What do you believe would be the consequences – both good and potentially bad – of a national Medicare For All government run healthcare system in the US?

Before I start, my personal view is somewhere in the middle in that the thought of government having absolute power over healthcare is a concern for the Libertarian in me, but on the other side the coin the cost of private health insurance is so astronomical for a family of four that it is unaffordable for many families who do not have employer provided coverage. Personally I would prefer more of a rational/hybrid system in which there were universal coverage for serious and very expensive illnesses like cancer and a private market for everything else. Do we really need health insurance when one has a cold or the flu? But I digress.

First let’s acknowledge the conditions that would make MFA possible: Democrats taking the Presidency, holding the House and winning the Senate. Even if you don’t believe that today’s Democrat favors some form of open borders you would have to assume there would be a push to immediately legalize virtually everyone who is here illegally as well as have a much more open immigration system, which would then exponentially increase the number of people in MFA. I’m assuming those costs have not been factored in? Also what is the Democrats answer to the tens of thousands of people coming here illegally or seeking Asylum? The bottom line is that how immigration is dealt with is going to have an impact on MFA.

Outside of my time in the military I have not lived in another country, and as such I personally do not have any first hand knowledge on how the healthcare systems in other countries function. I read/heard different stories about outdated equipment and long wait times, inept doctors, etc., but I am not going to debate how widespread that is. Nonetheless, I would assume that there is no utopian system that provides high quality care, with no wait periods and is very inexpensive. The bottom line is that such a substantial change in our system is going affect things in various ways, some potentially good, some potentially not so good. There are always unintended negative consequences. Does anyone honestly think there won’t be? So what do you think will be some of the possible consequences? Will everything improve and get less expensive? Or will there be some negative consequences?

Here are some aspects of Universal Health care in other countries to consider that we don’t always hear about:

1. Most universal health care systems are not highly centralized
2. Most universal coverage systems offer narrow benefit packages and incorporate cost-sharing for patients,
3. Private health insurance plays a major role in most developed countries with universal coverage, and
4. Countries with universal coverage have strict immigration policies to control health care expenditures.

“…the majority of universal health care systems in the developed world are considerably less “universal” when covering immigrants, who are mostly excluded . Some countries, like the U.K., insist new arrivals pay into their national system prior to obtaining health coverage. In Denmark, undocumented immigrants and visitors are covered through a voluntary, privately funded initiative by Danish doctors, the Danish Red Cross, and Danish Refugee Aid, who provide access to care.

Newcomers to Canada face an uphill battle when applying for health care coverage. In a nutshell, emergency medical services for immigrants are free, but access to basic medical care services is restricted and if necessary, might require out-of-pocket payment for most treatments or insurance. Those wishing to settle in Canada must pass a thorough “health screening” prior to being eligible for “universal” health care coverage. If the government cannot confirm that the cost of a pre-existing condition will not exceed $20,000 in annual expenditures, then health care coverage will be denied permanently .” (emphasis mine)

I personally think that there should be a public option Medicare buy in for those who would want it.

Start there.

I think that that is achievable.


I agree. “Buy” being the key for me.

What about getting out?

How do you structure a buy-in for a program where current participants have paid in for decades before receiving the benefit?

From what I have read, it would be based on percentage of income on top of the payroll tax… adjusted for income level of course

The intent is to get universal or near universal coverage on medical insurance and lower costs.

The complaint about people paying into it all their working life for their benefits now will become moot in a few decades.

1 Like

No. We do it with flat rates. You’re not fully vested until you meet the mark for your age. So at age 30 it costs $50k. If I have the $50k I pay it and I’m in.

If not, I pay in $1,000 a year it would take me 50 years, but wait! It goes down ever year.

Y’all need to get over this idea of penalizing financial success.

That Bill would never pass.

So there is that.

Why not?

Because it won’t.

A progressive rate isn’t penalizing the wealthy.

Why not.

Of course it is.

The idea of becoming “fully vested” would never fly. Either you have it or you don’t

A progressive form of payment doesn’t penalize the wealthy anymore than a progressive income tax does.

Both do.

I like the idea of universal coverage for serious illnesses like cancer. I think that is rational compassionate and something most Americans can get on board with. I would also not provide coverage for minor illnesses like for a cold, a rash, etc. Private market fee for service would be more rational.

Michael Moore’s favorite doctors would remain in Cuba

I could see that about cancer. but as far as colds and such… minor things can turn into major things and it is cheaper to treat them before it becomes life threatening.

You can’t treat a cold, it’s viral. You can only treat the symptoms.

1 Like