How ‘Medicare for All’ Would Work (or Not Work)

Even if we cannot implement Medicare for All tomorrow, unless we head in that direction, health care's administrative costs and costs to the consumer will only be driven higher.

Listening to this episode while living in Australia is positively shocking. Specifically when the hosts were discussing whether US citizens believe universal healthcare is a fundamental human right. People dying because they cannot afford healthcare is an extremely sad thought that is rarely seen where I live. Australian healthcare isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination (we still have private healthcare alongside universal public healthcare) but, it seems to me, to be light years ahead of the currently unethical US system.

It is misinformation to say that those on traditional Medicare pay nothing for that care. First there are the payroll taxes paid over a lifetime, then there is the purchase of a supplemental plan to pick up the costs not covered by basic Medicare and then there is Plan D, the drug plan if chosen. after all that, there may still be co-pays, etc. Then there are the services that Medicare will not cover - dental, hearing, some vision. I appreciate your making an attempt at explaining Medicare for all but your comments are too superficial.

First, let me say, I really enjoy listening to The Daily. The reporting has been very insightful. However, I thought the episode on Medicare For All was lacking research and specifics. If would challenge you to listen t Chris Hayes interview with Abdul El-Sayed in Medicare for All Oct. 22 2018. Perhaps you could have him on for another perspective.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around. My (and I know many other's) interpretation is that commercial health insurers would be abolished. Many comments here state otherwise. I have to ask, where would the savings be if that was not the case? There would still be health insurance company CEOs making tens of millions a year. There would still be profits and dividends paid to shareholders. I don't get it and to be honest, it seems no one here is even close to grasping the full picture. In my opinion, Medicare for all is nothing more than a pie in the sky. Forget about getting on the same page, we're not even reading the same book.

This misleading reporting further broadcasts common misunderstandings of Medicare For All. Others have already debunked the cost claims... M4A will actually SAVE us money in the long run. We are already hemorrhaging money as a country and as private citizens (the #1 cause of bankruptcy). The reporter consistently debates whether we as a country prioritize the right to universal healthcare and therefore are ready for a drastic overhaul. We are. 70% of Americans support a national single payer system (Reuters). Polls consistently show providers leaning towards single payer (Merritt Hawkins,CMS). Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) represents thousands of docs and med students advocating for a more cost-effective, equitable, and transparent single-payer system. This idea is not radical. The US is actually unique in its disregard for healthcare as a basic human right and as a result, we are still functioning in an outdated, fractured healthcare system that leaves 27.4 mil Americans without insurance, spends more than 17% of our GDP on healthcare, and yields lower health outcomes than most developed nations – an important, may-day signal highlighting our need for a comprehensive system overhaul. Please rectify this one-sided reporting and invite a PNHP member to the table. This is not a lofty lefty dream and deserves no such label. Every American deserves affordable, effective healthcare and there are far better ways to provide that than our current complex system.

Terrible piece on Medicare for all. Ms Sanger-Katz poses the question of whether Canadian values shaped their healthcare system or vice versa and contrasts them with supposed American antipathy to any government involvement in healthcare, with no mention of the huge resources that have been poured into shaping public opinion by all the entities that profit from the current irrational, ineffective, and immoral system. In spite of this relentless campaign, a majority of Americans now favor single payer health care. And, as many have pointed out, warning about the enormous cost of Medicare for all with no mention of the cost of the current system is just plain dishonest.

I was disappointed by some inaccuracies in your interview with Ms. Sanger-Katz yesterday. Her assertion that large insurance companies would disappear if Medicare for All is enacted is inaccurate. There is currently a thriving (and carefully regulated) Medicare supplemental insurance industry to cover the gaps in Medicare coverage. This type of coverage would be likely to continue if Medicare was expanded to cover more people. Secondly, her analysis of the costs associated with Medicare for All did not take into account the fact that our current system allows employers to take tax deductions on their contributions to employees' insurance AND employees contribute significantly to their coverage. In the current system employees pay vastly different amounts depending on the generosity of their benefit package and receive widely varying levels of quality in their coverage. These costs should be considered when comparing to the Medicare for All proposal. The proposal for Medicare for All is ambitious and in need of debate. Your interview did not provide a fair and balanced analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. This topic deserves more careful and balanced reporting.

