I found this piece by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar at the Associated Press on just how lavish the proposed “Medicare For All” plans are by comparison with the systems of other countries mildly amusing:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The “Medicare for All†plan embraced by leading 2020 Democrats appears more lavish than what other advanced countries offer, compounding the cost but also potentially broadening its popular appeal.
The plan from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would charge no copays or deductibles for medical care, allowing only limited cost-sharing for some prescription drugs. It would cover long-term care at home and in community settings. Dental, vision and hearing coverage would be included.
But while other countries do guarantee coverage for all, the benefits vary significantly. Canada, often cited as a model, does not cover outpatient prescriptions and many Canadians have private insurance for medications. Many countries don’t cover long-term care. Modest copays are common.
I’ve addressed that topic in the past. The reality of many of these other countries’ plans is that in many cases copays are actually larger than they are here.
“Medicare for All proposals would leapfrog other countries in terms of essentially eliminating private insurance and out-of-pocket costs, and providing very expansive benefits,†said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “It raises questions about how realistic the proposals are.â€
I guess there are several ways of looking at what’s been put on the table. I take thre proposed plans seriously because they are the only yardsticks I have. If their proponents don’t like their being taken seriously, they should put more serious plans on the table.
It reminds me of Salena Zito’s comment about Trump’s supporters during the 2016 election. Should we take the supporters of “Medicare For All” literally, seriously, or neither? Do we need to wait until they actually hold a majority in the Congress before we know what’s being proposed?
The article does suggest what we should make of the “democratic socialists” who claim that when they say “socialism” they don’t mean Stalin they mean Sweden, which they say with a straight face, ignorant of the details of Sweden’s system.
The relatively parsimonious plans of many other countries would never garner popular support here not to mention they’d be condemned as racist, sexist, classist, or all three.
Really? Why would the plans of France, or Germany or Australia be racist and sexist?
“Do we need to wait until they actually hold a majority in the Congress before we know what’s being proposed?”
Nope, just need to see a bill they are willing to vote on.
Steve
These look like great plans. In order to make them work we’d probably have to go to a tiered minimum wage – say $15/hr for non-medical workers, $20/hr for general practitioners and $25/hr for surgeons and specialists.
They aren’t—in France, Germany, and Australia. But social cohesion and respect for authority are both much greater there than here. Here any time anyone would be denied any procedure or treatment he or she wanted they would decide it was because of their race, their sex, their class. In France, Germany, and Australia economization is difficult but people ultimately knuckle under because they know they must and the authorities have declared it. Here it would be politically impossible.
How do I know? Check the news. Practically every day somebody is complaining that their kid was shot by police because he was black, that someone is not paid enough because they’re a woman, or their mother didn’t get the care she needed because she was poor and those complaints are probably true in a small percentage of cases but mostly the kid was shot because he was a thug and threatening the police, they’re not paid more because they’re not worth paying that much, and the mother got as much or more care than she really needed.
In the United States we can construct a plan that’s politically acceptable or economically doable but not both.