rise substantially without congressional intervention to renew enhanced subsidies. In response, advocates of Medicare for All are urging Americans to consider this alternative as a cost-saving measure, citing potential savings in both finances and lives. They emphasize that a universal healthcare system could eliminate the need for private insurance and its associated costs.
Read the original article here
With Premiums Set to Rise, a Reminder: ‘Medicare for All Would Save $650 Billion’ Annually
The conversation often circles back to the same point, a stark reminder in the face of ever-increasing health insurance premiums: Medicare for All could save the United States a staggering $650 billion annually. This figure isn’t just a statistic; it’s a potential transformation of the healthcare landscape, a shift away from the current system that has many feeling trapped. It’s a periodic reminder that health insurance itself might not be healthcare at all.
The very nature of the current system is called into question by many who are watching premiums continue to rise. It’s seen by some as an unnecessary middleman, a barrier designed to restrict access to healthcare while simultaneously exploiting individuals for profit. This perspective isn’t about a lack of sympathy for the insurance companies. It’s a stark recognition of a system that prioritizes profits over the well-being of its citizens. For many, the current situation demands a fundamental shift in how healthcare is approached in the United States.
One can easily see how the costs of healthcare become bloated. When insurance premiums go up, it seems like a good time to remember the potential savings. A significant amount of money goes to administrative overhead. The entire system is often said to be an intricate web of billing and cost negotiations. The core of it all is to maximize profit for the insurance companies. Medicare for All seeks to dismantle this system.
The idea of shared responsibility for healthcare resonates strongly with the foundational principle of sharing the costs of illness. It’s a concept that transcends political lines. The US healthcare system is broken. It’s a system where insurance companies can profit from denial of care. It’s a system where it can be more profitable for insurance companies to let people die than to fix them. The promise of Medicare for All is the opposite, but the obstacles seem insurmountable.
The American healthcare system is a complex, often frustrating landscape, a web of insurance, paperwork, and costs. For many Americans, healthcare is a source of stress and financial instability. It’s a system that is designed to make the profits of a very few, at the expense of the many. It’s a system that leaves many feeling vulnerable, fearing the financial consequences of illness or injury. The concept of shared responsibility for healthcare is at its core.
While healthcare is not “free” in any system, the current one is far from efficient. It’s not simply about the price of care; it’s about the entire structure, the constant administrative burden, and the lack of control over costs that people have. The current system’s design makes it difficult for patients and providers to navigate the system with transparency.
A key point is the role of insurance companies as middlemen. They are necessary to the current system. They are not necessary to the delivery of healthcare. By eliminating the profit motive of private insurance, and instead focusing on shared responsibility for healthcare costs, the system could be more efficient. This could lead to savings that could be funneled back into the system to lower costs.
The discussion touches on the political realities of implementing such a system. The lobbying efforts of insurance companies and their vested interest in maintaining the status quo are powerful. But, Americans already have a single-payer system for Medicare and the military. And it’s working. Why is it so hard to expand it? The answer often lies in the financial interests of those who benefit from the current system.
For those on the right, there are those who somehow believe that healthcare is not a fundamental human right because “nothing is, or should be, free.” This perspective often clashes with the reality of rising costs. It overlooks the financial strains that the current system places on individuals and families. It ignores the inefficiency of a system where the focus is on profit rather than on providing care.
It’s not just about the money; it’s about the quality of care. The current system leaves many feeling that it is more profitable for insurance companies to let people die than to fix them. The proposed savings from Medicare for All would almost pay for the cost to taxpayers to refurbish a luxury plane. The irony is inescapable. If we spend more money on healthcare, we will inevitably get better care.
The current system is also about bureaucracy and paperwork. From the perspective of someone in need of care, the administrative burden is a constant source of annoyance. The irony is, that for a large part of the population, there is already a single-payer system in place: Medicare for those 65 and over, and the military. It’s easier to make a profit on everyone else, and the insurance companies will do what it takes to keep the profits flowing.
The suggestion of a transition plan, such as gradually lowering the age of Medicare eligibility and allowing for voluntary supplemental plans, offers a potential pathway. But, the core problem is the control big industry has. It is in the fabric. The profit motive of private insurance, has proven to be an inefficient system. The problem is not the quality of care. It’s where the money goes.
The ultimate question is: Why isn’t healthcare a right? If we make the cost of healthcare a community expense, instead of a profit source, the outcome could drastically change. By simply cutting out the middlemen and their profit margins, billions of dollars would be saved annually. The difference could mean an improvement in the delivery of healthcare.
The current system is not sustainable. The promise is not being met. The system is designed to enrich a select few. We need to examine a different model. We can compare the healthcare experience to other countries to help us understand the failures of the United States system. There are many choices.
The system is designed to extract as much wealth as possible from the American population. The result is a healthcare system that isn’t working. One has to ask if we need to choose between an industry’s profits and the right to live. The result is that many people feel they are not receiving the care that they deserve.
Mental health is also a critical aspect of this discussion. Our healthcare model has failed to care for the mental health needs of millions. What it does not do is deliver results.
The “vote blue, no matter who” approach has failed, and a different perspective on this is critical. The system has failed its citizens. Voters need to make healthcare a primary concern when evaluating candidates. Voters can choose a healthcare plan that will put the people first.