I respect the folks at @commonwealthfnd. But this study takes the framing @AHIPCoverage wants us to use to consider all insurance reform proposals. That’s very bad for an honest debate on #Medicare4All vs #publicoption vs the rest. Let me explain why. commonwealthfund.org/publications/i…
The “topline” Commonwealth identifies is this: “The U.S. could achieve near-universal coverage, and even decrease national health spending, by building on our current public–private insurance system.” That’s not the problems tens of millions of people want to be solved.
This continues to assume we should consider programs based on how they increase access. That was the debate in 1993 and 2009. It’s not the debate now.
Don’t take my word for it. The respected head of @KFF told @ReedAbelson last month: “For some reason, we like to focus on coverage when the issue for workers, people and the public generally is **cost.**” (emphasis added)
So if we truly consider cost, you quickly realize the six (yes, six) proposals Commonwealth examines beside #Medicare4All mostly tinker with cost. They do expand coverage — but nothing expands coverage more than #Medicare4All. So why even debate that?
The reason to debate it is the cost of #Medicare4All. Many assume, wrongly, it is too expensive. But it actually saves MORE money than @PeteButtigieg’s Medicare for All who can afford it, @KamalaHarris’s Medicare Advantage for All and @JoeBiden’s outdated public option proposal.
The fact is this: if you want to lower what the average American worker, family and small business pays for health care, you pass #Medicare4All. (And everyone will have Medicare i.e. “access” and “universal coverage.”) Period.