This misleading reporting further broadcasts common misunderstandings of Medicare For All. Others have already debunked the unjustified cost claims. M4A will actually SAVE us money in the long run. We are already hemorrhaging money as a country and as private citizens (the #1 cause of bankruptcy). The reporter consistently debates whether we as a country prioritize the right to universal healthcare and therefore are ready for an overhaul. We are. 70% of Americans support a national single payer system (Reuters). Polls consistently show providers leaning towards single payer (Merritt Hawkins,CMS). Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) represents thousands of docs and med students advocating for a more cost-effective, equitable, and transparent single-payer system. This idea is not radical. The US is actually unique in its disregard for healthcare as a basic human right and as a result, we are still functioning in an outdated, fractured healthcare system that leaves 27.4 mil Americans without insurance, spends more than 17% of our GDP on healthcare, and yields lower health outcomes than most developed nations – an important, may-day signal highlighting our need for a comprehensive system redo. Please rectify this one-sided pod. Invite a PNHP member to the table. This is not some lofty lefty dream and deserves no such label. Every American deserves affordable, effective healthcare and there are far better ways to provide that than our current complex, costly system.

Usually love the information provided on The Daily, but The Medicare for All episode was a miss. This episode did not address aspects of this miasma that are essential to understand and provided misinformation. First, large insurance companies would not go away; they would continue to administer Medicare for CMS as most do today. Next, the podcast focused on how costly a Medicare for All scheme would be, but there was no discussion about the financial dilemma that would be created for HEALTHCARE CORPORATIONS if Medicare for All would be instituted. Healthcare spending makes up 17.9% of our GDP (https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html). Most of this money is currently lining the pockets of health insurance, pharmaceutical and biotech companies. They are making record profits on the backs of the American people as they take more and more profit (check out some of these companies on Wall Street), which is driving up costs. Moving to single payer would provide more power to negotiate expenses and control costs and would take a large chunk of the profits away from private corporations. Bringing everyone into the health care system would eventually drive down costs because the highest costs that are being shifted to people with insurance would go away. Follow the money and one will begin to understand that corporate profits are driving the case against M4A.

I got a better idea...leave me alone. Stop taxing the smithereens out of my paycheck, and I'll have the extra cash needed to buy my own health insurance. I'm a grown man who likes to take care of his own personal business. Let's keep it that way. Can you dig it?

People initially resist change until they feel the benefits of the change. Canadian Medicare was highly controversial and was implemented over doctors striking and refusing to work. Today it is highly popular and Tommy Douglas the Premier who first implemented it half a century ago was voted Canada's Greatest Canadian. ObamaCare was not initially popular when implemented, yet once people experienced the benefits, even with the Republicans in charge of both houses and the White House, they could not repeal it. Your statements that single payer healthcare would increase the costs to taxpayer is contrary to the facts. The current US health care system is the most expensive way to deliver healthcare. All single payer versions would be far less expensive so, once implemented, most people would pay less than they are now. Generally, really enjoy the program, but I hope you revisit this issue with people have a more complete grasp of the subject.

In response to M Palladino, The primary purpose of "Medicare for All" is to take the profit out of healthcare. So, yes, it would wipe out all health insurance companies. The stock market would take a HUGE hit and tens (hundreds?) of thousands would become unemployed.

Ms. Sanger-Katz's statement that Medicare for All would wipe out the big health insurance companies, to be replaced with health care provided by the government, is incorrect. Medicare beneficiaries currently receive their benefits through an array of health insurance companies, large and small, who are reimbursed by the government. Medicare, and to a lesser extent Medicaid, are profitable product lines for companies like Cigna, Humana, and Aetna--in fact they compete for the business. The role the government plays in addition to reimbursement, is to demand quality care and service in exchange for these contracts, in the form of quality measures that companies are ranked on annually. Medicare for All would shift covered individuals from the Commercial and Individual product lines into the Medicare product lines. Employers and individuals would no longer be paying insurance companies directly for their coverage, unless they were buying some kind of supplemental coverage. In addition to providing financial relief for Americans paying 100% out of their own pockets, it would eliminate one of the biggest costs employers bear today.

