Medicare For All is one of the most talked about ideas in this campaign. Not necessarily because Democrats are in, or even will be, in a position to pass such a bill, but because guaranteeing health care for everyone has become one the main platforms of the Democratic Party, and a Medicare For All approach looks to many to perfectly show how set they are in giving everyone healthcare.
The news made headlines again with Sanders' Medicare For All bill being reviewed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University by Senior Research Strategist Charles Blahous, which has been funded by the Koch Brothers, has shown the Sanders bill would mean "a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending."
I would like to mention that FactCheck.org put together an article concluding that saying the Blahous study states there would be a $2 trillion drop in healthcare spending is misleading, given that the author states that costs would be higher than Sanders estimates, and so canceling out, or even going over the $2 trillion in saving.
For Medicare For All fans there is still hope that it would be cheaper, for one thing, "Sanders' spokesman, Miller-Lewis, argues that the initial assumptions used in the report — the ones based on Sanders' Medicare for All Act — are legitimate. 'The buying power associated with a system that represents all Americans would allow the government to negotiate significant savings in payments to health care providers, as well as on drug prices' Miller-Lewis said."
Also two health policy experts, David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, analyzed the report, arguing "that Blahous's report undercounts administrative savings by more than $8.3 trillion over 10 years. Taking those savings into account would lower Blahous's estimate from $32.6 trillion to $24.3 trillion. Additionally, the policy experts believe that Blahous underestimates savings from drug prices; for example, ignoring the success the U.S. Veterans Administration, the Canadian government, and certain European governments have had in negotiating for lower drug prices. If the United States paid European prices, they conclude, another $1.7 trillion would be trimmed from Blahous's total cost estimate, bringing it down to $22.6 trillion over 10 years."
This analysis proposes over $10 trillion in savings. But at the end of the day is money the most important thing to be looking at here? What is being talked about here is people's health, their ability to live their lives. Even at a time when we seem as divided as we could be, can we not still come together to fight against illness, and disease? The numbers are important, but the consequences, the human lives at stake, are what is important. Medicare For All, or any kind of health care, is not an accounting issue, it is a moral issue.
