

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Supporters of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hold signs during an event on healthcare September 13, 2017 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Medicare-for-All sounds great, but how do we pay for it?
In a normal country, the answer would be simple -- just raise taxes. But in the United States, healthcare is so outlandishly expensive that the simple solution is anything but. Where Austria or Finland would be assured that a modest tax hike could (and did) cover everyone, America has to grapple with a bloated healthcare sector eating up over 17 percent of GDP -- nearly 5 points (or about $1 trillion) greater than Switzerland, the second-most expensive country.
As Jon Walker argues, this reality forces Medicare-for-all advocates into one of two basic choices, neither of them easy:
1. Swallow the huge costs, shove through a really big tax hike, and hope that people will understand the taxes-for-premiums swap.
2. Try to cut costs, and keep the tax increase modest, but tempt the wrath of the medical lobby.
Some tax increases are certainly inevitable. But the second choice is by far the best, on grounds of both practical policy and politics.
When writing a Medicare-for-All bill, it is critical for legislators to understand that traditional Democratic logrolling -- in the form of policy carveouts for powerful interest groups -- will create more problems than it solves. The way to make the legislation work is to isolate the sources of the most hideous and immoral waste in the healthcare system and concentrate the pain on them, so as to provide a really excellent benefit for the broad population with a minimum of necessary new taxes.
Read the full article at The Week.
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Medicare-for-All sounds great, but how do we pay for it?
In a normal country, the answer would be simple -- just raise taxes. But in the United States, healthcare is so outlandishly expensive that the simple solution is anything but. Where Austria or Finland would be assured that a modest tax hike could (and did) cover everyone, America has to grapple with a bloated healthcare sector eating up over 17 percent of GDP -- nearly 5 points (or about $1 trillion) greater than Switzerland, the second-most expensive country.
As Jon Walker argues, this reality forces Medicare-for-all advocates into one of two basic choices, neither of them easy:
1. Swallow the huge costs, shove through a really big tax hike, and hope that people will understand the taxes-for-premiums swap.
2. Try to cut costs, and keep the tax increase modest, but tempt the wrath of the medical lobby.
Some tax increases are certainly inevitable. But the second choice is by far the best, on grounds of both practical policy and politics.
When writing a Medicare-for-All bill, it is critical for legislators to understand that traditional Democratic logrolling -- in the form of policy carveouts for powerful interest groups -- will create more problems than it solves. The way to make the legislation work is to isolate the sources of the most hideous and immoral waste in the healthcare system and concentrate the pain on them, so as to provide a really excellent benefit for the broad population with a minimum of necessary new taxes.
Read the full article at The Week.
Medicare-for-All sounds great, but how do we pay for it?
In a normal country, the answer would be simple -- just raise taxes. But in the United States, healthcare is so outlandishly expensive that the simple solution is anything but. Where Austria or Finland would be assured that a modest tax hike could (and did) cover everyone, America has to grapple with a bloated healthcare sector eating up over 17 percent of GDP -- nearly 5 points (or about $1 trillion) greater than Switzerland, the second-most expensive country.
As Jon Walker argues, this reality forces Medicare-for-all advocates into one of two basic choices, neither of them easy:
1. Swallow the huge costs, shove through a really big tax hike, and hope that people will understand the taxes-for-premiums swap.
2. Try to cut costs, and keep the tax increase modest, but tempt the wrath of the medical lobby.
Some tax increases are certainly inevitable. But the second choice is by far the best, on grounds of both practical policy and politics.
When writing a Medicare-for-All bill, it is critical for legislators to understand that traditional Democratic logrolling -- in the form of policy carveouts for powerful interest groups -- will create more problems than it solves. The way to make the legislation work is to isolate the sources of the most hideous and immoral waste in the healthcare system and concentrate the pain on them, so as to provide a really excellent benefit for the broad population with a minimum of necessary new taxes.
Read the full article at The Week.