The question is not whether Canadians have those values because they have medicare for all or whether they had those values to begin with. Canadians are not the outliers here, among most countries in the world, especially industrialized countries. The Americans are. So the question is whether Americans are more resistant to medicare for all because they have lived with an immoral health care system for most, if not all, of their lives or whether Americans had a more market fundamentalist value when it comes to the health care system to begin with? I think it is the former. People can easily adapt their thinking to existing systems, no immoral and stupid it is.

I agree with a lot of the posters who are extremely frustrated by what sounded like a one-sided discussion of Medicare for All on today’s THE DAILY. The show’s been very informative until now. Like it or not, MFA is going to save Americans and the gov’t a lot of $$$—they run at something like 2% administrative costs. And, I believe more ppl would relish paying an increase in taxes in exchange for not paying huge, ever increasing premiums, copays or coinsurance, high deductibles, and so on. So, Michael Barbaro, let’s hear from someone who knows the ins and outs of MFA and who can speak knowledgeably and truthfully about its implementation.

I have to say, I agree with the other commentors here who usually really enjoy The Daily, but were very frustrated with this one on Medicare for All. It's fine (and good!) to discuss the possible political hurdles and how it would be disruptive to our current system, but the pod didn't talk at all about the insane cost or disruption of our *current* American health system in which outcomes are so poor! Nor, in discussing the cost of implementing M4A, did they discuss how the increased taxes folks would pay would be much less on average than their current premiums/out-of-pockets-- not to mention the peace of mind and freedom that comes from not having to depend on a job you might hate/get fired from for your very survival! Also maybe point out that there are a lot of different systems around the world whose models we could draw from in order to form our own universal health care system? Bernie's proposal is not the only one. (Also the fact that there's a big difference between single-payer and universal-- these terms seem to have been interchanged casually.) I love y'all at The Daily, but please don't let your fear of appearing biased on this subject prevent you from being honest and fair.

I was disappointed that Margot Sanger-Katz didn't know about how the single payer system came to be in Canada...it was not popular...she should have taken 2 minutes to find that fact, which would've added more to the interview to speculate how we as a society would most likely get single payer kicking and screaming, and then eventually be fiercely proud of it like every other industrialized nation on Earth. Also, she just focused on how our (the 99%) taxes would skyrocket. What about taxing all of the obscene "financial tools" like high speed trading, capital gains and derivatives that seem to make up our casino-like Wall Street? Also, The Affordable Care Act attempted to move health care to more outcome-based rather than number of procedure-based medicine which would have reduced costs as well as negotiating drug prices and improving care with comparative effectiveness research - that would lead to more reduction of medical care in the US.

What deserves airtime is not a debate about whether America’s (capitalist) culture is changing in regards to healthcare (that is already happening), but how the single payer platform provides logic, transparency, and equity to our fractured system. A single, highly diluted risk pool will support high-value care at lower cost margins. Medicare For All is actually expected to lower healthcare spending in the long run (PERI, Mercatus). The booming cost of drugs alone shows that free market competition doesn’t equate to lower prices. A single payer system would allow for effective negotiation of drug and device prices for all consumers. The VA does this and pays ~half as much as retail pharmacies (CBO 2014). It would streamline billing practices which decreases overhead and allows physicians to spend more time actually CARING for patients. Private health insurance companies operate with ~12% overhead costs while Medicare operates at ~1.3% (CMS 2016). Patients would actually have MORE access to providers as there would be no such thing as out-of-network care. Perhaps we would finally incentivize preventative care and lifestyle modifications instead of handing off our oldest and sickest patients to the next people (aka Medicare) to pay for. Additionally, tying our insurance to employment has no place in the 21st century. It is both a burden on patients going through job changes and businesses financing insurance. America NEEDS an overhaul. Report on BOTH sides of the conversation.

The podcast referenced the cost of single-payer healthcare but ignored that we are already paying premiums. Any discussion of cost needs to include what our current system is already costing the country. Also, it was stated that there would be no role for private insurance companies. I'm not sure this is true since people currently buy supplemental Medicare insurance through private insurance companies. Please have more podcasts on health care reform with a more balanced view on opportunities for improvement.

