Guaranteed Healthcare

The state of our nation has had me in something of a decline over the past few days. Why talk or write about healthcare when our election may be in jeopardy?

Well this is a good day, a very good day on the healthcare front.  The esteemed journal Health Affairs has a dazzling report on the merits of single payer healthcare. It's brilliantly titled, Medicare-for-All: Why We Should Say Yes, Not “Yes But”

Will this silence once and for all the "yes but" crowd?  Unlikely, but we're on the side of the angels and if we manage to win this election, one nail after another gets banged in the coffin of the murder by spreadsheet for-profit health insurance industry.

So what's the take home message from Merton Bernstein and Theodore Marmor?

A ringing and loud endorsement of single payer.

Though the political “yes, buts” surrounding Medicare-for-All prove groundless, they deserve discussion. However, the “yes, buts” should not preempt discussion of Medicare-for-All’s substantive advantages, as they all too often do. For example, the May/June 2008 issue of Health Affairs, a 200-page-plus compendium on health reform and expanding coverage, does not contain a single article devoted to Medicare-for-All. In this post, we first describe the advantages of Medicare-for-All, then demonstrate that the evidence behind the political “yes, buts” is exaggerated and flawed.

. . . To date, Medicare-for-All has been framed, incorrectly, in ideological terms. In reality, Medicare-for-All is the most practical reform option. It would greatly reduce non-benefit outlays and lessen employment discrimination. Those features should translate into powerful political support.

Our economic situation requires that we pursue less wasteful policies; reducing health care costs that exceed what other developed nations spend heads that agenda. We need the economies of Medicare-for-All as much for the well-being of American enterprise as for the adequate medical care of our people. We can no longer tolerate a health insurance nonsystem that costs too much, protects too few, and offers too little. Medicare-for-All makes a lot of sense, and no health care reform symposium or national debate should ignore it.

Like I said, this won't silence all the yes but naysayers, despite such responsible, no nonsense and scholarly analysis.  Maybe  though, some of the surrender in advance crowd, may pause for a moment before condemning the American people to more of the same.

Happily, it's  being favorably discussed by some very influential health policy blogs.  We owe Joseph Paduda a great big thank you for his terrific blog post.

A good day indeed.