RE: Health care

So if you like the idea of Medicare for all you present it as a way to lower the overall cost of healthcare and a way to include everyone.  If you don’t like the idea and want to kill it, call it the biggest tax increase ever.  If it becomes a campaign issue in 2018 and 2020, it’ll be interesting to see how it’s presented and opposed.   (I think any implementation issues, like who gets the benefits and who pays the taxes, can be sorted out.  In fact, I think I should be appointed to that task force.)    

    Medicare for all.  Who doesn’t like Medicare?  Judy and I are fine with it.  It’s run by the government, but it doesn’t seem like government intrusion in our lives; it’s just a way to simplify medical care and it works.   The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other developed nation but doesn’t get as good medical outcomes as many other countries do.  It seems like Medicare for all would be such a simple solution:  spend less, get better care, and include everyone.  On a macro scale, it’s hard to argue against it.   But I see a problem with implementing it.  Even if it costs less overall (no profits for insurance companies), it would require a change in who pays and how.  Instead of employers and individuals paying healthcare premiums, the government would cover the cost.  Individuals would no longer have to pay insurance premiums, but they would have to pay taxes to fund the government program.  Paying less additional taxes than the insurance premiums would be a win, but there is another scenario.  Employer paid health insurance.  Plenty of employers still pay health insurance for their employees.  If you take the health care premiums away from the employer, but add the additional taxes to the individual, that’s a problem.  Over time, that differential would sort out, but it could take a while.   On a grand scale, and with a long time-horizon, Medicare for all could be the way to go.  On an individual scale, and in the short term, implementation for some could be awkward.