Political Discussion

M4A is NOT going to be on the Biden agenda:

President-elect Joe Biden’s new COVID relief plan does not adopt existing Democratic legislation to expand government sponsored medical coverage nor does it propose a promised public health insurance option. Instead, it adopts proposals from health insurance lobbying groups’ recent letter to lawmakers demanding lucrative new subsidies for insurance companies, at a moment when those corporations have recorded record profits as millions lose coverage and many face claims denials.

Biden’s plan would shovel billions of dollars to private health insurers by providing subsidies for Americans to buy coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces, which are far more expensive than government health care programs and have at times been plagued by high rates of claim denials. The plan would also subsidize COBRA continuation coverage through September, allowing workers to keep their employer health insurance plans when they’re laid off.

Those initiatives — which could further boost insurers’ skyrocketing profits — were recently recommended in a letter to lawmakers from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, two insurance lobby groups in Washington that have opposed the expansion of government-sponsored health care programs.

While Medicare for All could actually save the country up to $650 billion annually, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Biden is now proposing some of the most costly and inefficient ways to expand health insurance coverage. The moves could still leave people exposed to substantial out-of-pocket costs — from deductibles, copays, and coinsurance — that act as barriers to care.


Sadly, this isn’t really different than what he campaigned on. It’s obviously shortsighted and far from this deal but also not surprising.
 
You and I have a unique view on M4A working in the industry. Here is something I wrote in 2019 when I was working for my last company. I had to couch my actual thoughts as my previous CEO is a staunch Republican and unapologetic Trump supporter, but he did allow the leeway to push for certain hybrid styles of universal healthcare.

And I originally came from public health so....
I've heard many arguments about how M4A can't work, and several models for care that would assure that it doesn't work. I am not a big fan of the single payor model, as this has no real mechanism to control costs--on the surface it does by having a CMS schedule for everything but I really wonder who is setting those prices and how much they would be affected by lobbyist. I also wonder how many docs would drop out of the system if they had to go to CMS schedule payments for every procedure. BUT this also creates more P4P instead of constructing accountable care organizations. This would be a huge step back in our current thinking on medical homes and how the medical system should be constructed--as outcome based not procedure based.

I do like the German model which I think would probably work decently well here:

Germany has what's called a universal multi-payer health care system. It encompasses both statutory health insurance for people who earn less than a certain salary, as well as private health insurance for those who earn more and choose to purchase their own.

Employers and their employees pay for most of the health care system in Germany through premiums. All workers contribute about 7.5 percent of their salary into a public health insurance pool. Employers match that 7.5 percent contribution.


Our biggest problem in America is that we don't realize that most people need a little welfare to get them through tough times, and that's not a moral failing on anyone's part. Our inability to see that we are all in this together is what is killing us right now.
 
Back
Top