by Katelyn Jetelina and Hayden Rooke-Lev in Your Local Epidemiologist
People are fed up with the U.S. health care system, and rightfully so. Medical premiums and debt are rising, clinicians are burned out, and patients have less access to care. As another election approaches, these conditions are building up, just waiting to ignite change like wildfir
Is the solution Medicare for All? It remains a bumper-sticker topic in several local congressional races. This is somewhat unsurprising, given that many Democrats think it’s the answer and even some Republicans support it. But when it comes to politics, slogans tend to leave out nuances.
So I called Hayden Rooke-Ley, a professor of health policy and lawyer, to join me and weigh in on the practicalities of what could be the biggest change in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
Can we actually afford Medicare for All?
This is the first question everyone asks. And the answer is yes.
The U.S. currently spends more on health care than any other country, with private insurance driving the highest costs. That’s why most experts think Medicare for All would lower overall healthcare spending.
But what society can afford differs from government financing. Fully funding this without going into debt requires significant new taxes. Convincing Americans to send more money to the IRS is a hard sell, even if the argument is that they’d stop sending money to insurance companies.
That said, when you tally it all up, roughly 70% of the U.S. health care system is already financed by taxpayer money. So the real question is less about whether we want taxpayers financing the health care system. We largely already do that. It’s more about how we want to do it. (continued on Page 2)