I think it is incumbent upon a an organization that has access to wide public to aim for balanced reporting. Regards your "Medicare for All" program: Yes it would be wonderful if there was health care available to all, without co-pays, deductibles etc as some would have it. I believe the former USSR had a similar system. I fear that unless the tort system is revised (unlikely since most lawmakers are attorneys) - increased use of healthcare will result in increased defensive medicine. Medicine is not an exact science, the bulk of diagnoses are based on Baye's Theorem - all about probabilities in the initial assesement - I see over and over the proliferation of CT scans and lab testing even when Bayesian theory points to a low probability of a given condition. The driver being defensive medicine. The USA is unique in this approach to diagnose disease, compared to the rest of Western medicine, there, where attorneys are less vocal about being the 'guardians of medical practice', the rewards of litigation are that much lower. The net result is that physicians in the US are prone to practice defensive medicine, driven by the fear of litigation - the newer the physician the more prolific the testing - of course hospitals love this system because it generates revenue and the ambulance chasers thrive on the premise that medicine is infallible. Lets look before we leap.

This was very disappointing and extremely one-sided. It said that it's a radical proposal and implied that only leftists support it. In fact, large majorities support universal health care as a goal―recognizing that there are challenges to doing so. Second, it said that it will cost $30 trillion. That's a cumulative number over 10 years. $3 trillion annually is a lot but we are collectively spending $3 trillion for the current system and government is providing most of that. And we have bad outcomes and many uninsured or can't afford doctors. Getting to Medicare for All will be hard but the current system is disruptive too. About 2 million people go bankrupt annually due to health care costs and many more have their budgets strained. In the current system, insurers have financial incentives to make decisions that harm people's health and raise long-term costs. For instance, suppose there is an operation that would cost $10,000 to address a condition that will otherwise cost $2,000/yr. Well, my insurer recognizing that I'm 61 will judge that it's cheaper to pay $2,000/yr until I'm on Medicare and then leave it to the government. Even if I were younger, they might judge that I will switch insurers in the next few years so the upfront cost doesn't make sense even though it would save money overall and help my health. In the longer term, we need as a country to constrain health costs and a unified system would make that much easier than the hodge-podge that we have now.

You have only pointed to the Canadian system but there are many other successful systems in other developed countries that provide high quality universal healthcare to their populations. These systems create a safety net for those who can’t afford private insurance but they don’t “wipe out” private options entirely. Some even have private insurance companies that are regulated to ensure that profit motives don’t preclude affordability and quality. Yes, taxes pay for the programs but citizens aren’t forced to pay insurance premiums to get care.

I’m on Medicare now, so having to pay more taxes because of Medicare for All only makes my financial life more difficult and would not give me or any senior now on Medicare any benefit. It’s ironic that for those already on Medicare, this expansion of Medicare would only cause harm because of the increase in their federal taxes.

I see a lot of animosity (to say the least) towards for-profit healthcare in discussions like this. I wonder if commenters realize how much they have invested in this for-profit system, primarily via their pension/401k? If the government were to obliterate the health insurance industry, would eminent domain come into play for the shareholders?

Nothing I have heard so far convinces me that Medicare for All would be better than our current system of Medicare PLUS current (or former) employee coverage -- all of which covers health costs for so many. I do believe it would help those who are not currently covered.....but what about the rest of us who get excellent coverage as it is? What will we lose?

Regarding the recent program on medicare for all, I have two questions: First, is the question whether health care is a human right and second, how much would taxes have to be increased to pay for medicare for all. First, human right. I have not heard anyone address the question put in these terms: I am 45 years old and have health insurance. I find out that I have pancreatic cancer. I am desperate to save my life. Treatment will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Because I have health insurance, I receive treatment. If I were uninsured, would I receive treatment? Who would pay for such treatment (I do not have assets that could be applied to treatment costing several hundred thousand dollars)? Without a means to pay, do I face the likelihood of certain death without treatment? Second, taxes. At present, my wife and I get health insurance through her employer who pays approximately $16,000 per year in premiums. We contribute approximately $2,400 in premiums; we pay deductibles, co-pays, etc. If these costs were included in a calculation of how much would medicare for all cost, how much would taxes need to be raised (if at all). Americans spend approximately $10,000 per capita on health care, approximately twice the average spent by the wealthy countries that cover their citizens universally. This suggests that if the total costs of premiums, deductibles, co-pays are factored in, our taxes should go down, rather than up.

