October 22, 2019
Meyerson on TAP
How Elizabeth Warren Can Address the Medicare for All Question. Elizabeth
Warren is now dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on her own Medicare
for All plan, which she has pledged to release shortly. As David Dayen
astutely notes today,
the plans put forth by Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s primary
opponents—chiefly, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg—will, if they’re any
good, end up costing about as much as the Medicare for All proposals
they’ve disparaged.
B&B’s
emphasis on the taxes that will fund Medicare for All (and, not that
they admit it, their own plans, too) misses the fact that the great
majority of Americans pay far more for their private insurance than they
would in higher taxes, though what they pay now is largely concealed
from them because their employer routinely takes it out of their pay.
(Of course, if we do go to Medicare for All, workers will have to fight
to compel their bosses to transfer the savings to them, rather than
divert it into dividends and buybacks.)
How
can Elizabeth Warren address the major savings workers can win by
shifting to Medicare for All? My friend Steve Tarzynski, who’s president
of the California Physicians Alliance, suggests something like the
following:
Right
now, you and your family pay $18,000 a year in premiums for
employer-sponsored insurance that doesn’t even cover everything and that
you could lose at any time. Plus another $2,000 in deductibles before
it even kicks in and another $1,000 in co-pays. That’s about $21,000
every year for a basically defective product. That’s the “private tax” you’re paying right now.
And your choice of doctor is restricted and you can even lose access to
your doctor at any time. All that would go away with Medicare for
All—no more premiums, no more deductibles, and no more co-pays. And all
the care you and your family need will be covered and can never be taken away. You
can choose any doctor you want. Yes. You’ll pay $5,000 more in taxes
for all of that. But it will put $16,000 back in your pocket. And it
doesn’t even include the share of the premium that your employer pays
now that you could get back in wages and salary. Would you settle for
that?
And to my fellow Democrats on the stage here who oppose Medicare for All, who are you really working for? Because what you propose is exactly what the insurance industry wants.
That’s so good I got nothing to add. Would work not just for Warren but for Bernie, too. ~ HAROLD MEYERSON