I had a friend who was positively brilliant. He had a Ph.d in theoretical physics, but he wasn’t a science nerd. He was an avid reader of literature and history, and he was a skilled writer.
Unfortunately he was also one of the unhealthiest people I’ve ever met. He wasn’t even close to being overweight, but he had just about everything wrong with him…cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems, etc. He passed away at a much too early age.
He was on Medicare, and a few months before he died he had a heart attack and was brought to St. Vincent’s Hospital in an ambulance. He was unconscious and given a drug that saved his life, but its cost was $6000.
Medicare pays 80%, so he was on the hook for $1200. Even though he didn’t ask for the drug, he had to pay.
Medicare-for-All clearly isn’t the answer to our nation’s health care mess, despite efforts by progressive politicians to convince us that it is.
Surveys taken by credible sources show that more than 40% of Americans cannot come up with $400 in an emergency.
Mathematically speaking, that means a $2000 medical procedure would bankrupt four out of ten Americans. You can’t even get an ambulance to drive you to a medical facility for $2000— forget about the cost of a couple of nights in a hospital room.
Many people confuse Medicare-for-All with single payer, but there’s a world of difference between them.
It’s a clever ruse to use the term “Medicare.” It’s a popular government program, especially with the elderly, and it doesn’t provoke the hostility that would result from the socialistic-sounding “single-payer health care plan.”
But Medicare involves premiums and co-pays, while single payer eliminates both of these cost-sharing methods.
Medicare, like Social Security, depends on lifetime contributions into a fund that pays for a large portion of benefits.
Single-payer can be accessed by everyone, including those who have not paid one penny into the system.
Medicare covers mostly acute care.
Single-payer covers nearly every medical service.
Medicare has a strong private-insurance component. Approximately one-third of Medicare recipients are covered by private Medicare Advantage plans.
Single-payer proposals pretty much eliminate private health insurance. That’s why it’s called “single payer.
The features that make Medicare different from single-payer cannot be separated from the program.
A poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 59% of Americans support a “national health-care plan, or Medicare-for-All, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.” (Vox, July 2, 2018)
That sounds wonderful, but 75% support a “national Medicare-for-All plan open to anyone who wants it BUT PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY HAVE OTHER COVERAGE COULD KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE” (caps mine).
In the opinion of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who created both Romneycare and Obamacare, single-payer proposals would be rejected by the above “people who currently have other coverage,” i.e., public sector employees with satisfactory health plans—teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc. Even if they’re Democratic liberals, they would want to keep the coverage they have.
When moderate or left-leaning voters say “Medicare-for-All” seems like a good idea, they aren’t thinking about single payer. In fact, many of them are skeptical or even hostile to single-payer plans.
The difference between the two health plans grows more confusing by the day, and it’s quite possible most progressives have no idea about what they’re touting.
If they’re going to run on a platform of Medicare-for-All or single-payer, it’s in their best interests to let voters know that even though Medicare is a popular term, it may not be what voters think it is. Their disappointment when they find out might be devastating to candidates running for elective office.
by 
