Almost every sentence in Trump's USA Today op-ed attacking Medicare for All contained a misleading statement or falsehood. Let's set the record straight.
Thread.
Thread.
Medicare for All would not “end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for all their lives.” It's called Medicare for All because it would take the program and expand it to everyone. Seniors’ benefits would not be taken away – they would be improved.
Medicare for All won't cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years, b/c it will introduce savings not accounted for in the study Trump cites. But even if it did, that would be LESS than projections for our current system, which also leaves tens of millions of Americans without coverage.
Trump's claim that he kept his pledge to maintain coverage for people with preexisting conditions and created new health insurance options is totally deceptive.
Protections for pre-ex conditions remain in place only b/c Trump failed to repeal the ACA. Meanwhile, a GOP lawsuit is challenging the ACA, including the guarantee for pre-ex conditions, and there’s a real worry that it'll succeed – especially with Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
As for the new junk health insurance options Trump has authorized, they offer only the illusion of care because they permit insurers to skirt the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Medicare for All won't “lead to the massive rationing of health care.” It's the current system that rations care. 1/3 of Americans had a problem accessing care b/c of cost last year. With M4All, everyone will be able to access treatment, irrespective of how much money they have.
Why is support for Medicare for All skyrocketing? Because Americans know from their own experience that the current system is a total mess. Health care is unaffordable, co-pays are a killer, doctors make you wait and don’t have time for you.
The data backs up people’s impressions: We pay far more than other countries for health care, and we get far less – among rich countries, we alone have massive coverage gaps, and our health care outcomes are far inferior. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…
Medicare for All would take the best performing part of our health care system, improve it, and then extend it to everyone. And by wiping out the massive inefficiencies of the current corporate-dominated system, we can expand coverage and improve quality for no additional cost.