I wish you would have discussed moving current insurance premiums to Medicare rather than just talking about increased taxes alone paying the costs of Medicare for all. You did not mention their are huge administrative cost savings with economies of scale and eliminating insurance marketing costs by moving to one insurance plan.

There was a discussion between Mark Barbaro and Margot Sanger-Katz about Canadian v. US culture. I'm born and raised Canadian and it's a fact that our Single Payer/Universal Medicare was not embraced without a contentious debate/fight in the 1950s. Being very conservative (yes NOT socialist) we Canadians have a long history of recognizing that certain tasks are best or only done by the government (ie national broadcasting, railway, etc) It has now become part of our identity, for sure, but that has come with our cradle to grave use of this service. Already, as result of the ACA, your culture has begun this journey and for this alone, Obama deserves a place on Mt. Rushmore.

Like the other commenters, I too was very disappointed in this clearly biased against universal health care report. I found myself yelling at the speakers asking "why aren't you explaining how much it costs today and comparing that to the potential cost of universal health care or a medicare-for-all-type plan? " It was very frustrating listening to this seemingly biased and extremely incomplete report.

I agree with other commenters in expressing real disappointment in this episode. It fails to mention any of the actual paths that could lead us to Medicare for All (Bernie's is documented) like lowering the Medicare age from 65 to 55 to start, bringing all newborns in at a certain date etc., nor does it mention the public option debate that took place during the passage of the ACA (that was singularly killed by Joe Lieberman). Worst of all it falls into the classic "this is extremely expensive" trope without at all mentioning that while taxes go up, healthcare premiums disappear. The NY Health Act (a single payer bill) includes taxes on employers who currently pay for their employees' private insurance. At the core of Medicare for All is cost savings, as the taxes would overall be less expensive than what most Americans pay Cigna or Aetna today. Finally, I'm most disheartened by the inclusion of Ms. Sanger-Katz's personal view that "most Americans [don't] feel that healthcare is a fundamental right" as it's just not true. Medicare for All polls at 70% approval in the US. I expect there will be a follow up episode that tracks how Canada's system came about, how much less they pay than Americans, and their better health outcomes. I hope to see better coverage of Medicare for All from the Times as we go further into this primary season.

It is premature and narrow minded to reject an idea that has barely entered the mainstream vocabulary. Furthermore, you cannot call it aspirational while citizens of other first world countries have been taking advantage of the model for years. Our current system is broken. We need to open our mind to alternatives by engaging with those who have been researching the short and long term human/socioeconomic impacts. I will look forward to such conversations hosted by Times.

Presentation too one-sided. Failed to point out that when Medicare for All is adopted people will no longer be paying huge premiums for private health insurance. That saving must offset some of increased taxation to get a truer picture. Medicare for All ends up being cheaper by about one-half compared to current system. Big majority of Americans agree healthcare should be a right. How disruptive was it when Medicare was instituted in the 60’s?

Not the usual careful, unbiased NYT work. Do you trust for-profit companies to control health care or the government? Seems like a no-brainer to me. It's all about how effective ANY system will be in controlling rise in health care costs. We do know the current system has been appallingly ineffective in controlling rise in health care costs. Medicare for All would enable centralized negotiations to control drug prices and fees. Here's a good read -- a study by a Libertarian think tank at GMU -- the Mercatus Institute (funded by Koch brothers). It says Medicare for All could save $2 Trillion over the first 10 years. We save 30% off the top by eliminating insurance companies, plus: (1) everyone is covered, (2) no out-of-pocket for insurance premiums or deductibles or co-pays or non-covered portion of fees, (3) yes, taxes would go up, but you will be paying less because of (2). See link below. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-sanders/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

I appreciate the Daily podcast on Medicare for All. But after explaining the potential cost and radical aspects of the "socialist" proposal, why wasn't the cost and inefficiency of our current "capitalist" medical care system mentioned? Why not mention the studies citing that although taxes will increase, it will save money overall by eliminating expensive private insurance deductibles? Why not mention that just about every modern first-world country has a program that provides health care to its citizens and that the US is such an exception in this regard? I expect better objective news stories from the Times.

we have healthcare by the government here in austria! everyone is protected. the system is more or less ok and can do much better, especially around the administration! but that doesn't mean that there is no more private health care like stated in the daily! America, wake up! you don't have to give up the free market, because you can grant basic healthcare for everyone (like every civilised nation does) and still give people the opportunity to improve their care on the private market! Get real guys and look beyond your border! there is a whole big world out there and sometimes there are countries that do stuff better then you! constantly stating that you are the greatest nation is just dumb and ignorant !

I'm a huge fan of the Daily, and I think the reporting is largely excellent. I was a bit frustrated this morning, however, when listening the Medicare for All episode. The piece framed the proposal as "expensive," citing a $30 trillion federal spending increase paid for with across-the-board tax increases. What is never said is the implications for spending that we already have. We would no longer pay premiums or other costs directly to insurers or health care facilities. In reality, our health care is system is ALREADY expensive -- by far the costliest of any developed country with comparably poor outcomes. Some, like Vox, have reported how the 32 trillion may actually be a bargain for the system as a whole, and reflect a reduction in overall spending. I wish this had been made clear in your reporting of how "expensive" Medicare for All would be.

Margot doesn't know how we could get there from here. Well, I do. A Canadian down the thread speaks of cultural differences and the true fact that Americans are not interested on what is good for the country as a whole, but rather that they are personally in competition with everyone else on the planet. That's why market capitalism is the answer to the question. Just offer Medicare on the exchanges at a reasonable rate and let the privates compete with a system that is engineered for efficiency rather than profit. Insurance is insurance, no matter who is running it and the bigger the pool, the wider the risk and the cheaper the price. No corporate profits, no zillion dollar CEO's, no golden parachutes, no corporate jets, no advertising has to bring prices down. She states that it would cost X trillion $ and where are going to get it. Well, it's cost X trillion+profit and waste right now, and we will get it from the same source that we are getting it now. It would indeed be disrupting, when insurance companies start to lay off employees. It would also bring the actual cost of health care down, by controlling prices through shear force of numbers dictating the cost of pharmaceuticals and procedures. But the statement that there would be no private insurance is incorrect, they can still sell supplemental insurance, and there will still be a few high dollar luxury providers that won't accept Medicare and people rich enough to want private plans that will pay those rates

I find it disappointing that the question of whether the US should move to a public health care system is presented as a fight between the side that "believes we are all born with the right to health care", and greedy corporate interests and citizens lacking common compassion. This is a false dichotomy. Some of the problems many Americans have with the idea of Medicare for all is not that they don't want to pay for someone else's health insurance, but that they are not confident that the government is the capable of actually providing the highest quality coverage for the lowest cost. For example, under our current system the majority of the world's innovations in health care originate in the US. Would this change with a public system? For those that might say that the free market had it's chance and has failed I recommend taking a more in depth look into the history of our health care system and the current regulations that restrict and limit options for more innovate models of providing coverage. For that I suggest checking out Christy Ford Chapin's book, Ensuring America's Health.

Not a big fan of this episode. I think Ms. Sanger-Katz is misinformed or has conservative POV; didn't really accurately describe the pros and cons of a single payer system. This episode was really set from a anti-single payer POV. I would expect journalism from NYT to do a much better job. Too many sound bites and not enough details. They mention high taxes and economic disruption, but never discuss how most people already pay for healthcare through insurance premiums that are automatically deducted from their wages.

One of the biggest obstacles to Medicare expansion will be Part D drug benefits. It will be imperative to first negotiate drug reimbursement levels to be on par with European and Canadian levels. It will be absurd for US taxes to pay twenty times more for drug benefits through Medicare than does the rest of the world.

I smell a rat. Someone has managed to sway the Times against MediCare For All and portrayed it as not affordable. As a 16 year American expatriate living in France with the Carte Vitale national health care program, I find it both affordable but desirable over traditional private health care programs. The United States is virtually the only developed country without some form of a national health care program. Don’t be fooled in this election cycle into believing the unaffordability of national health care. Vote for MediCare For All!

