Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 15 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Neal's Hard Health Choices and the Medicare Pay-For Myth

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     (# of views)   1 comment
Author 13208
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Robert Weiner
Become a Fan
  (5 fans)
- Advertisement -

Article originally published in LaborPress

By Robert Weiner and Ben Lasky

Workers and unions have always understood that they will be the ones paying for healthcare for families if the government does not. Right now it's a mess where the USA pays twice the cost of other civilized countries. Health costs are the #1 reason for private bankruptcies.

Two approaches for improvement are that Congress can fix Obamacare by paying for the exchanges, or, as some have advocated, they can embrace Medicare for All.

- Advertisement -

The Trump administration announced a court challenge that would get rid of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), trying a legal route after failing in Congress more than 60 times. This action lays out a clear campaign battle line on the issue while offering no alternative for immediate replacement. The unions or workers' own pockets will have to pick up the mess for their members if health care coverage is drastically reduced.

Richard Neal (D-Springfield), the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is in the news for requesting that the IRS provide his committee with Trump's tax returns. But he also has a tough decision to make on healthcare. Half of the Democratic Caucus are pushing for Medicare for All, while those who oppose it as well as Republicans are asking where the government is going to get the money from. Some from both parties seek to repair Obamacare by funding the exchanges. Almost all are seeking cheaper drug prices.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Seattle), replaced Rep John Conyers (D-Detroit) as prime sponsor of the Medicare for All bill, providing free healthcare, matching most other countries. Conyers' bill was co-sponsored by a majority of House Democrats in the last Congress, and Jayapal this Congress has a near-majority of 107. Health care goes through Neal's committee.

- Advertisement -

"Medicare is not as good a health benefit as the Affordable Care Act. So, if you are to do Medicare-for-all you have to improve the package and when you improve the package, you have to have more money," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 4.

"Is this a bold and ambitious plan? It has to be," Jayapal, co-chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus, said when introducing the bill.

Critics of the bill all have the same question: "How will we pay for it?" There is a concrete answer. Jayapal suggested reversing the Trump tax breaks for the rich and continuing the Medicare formula of contributions from employers as ways to fund the bill.

However, rarely does anyone ask how we pay for government programs that are ingrained in American society. Do we ask how we're going to pay for police and the fire department? Or trash pickup? Public education? Libraries? Does anyone ask how to pay for the military? Those have no "pay for". That's what taxes are for.

As The Washington Post's Paul Waldman wrote, "The questions about the cost of Medicare-for-All seem to come from a bizarre alternate universe where we aren't spending anything now on health care, and we're going to have to come up with a shocking amount of new money to fund this crazy idea of giving everyone coverage."

The chair of the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, John Larson (D-Hartford, CT), told us that he's "proud" to be a sponsor of Jayapal's bill and that in fact "it's revenue neutral:" Estimates have universal healthcare costing $14 trillion to $32 trillion per decade meaning 1-3 trillion a year. Under the current system, Americans are expected to spend $50 trillion on healthcare over the next decade. Even the lesser step of Obamacare the existing Affordable Care Act has already reduced the rates of increase, a fact not mentioned by critics

- Advertisement -

There are many other ways to pay for everyone in the U.S. to have healthcare. Since Trump wants to pull the U.S. military out of Afghanistan, the government can use the trillion for that war to pay for it

Neal supports "Medicare for All" but says the approach musty be "incremental". That could still satisfy the objective of coverage for all. Here's how:

Medicare for All" has to be an option, where if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. Larson agreed. Under the "option" plan, the country's "pay for" total drops drastically.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Robert Weiner Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Robert Weiner, NATIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND ISSUES STRATEGIST Bob Weiner, a national issues and public affairs strategist, has been spokesman for and directed the public affairs offices of White House Drug Czar and Four Star General Barry (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Do Conservatives Vote Against Their Own Interest?

Jeb Bush's Elephant in the Room: Role in Bush v. Gore Recount

Mueller's End Game: Maybe As Soon As Trump Wants, But Not How He'd Like

Food Stamp Myth Busting

Bad money vs. bad money -- how Denver ballot measure could be blueprint for getting money out of politics

Iran: Nuclear Weapons or Peaceful Energy?


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments

molly cruz

Become a Fan
Author 7804

(Member since Sep 16, 2007), 14 fans, 17 articles, 576 quicklinks, 2706 comments, 14 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit

  New Content

A recent experience has led me to believe that a huge part of our healthcare problems lies with private, for profit hospitals with investors to impress. Hospitals profit when people are sick for a long time. They stretched what could have been an hour's visit for me to two days in hospital and almost forty thousand dollars in expenses, including two ct scans that cost $18,000 together.

Others I have spoken with say the same thing happened to them at this hospital. They are in business, and they're making millions from the elderly, which I am. They didn't know that I'm a science teacher with a good hold on biology. They did it by ignoring virtually everything I said. It's been four years and I'm still furious. This should change.IT'S HOSPITALS THAT ARE SOAKING THE SYSTEM.

Submitted on Monday, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:34:26 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment