Held in the 2018 midterm elections to Congress showed that a significant number of Americans are willing to support the proposals of the Democrats in the social sphere, in particular, the idea of “Medicare for all”, universally accessible health insurance.
The author of the proposal, the independent Senator Bernie Sanders, announcing recently of their desire to again attempt to compete for the White house, made clear: “Medicare for all” will be the main programmatic slogan of his presidential campaign. Another candidate of the Democrats, Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren has launched a new initiative, providing for the introduction in the United States versatile and affordable system of care for children under the age of 5 years. The idea can be called a new notional: in the 70-ies of the last century, Congress passed the bipartisan “children’s” the law, which, alas, has not passed over the veto of President Richard Nixon. But let’s take first things first.
“Medicare for all” continues to enjoy the support of the population, although the level of this support has declined. Due to higher prices for medical services, growth of cost of policies, high initial payments before the insurance will begin to cover the costs of its owner (deductible), forecasts that employers will increasingly offer employees only one insurance policy with a high deductible, the idea of Sanders no longer seems to be a dangerous socialist experiment, as characterized by its conservative opponents. 2018 is not only the liberal wing of the democratic party, but many moderates have supported universal health insurance.
What do the polls say? According to the January study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 56 percent of respondents support “Medicare for all”.
However, when people are asked whether they agree with the disappearance of private insurance companies positively on this bill voted only 37%.
According to another survey conducted by The Hill – HarrisX, and referenced on the business community, the conservative “wall street journal,” only 13% of respondents are ready to accept the disappearance of private insurers. Less than 32% of respondents support the introduction of universal affordable health insurance, provided that the new system will allow them to acquire, along with public insurance, private insurance.
Critics of the Sanders focus our attention on section 107 of the plan of the Senator
Sect. 107 of Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” states that: “It shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.”
Since “Medicare for all” would cover everything except cosmetic surgery — medical, dental, vision, mental health — this amounts to an outright ban on private health insurance.
What’s more, the law dictates that once phased in, enrollment in the government plan is automatic.
From the above text should: Sanders believes that the emergence of state insurance, which is completely (!) covers the services of dentists, cosmetic surgeons, optometrists, psychiatrists gives you the opportunity to opt out of private insurance. This measure in the current situation seems to be very bold and even radical. It is clear that the American insurance system in its current form does not want to, figuratively speaking, cover with a sheet and crawl to the cemetery. This system is one of the most powerful lobbyists, generously allocating tens of millions of dollars on the “lubrication” of our political machine. Without a fight she will concede. At stake – insurance product, which is used by 155 million Americans.
Opponents of the Sanders frighten insurance customers value the ideas and tax increases, without which the new system will not work. “Wall street journal” says what it would cost the budget, “Medicare for all” – $30 trillion in 10 years. Supporters of Senator parry, that the introduction of universal insurance will dramatically reduce the cost of medical services that will reduce the cost of project Sanders. The tax increase? Yes. But in return the consumer will not have to pay contributions (premiums) for the use of the policy will disappear surcharges for the use of insurance when visiting the doctor, specialists, supplements, and sometimes wildest, when buying drugs. The conservative newspaper “investors business daily”, another on the business community, ironically asks: “do you Believe, gentlemen, that all this is possible?” I personally believe in. However, many of those who in principle supports the idea of “Medicare for all”, you can think about.
“Wall street journal” writes that opponents of Sanders turned against his plan for an awareness campaign, including television advertising. Main points: citizens, you will lose your private insurance and you raise the taxes! It is clear that the consumer is reminded of the promises President Obama: the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will not affect private insurance for Americans. This promise was not fulfilled, and the first time polls showed the negative attitude of Americans to Obamacare. However, starting in 2017, virtually all polls the majority of the nation spoke in support of health reform as the 44th President of the United States.
