There is one advantage to Medicare-for-all; everyone is covered. Beyond that politicians and proponents don’t tell Americans the truth about costs, restrictions, or government involvement directly affecting the health care they can receive. None of that may matter to some people, but let’s be fair and give the full story.
Once you turn 65 in England you pay nothing for your health care, no taxes, no premiums. On the other hand by American standards, you have paid dearly in taxes all your working life. The average worker pays 12% of pay with the employer paying an additional 14.38% toward NHS and government pension. That’s a total of over 26% of pay compared with the US total of 15.3% on limited earnings. (UK income taxes can exceed 50% of earnings)
Working Americans pay a mere 1.45% of pay toward Medicare which is actually insufficient, even with the employer match, to keep the hospital insurance trust solvent. The rest of the cost of Medicare is paid by general tax revenue, part of the income tax paid on Social Security benefits and Part B and D premiums which for the majority of seniors, is only 25% of the cost of Parts B and D. And yet all this is not sufficient to keep Medicare going, not to mention the cost of supplemental coverage most seniors think they need to protect them from out-of-pocket costs, even minor ones.
When there is a low or no COLA on Social Security benefits most seniors are further, albeit temporarily, protected from higher premiums … and they scream when they are required to pay premium catch-up.
One thing is clear: Many Social Security recipients will receive little if any boost in their benefits next year. And while most of these folks have been shielded by the hold-harmless rule from paying the full Part B premiums in recent years, I don’t expect any of them to send thanks for this to the folks at Social Security and Medicare who came up with this system for determining Medicare premiums. Source: PBS. Newshour
Just imagine what it woukd cost to use the UK model or as Sanders calls it, Medicare-for-all, in the US while keeping all aspects the health care delivery system the majority Americans enjoy and expect?
There as certain disadvantageous side effects to the government’s participation in the healthcare system. Their active role in healthcare weakens the functionality of market mechanisms. In addition, the tight control undertaken in regards to medical expenses has resulted in a lack of medical resources, such as equipment, doctors and nurses in public hospitals. Finally, with free medical services provided to all citizens, the public tend to make extensive and even excessive use of these medical services. As such, it is common to encounter long lines in public hospitals.
The US does hold certain advantages over UK when it comes to the private healthcare sector. For instance, the US rates 40% higher than the UK in percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis. The US also ranks higher in percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months. The number of US patients who received timely treatment for diabetes was more than 6 times that of the UK, and twice that of Canada. Similarly, the percentage of US seniors who received hip replacements within 6 months of diagnosis of need is more than 6 times that of UK and twice that of Canada. Finally, the percentage of seniors (Age 65+) with low-income who say they are in “excellent health” in US was far and away greater than that of any other nation. Source: The UK Health Care System Josh Chang, Felix Peysakhovich, Weimin Wang, Jin Zhu,Columbia.edu
Just tell Americans the truth about health care‼️