,
18 tweets,
11 min read
Read on Twitter
We found something wrong with every single paragraph of this @nytdavidbrooks column on #MedicareForAll: nyti.ms/2Ukeqfq. It wasn't that hard, honestly. 
The British and Canadian health systems are quite different! Both are #SinglePayer and deliver better health outcomes at a fraction of the cost of U.S. health care, but @NHSEngland is closer to @VeteransHealth whereas Canadian Medicare is closer to our own Medicare program.
#SinglePayer would *simplify* American health care. The transition would not be onerous; in fact, it would ease the burden on doctors, hospitals, businesses and, most importantly, patients.
It's important that #MedicareForAll be funded through *progressive* taxation. This would make a dent in our intolerable wealth inequality, which is a big driver of our intolerable health disparities.
#SinglePayer would improve on the current Medicare payment structure, which is lacking in many ways. It would fund hospitals and other institutional providers using global budgets and would negotiate fair rates with private practitioners (not necessarily current Medicare rates).
We were told health care utilization would go up with the implementation of Medicare (bit.ly/2GY4O6U). Didn't happen. We were told health care utilization would go up with the implementation of the ACA (bit.ly/2tTdkvo). Didn't happen.
If one is on board with robust benefits, guaranteed coverage, and real financial protection for patients, then the transition to #SinglePayer can't come soon enough.
Employer-based coverage is anything but stable. People lose coverage whenever they leave or lose a job, and even the continuously employed have to contend with open enrollment. Imagine if the next insurance card you received was a Medicare card that you could never, ever lose.
PNHP supports, and the #MedicareForAll Act includes, robust income support and job training for displaced workers. Insurance company CEOs might struggle to replace their income, but they've had ample opportunity to save for a rainy day.
Global budgets would relieve hospitals of the incredible administrative burden of billing hundreds of insurance plans and thousands of individual patients (bit.ly/2EQOov7). That money would be redirected to patient care.
#SinglePayer would cut administrative waste, but it would *increase* spending on patient care. There would be no net job losses and no immediate, sudden drop in overall health spending. U.S. health care would employ just as many people, but in different roles.
Physician take-home pay would remain largely the same under #SinglePlayer. Many physicians would be salaried and those in private practice would save considerable $$$ on overhead and considerable time on paperwork (meaning they could see more patients).
If this is true, then why do Americans love Medicare, a large federal program if ever there was one?
Actuaries at @CMSGov predict *annual* national health spending will rise from $3.5 trillion in 2017 to $6 trillion by 2027 (bit.ly/2Njd7KM). All of a sudden, $32 trillion over 10 years sounds like a bargain.
#MedicareForAll is not government-run health care. It's government-funded health care. The #SinglePayer program would pay the bills, but private, non-profit providers would deliver care.
Thankfully, @HHSGov is very good at controlling costs. Administrative costs for traditional Medicare are very low and public plans have a much better fiscal record than private plans, both in the U.S. and around the world.
Wealthy, insured Americans can generally get the health care they need, when they need it. But what about uninsured Americans? Or those with coverage who need to save $$$ for out-of-pocket costs? Many Americans suffer long wait times due to financial constraints.
Our health care "system" is a mess, but that's precisely *why* we need to enact #SinglePayer #MedicareForAll. It's never too late to do the right thing.
