According to the World Health Organization’s Constitution, it says, “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
The United States has just above 10 percent of its citizens uninsured.
That may not seem like many people, but that’s over 32 million Americans without health coverage. 32 million Americans walk around sick, dying and unable to seek medical attention when they need it due to the inability to afford it.
For those insured, a large percentage comes from an employer. Nearly half of all insured Americans receive their health coverage from an employer.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate as of November 2020 is 6.9 percent.
The disadvantages of this system far outweigh the benefits.
The first and most important disadvantage is health coverage does not cover all Americans. Health coverage only reaches those who can afford it.
Second and also extremely important — you have to constantly shop for insurance, or you can never leave your employer at the risk of losing your coverage.
The majority of people, at some point, will change jobs, move states, or lose coverage. If they don’t lose their job, they might be stuck in a job simply for their coverage.
The case for Medicare-For-All (M4A) is not only a case for quality healthcare but a building block on how to make the country work for everyone and let innovation thrive.
According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, Section 1, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
That phrase “Everyone has the right to… medical care and necessary social services” seems pretty intentional to express the necessity for healthcare, but the United States doesn’t seem to see it this way.
If the U.S. had a healthcare program similar to that of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden — you get the point — we could cultivate innovation, stimulate the economy and help save the lives of millions of Americans each year.
Let’s take a look at the Canadian healthcare system and the pros and cons with it:
Pro: The most obvious pro here is simply everyone has healthcare. When a child is born, they receive a medical card similar to that of a birth certificate or Social Security card. With that, they will always have access to healthcare in the Canadian province in which they reside.
Con: There can be wait times. However, this is typically exaggerated in the United States as a case against universal care. Wait times for emergencies are almost non-existent. Wait times for non-emergencies can be up to 20 weeks. However, the average is around four-to-six weeks. This is comparable to the United States, where the average wait time for non-emergency care is roughly six weeks.
Pro: There are education programs for the general public about certain health issues. This is fully funded by the Canadian government, which helps the public understand what is worthy of a doctor visit or simply an at-home treatment.
Fake con?: Taxes. There is no such thing as “free” healthcare. Healthcare is funded by the taxes paid to the government. But is it so bad it’s crushing the average citizen? No.
The United States’ tax brackets run between 10 percent to 37 percent. In Canada, it’s 15 percent to 33 percent. Without a portion of the taxes being paid to medical services, Americans are forced to either pay out-of-pocket for health insurance or go without.
Americans pay for health coverage outside of their typical taxes. Canadians pay on average $7,000 a year for health coverage. Americans, however, spend almost $11,000 a year on coverage.
A common misconception about the Canadian system is there are no private insurers. There is private insurance and many Canadians use private insurance for specialized procedures and specialized treatments.
The main difference between the systems is in Canada, everyone is covered.
Also in Canada, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” model.
According to the Commonwealth Fund, “Canada has a decentralized, universal, publicly funded health system called Canadian Medicare. Health care is funded and administered primarily by the country’s 13 provinces and territories. Each has its own insurance plan, and each receives cash assistance from the federal government on a per-capita basis.”
So back to the M4A proposal:
Similar to the Canadian structure, everyone is covered.
A popular argument against M4A is that the United States has too many people to cover equally. The reason M4A works in other countries is simply that those other countries have a smaller population. M4A should not be a “one-size-fits-all” model. One major argument against a public plan such as M4A is someone in New York has different medical needs than someone in Nebraska.
Agreed.
This is why I propose a system similar to that of Canada, where each plan is funded by territories and structured by the states in those territories. (Territories are defined as “Mid-West, Northeast, Southwest, etc.”
I propose the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee have a centralized plan.
This would allow those states to work together to find the best healthcare plan for their citizens.
States such as California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico would have their own specialized plan. This plan would be funded by those states with help from the Federal Government, with the wealthier/more populated states carrying a larger portion of the costs due to their larger population and financial ability.
Or each state has its own plan run by the state government that a person is automatically enrolled in as a child. States would get funding from the Federal Government and if a person moves across state lines, the individual would be able to transfer insurance plans.
Private insurance will still be available for specialized treatments, but the necessary treatments and everyday healthcare needs will be covered under these Medicare plans.
Taking from the Bernie Sanders M4A plan, prescription drug costs would be capped at $200/year.
The majority of Doctors support the M4A plan, as a recent survey done by Merritt-Hawkins shows that nearly 56 percent of physicians support a single-payer system.
In an interview with Vox with multiple doctors and surgeons, a radiation oncologist with more than 20 years of experience said of M4A:
While reimbursement under a single payer plan most likely would be less, so would the headaches and administrative hassles and costs. And I would be able to see far more patients instead of being on the phone fighting with a case manager, while my office and malpractice coverage costs would be far less.
Discussing cost, this would save Americans and the government billions each year. According to 22 studies done by multiple organizations, total savings came to a median of 12.1 percent. Even a “right-wing” think tank, Mercatus Center found M4A could save roughly $2 trillion over 10 years.
What could we do with $2 trillion in savings? We could combat climate change, provide aid to the student debt crisis and much more.
These plans would be funded through some taxes, like discussed with the Canadian plan, closing loopholes for larger corporations such as Amazon to force them to pay taxes that will boost the economy and plans such as this M4A plan and repealing the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax cuts that took $1.9 trillion out of the economy.
As for the quality of care, the current system is one of the worst in the world. According to a study in the American Journal of Managed Care and the Commonwealth Fund, “the United States ranks last overall among 11 industrialized countries on measures of health system quality, efficiency, access to care, equity, and healthy lives.”
The quality of care will rise under a M4A system. In an opinion from USA Today, pediatrician Donald Berwick says, “Done right, it would lower costs, a lot, while letting us leverage health care dollars to respond to public health crises like the opioid epidemic, invest in disease prevention and modernize care delivery with telemedicine.”
The current system disincentivizes Americans from leaving their jobs to start a business, or simply find a new, more interesting job. This rids the system of innovation and creativity and simply throws Americans into the 9–5’s they will never be able to leave.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the United States implemented a M4A plan, it would boost wages, support self-employment and small businesses, “inject new dynamism and adaptability into the overall economy,” and more.
If employers didn’t have to fund healthcare, they would have more money to provide to their employees.
More Americans would be willing to innovate and grow the economy if they weren’t stuck in a job for their healthcare.
There is an argument pertaining to the job losses of those in the private insurance industry. In the plan proposed above, not all private insurance workers would be laid-off. What’s more, this isn’t the first time a major sector of the workforce was overhauled. In the 1840s, nearly 70 percent of the workforce was in agriculture. Today, approximately only two percent.
It is possible for Americans to adapt to times.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are roughly 6.4 million unfilled jobs in America. The 1.7 million workers being displaced in the private insurance industry would be able to find employment elsewhere quite quickly, and wouldn’t have to worry about their health insurance in the process. And many of the displaced workers from billing and administration would be able to find new jobs in the expanding healthcare industry.
The emotional argument is simple: We are the richest country in the history of the world. We should be able to provide basic healthcare to our citizens. Countries with less population provide healthcare to every citizen, we have no excuse.
Healthcare is essential to have a good quality of life.
The Maslow Hierarchy of Needs sets Safety, Security, Rest, Warmth and others as the basic necessities of life. We need safety and security in our medical care. Without that, we will continue to struggle in our day-to-day lives.
Medicare For All would create security and protection in our healthcare system. And Americans deserve a little peace-of-mind in their health.
Enjoy this article? Like and share it with your friends to let me know. Follow for more like this.