There are issues with implementation that need to be worked through, but the idea that single payer is some radical far left idea that would be prohibitively expensive is ridiculous. Most research shows that single payer would actually save us money over the long run. The reporter says by "various estimates" it would cost over 30 trillion dollars. She then states that it has to be covered by "broad based taxes." Her framing of single payer uses an estimate without citing her source (!) She then leads into saying this would be funded by individual taxes. This is extremely misleading. As other commenters have noted, we already use public funds to subsidize uninsured people who need life-saving treatment, we already have three publicly funded health insurance providers (VA, Medicare, Medicaide) and people currently pay huge out of pocket expenses for premiums and out of pocket costs. The reporter mislead the listeners of this podcast by implying that individual taxes would increase greatly. Yes we would implement individual taxes, based on income level, that would pay for a system that would overall lower health care spending per capita (and also save lives-which she does not mention!) and health care costs for an individual or family would DECREASE because they will be paying taxes based on income and not on the insurance companies' ever increasing deductibles and premiums. This podcast needs a redo with an expert that discusses the facts instead of opinionated misconceptions.

When I discovered The Daily months ago, I was elated; however, after the 3/13 Medicare For All episode, my enthusiasm has drastically evaporated. The last half of this episode was so grossly opinionated against the "For All" argument, blatantly twisting the truth, and failed to mention the vast savings that a Sanders or Warren proposal would manifest. It was correctly pointed out that such a system would require much increased taxation from those below the 1%, but completely neglected to mention that the overall hit on the average American's expenditures would be far below all current expenditures. It's a fact that Medicare For All results in eliminating the inflated insurance corporation's expenses for benefits, salaries, and commissions. However, such a system would not prevent private insurers from offering supplemental plans for private rooms, elective surgeries, in home visits, etc. Just like in many other countries, the rich would still have their gilded care plans, while everyone else has their needed health care provided at a lower cost. There are many other positive aspects that your reporters failed to mention - like eliminating the extra staff for doctors and hospitals required to navigate all the complicated reimbursement systems that allow insurance corporations to profit from denying benefits. All this leads me to wonder - what is influencing The Daily to present such biased "news"?

This leaves me with more questions than answers. Here are some of them: What percentage of health care is already paid for by the public sector? Include Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, hospital subsidies, public clinics, military, civil servants including police, teachers, congress, sanitation, bus drivers, etc.? (It all comes out of taxes one way or another, already). What percentage of private health insurance revenue comes from providing for Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans? It must be profitable or they would not advertise so heavily for these plans? How much would industry benefit by having the private sector pay for the health insurance of their workers compared to the current system of insurance as a company benefit? Would it be worth it to companies to increase have their corporate taxes raise by another 20% to get rid of the current health care burden? What if under-65 Medicare would be 60/40 for Part B (compared to the 80/20 in existence for current beneficiaries)? Would that satisfy private insurance to some degree?

Canadian here. Regarding Margot's comments/questions on the Canadian culture/healthcare. In general Canadians focus on what is good for Canadians as a whole, whereas the perception is that US focuses on individual "rights". So there is a cultural difference. I note that the Canadian approach is also the approach of the entire rest of the world. It is not really a Canadian thing. US is VERY unique in not having some form of universal healthcare. Lastly from a cost perspective, the US pays much more per capita than the rest of the world even though not everyone has healthcare coverage. It pays more than double what Canada pays per citizen. So universal healthcare is CHEAPER than the current US approach. Yes, the US could pay LESS in total if it was able to move to universal healthcare, not more. So question of "how do we pay for it" isn't a valid question and every other country in the world would be happy to show the US how they do it. I have no idea how the US would get from where they are to a universal healthcare system. That is a big problem to solve. But cost is actually a red herring and every other country in the world has figured it out so the US can do it too.

On today’s episode, Medicare for All was referred to as Bernie Sander’s idea. It was his “proposal” and he was greatly responsible for bringing it into the mainstream but John Conyers Introduced a bill in 2003 called The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676), and continued to introduce it every year thereafter.