Saving Obamacare Is Not Enough--We Need Medicare for All
The terms of the health-care debate must be shifted.
The health-care debate in America is essentially an argument over what kind of private insurance market people should have access to: President Obama's, where the insurance companies made out like bandits, or President Trump's, where insurance companies will make out like bandits.
Let's change the debate by making it between for-profit insurance vs. not-for-profit health care. That's what I and Congressmen John Conyers and Jim McDermott sought to do in 2003 when we wrote and introduced Medicare for All, HR 676, in the House of Representatives.
Six years ago, I was the last Democrat hold-out on "Obamacare." My constituents desperately needed coverage for pre-existing conditions and for their adult children. I reluctantly voted for it to prove that some reform was possible, not because it was an acceptable end-point.
It still left out millions and left consumers at the mercy of insurance companies. And everyone knows insurance companies make money by providing as little health care as possible.
Here is what the for-profit insurance system brings:
- Rising premiums and co-pays.
- Diminishing coverage.
- More government subsidy of private insurers.
- Rising costs for prescription drugs.
- More people going bankrupt because of hospital bills.
- More people losing their homes because of hospital bills.
More seniors forced into poverty, losing everything they worked for their entire lives.
This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, left vs. right. This is about life vs. death.
This is about whether we, as Americans, can recognize a common interest in using the vast resources of our nation to insure the health of our people.
Heath spending approaches nearly 18 percent of the $20 trillion GDP. Nearly a trillion dollars of that amount goes for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, and the cost of paperwork.
If we took all the money that people and the government are presently paying into the for-profit system and applied it to care for people in a not-for-profit system, we could provide for basic health care for all Americans, including prescription drugs, vision care, dental care, mental-health care, and long-term care.
That is what HR 676, Medicare for All, was all about.
Medicare for All is an idea whose time has come. Let's make all Americans healthy and wealthy. Let's lift up all of our families, save our homes, and help our businesses and industries. Let's join every other industrialized nation in the world and offer health care to all of our people.
The terms of the debate in Washington must be shifted. We must not be stuck between competing for-profit health-insurance schemes. Let's renew the debate: Medicare for All or profit for a few.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The health-care debate in America is essentially an argument over what kind of private insurance market people should have access to: President Obama's, where the insurance companies made out like bandits, or President Trump's, where insurance companies will make out like bandits.
Let's change the debate by making it between for-profit insurance vs. not-for-profit health care. That's what I and Congressmen John Conyers and Jim McDermott sought to do in 2003 when we wrote and introduced Medicare for All, HR 676, in the House of Representatives.
Six years ago, I was the last Democrat hold-out on "Obamacare." My constituents desperately needed coverage for pre-existing conditions and for their adult children. I reluctantly voted for it to prove that some reform was possible, not because it was an acceptable end-point.
It still left out millions and left consumers at the mercy of insurance companies. And everyone knows insurance companies make money by providing as little health care as possible.
Here is what the for-profit insurance system brings:
- Rising premiums and co-pays.
- Diminishing coverage.
- More government subsidy of private insurers.
- Rising costs for prescription drugs.
- More people going bankrupt because of hospital bills.
- More people losing their homes because of hospital bills.
More seniors forced into poverty, losing everything they worked for their entire lives.
This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, left vs. right. This is about life vs. death.
This is about whether we, as Americans, can recognize a common interest in using the vast resources of our nation to insure the health of our people.
Heath spending approaches nearly 18 percent of the $20 trillion GDP. Nearly a trillion dollars of that amount goes for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, and the cost of paperwork.
If we took all the money that people and the government are presently paying into the for-profit system and applied it to care for people in a not-for-profit system, we could provide for basic health care for all Americans, including prescription drugs, vision care, dental care, mental-health care, and long-term care.
That is what HR 676, Medicare for All, was all about.
Medicare for All is an idea whose time has come. Let's make all Americans healthy and wealthy. Let's lift up all of our families, save our homes, and help our businesses and industries. Let's join every other industrialized nation in the world and offer health care to all of our people.
The terms of the debate in Washington must be shifted. We must not be stuck between competing for-profit health-insurance schemes. Let's renew the debate: Medicare for All or profit for a few.
The health-care debate in America is essentially an argument over what kind of private insurance market people should have access to: President Obama's, where the insurance companies made out like bandits, or President Trump's, where insurance companies will make out like bandits.
Let's change the debate by making it between for-profit insurance vs. not-for-profit health care. That's what I and Congressmen John Conyers and Jim McDermott sought to do in 2003 when we wrote and introduced Medicare for All, HR 676, in the House of Representatives.
Six years ago, I was the last Democrat hold-out on "Obamacare." My constituents desperately needed coverage for pre-existing conditions and for their adult children. I reluctantly voted for it to prove that some reform was possible, not because it was an acceptable end-point.
It still left out millions and left consumers at the mercy of insurance companies. And everyone knows insurance companies make money by providing as little health care as possible.
Here is what the for-profit insurance system brings:
- Rising premiums and co-pays.
- Diminishing coverage.
- More government subsidy of private insurers.
- Rising costs for prescription drugs.
- More people going bankrupt because of hospital bills.
- More people losing their homes because of hospital bills.
More seniors forced into poverty, losing everything they worked for their entire lives.
This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, left vs. right. This is about life vs. death.
This is about whether we, as Americans, can recognize a common interest in using the vast resources of our nation to insure the health of our people.
Heath spending approaches nearly 18 percent of the $20 trillion GDP. Nearly a trillion dollars of that amount goes for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, and the cost of paperwork.
If we took all the money that people and the government are presently paying into the for-profit system and applied it to care for people in a not-for-profit system, we could provide for basic health care for all Americans, including prescription drugs, vision care, dental care, mental-health care, and long-term care.
That is what HR 676, Medicare for All, was all about.
Medicare for All is an idea whose time has come. Let's make all Americans healthy and wealthy. Let's lift up all of our families, save our homes, and help our businesses and industries. Let's join every other industrialized nation in the world and offer health care to all of our people.
The terms of the debate in Washington must be shifted. We must not be stuck between competing for-profit health-insurance schemes. Let's renew the debate: Medicare for All or profit for a few.