I must admit that the doubts of experts in separate provisions “Medicare for all” could not fail to affect the sentiment of the faction of the Democrats in Congress, especially its moderate members. In 2018, the bill, which was proposed to Sanders, was signed by 124 of the legislator. In February this year, when it was re-tabled in the house of representatives – 107.
Protecting their offspring, Sanders recently noted that “Medicare for all” offers more options for patients, limit access to specific health specialists and the latest medical developments, as it is practiced in many private insurances. “Older Americans, for example, will benefit from the introduction of universal insurance, because the services of dentists, optometrists, otolaryngologists are fully covered.”
Among party members, who have spoken in the presidential race, the attitude of “Medicare for all” is ambiguous. So, the Senator from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar, thinking this idea worthy of attention, proposes to limit the extension programs of Medicaid and Medicare in their current form. Senators Warren and Cory Booker (NJ), though, and put their signatures under the draft law on “Medicare for all” at the same time believe what they said recently that the reform should give people a choice, including the option of purchasing private insurance.
* * *
According to liberal economists, particularly Nobel prize winner in Economics Paul Krugman, no less important is the suggestion of Senator Warren on the introduction in the United States versatile and affordable system of care for children under the age of 5 years. “The cost of childcare is simply absurd, – said the Senator. – We need to help families to make these services available.”
Unfortunately, if we compare the situation in this matter with the situation in other developed countries, the United States is an outsider. “These countries have either a system of universal and affordable child care, or families receiving subsidies for these purposes, writes Krugman. We in the US love to talk about “family values”, but spend to help families three times less than the governments of other developed countries. But the costs are a small part of their budgets. The costs of children require much less money than spending on health and retirement security of older America.”
Over the last 20 years the presence of American women in the labor market has become less noticeable, writes Krugman, than in all other developed countries. For this indicator we lag behind even Japan. The crux of the problem – families don’t have enough money to pay for kindergarten or services individuals.
Plan the Warren is designed to solve this problem. The bill provides for the allocation of Federal subsidies to help families with children up to 5 years to pay for care and childcare. A family of four (two adults and two children) with an income of $50,000 will be able to get their child to preschool free of charge, for families with a large income cost is less than 7% of their income. Subsidies Congress will get different preschools in order to reduce the cost of their services, improve their quality, raise staff salaries.
The implementation of such a plan, says Krugman, will have an immediate economic result, as it will allow millions of women to join the labour force. Preliminary project cost estimate is $70 billion (from 0.3 to 1% of GDP) per year will be partially offset by new fee for people with very high income. Yes, agrees the economist, a significant sum, but far short of the estimated costs of “Medicare for all”. The idea is quite walkable and more acceptable for politicians from both parties.
Warren does not belong to the primacy of this idea. In 1971 the Congress, as I noted above, adopted a law similar to the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The money was supposed to go to the local authorities to expand the system of care for children. President Nixon, however, vetoed the resolution, stating that “the law is a blow against the traditional American family.”
Conservative columnists with Nixon agree.
So Hisher Wilhelm of National Review believes that the proposal Warren is the imposition of “socialism” system of care for children and the emergence of a new group of the state bureaucracy.
“Better leave the family tax credit for child care, their money they will manage better.”
Megan Kruger of the “Washington post” believes that American families are not the main money (they have them, they say, is – whence such confidence, coworker?!), and difficulties with where to find a daycare or person to care. She scares us because, improving the financial capacity of families in the conditions of shortage of places in preschool institutions, the government will spur the price for the services in them.
Her mind Bruce Covert of the National Republic. In his opinion, the willingness of the state to Finance the development of the preschool system, will give an impetus to the local authorities and non-profit organizations and forced open hundreds of new children’s centres and gardens. With this purpose, and was made a law in 1971, rejected and put on the shelf of American conservatives, adherents of the so-called “family values.”
By the way, these zealots and indulge in dreams today: how nice it would be to go back in a time when “American family could live on the income of one working.” That’s just how to do it when 30% of American children live in single parent families?