The future of healthcare in the United States, a concern of many Americans, is one of the most heavily debated topics among politicians—especially those who are trying to win the Democratic Party’s support for the upcoming 2020 Presidential election.
Most Democrats seem to favor some form of universal healthcare, yet the most efficient and effective way to achieve this is unclear, and there is significant disagreement among the Democrats as to the correct approach. According to The New York Times, “A decade ago, the issue created such deep internal divisions among Senate Democrats that they ultimately dropped the idea from the bill, even though the public option was strongly favored by many liberals and a majority of House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
While “Medicare for all” proposes universal healthcare for all, what is known as the “public option” does not take away from private insurance; rather, it gives “people of all incomes who aren’t old enough for Medicare to choose health coverage through a new government-run plan that would compete with private insurance.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren proposes a slightly different version of the “Medicare for all” plan—one that she views as more moderately-liberal and even more realistic than the original “Medicare for all” plan. In her solution, healthcare would be free for children whose households earn equal to or less than 200% of the federal poverty level. For people who earn above this benchmark, premiums would not exceed 5% of the household’s income—there would not be any deductibles.
Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are among the opponents of “Medicare for all.” According to The New York Times, the two have detailed their own more cost-effective versions that “would require much less federal spending than Ms. Warren’s $20.5 trillion proposal.” Biden predicts his plan would cost $750 billion in federal spending over the first 10 years of the program. Buttigieg names his plan “Medicare for all who want it” and projects a cost of $1.5 trillion. Both of these proposals offer “more generous premium subsidies than the Affordable Care Act provides and cap people’s premium cost at 8.5% of their income,” according to The New York Times.
The wide variation in estimated costs shows the complexity of the health care issue. Currently, it is unclear as to which proposal will win favor with the American people. This topic is sure to continue to be debated as candidates try to distinguish themselves from the large pack of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President.
Follow HCND on Twitter, like us on Facebook, Pin with us and show our Instagram some love!