Partnership Statement On Introduction Of Senator Sanders’s Medicare For All Legislation
Bill Would Disrupt Coverage & Care; Eliminate Choice, Competition & Control; Force Families To Pay More
WASHINGTON – The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future issued the following statement today regarding the introduction of Medicare for all legislation by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.):
“Every single American deserves access to affordable, high-quality health care – and the best way to accomplish that is by building on the progress we’ve made through our current system, not scrapping it for a one-size-fits all government-run system like Medicare for all,”said Lauren Crawford Shaver, Executive Director of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future. “With the free market and public programs working together, 90 percent of Americans are now covered, patients with pre-existing conditions are protected, young adults can stay on their parents’ health care plans until they are 26 years old and polls show most Americans are satisfied with the care they receive.
“Medicare for all would throw all of this hard-won progress away, cost more than $32 trillion and force families to pay higher taxes. It would eliminate the choice, competition and patient control Americans enjoy through employer-based coverage and through the exchanges, subject patients to longer wait times and a lower quality of care, move health care decisions away from doctors and patients and put Washington politicians and bureaucrats in control.
“Americans have made it clear that they want our elected officials to focus on constructive solutions that protect and improve upon what’s working in our health care system, while coming together to fix what isn’t. Medicare for all is the opposite of practical, and it destroys our system rather than building on its successes. That is the wrong way forward for America.”
To learn more about the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, CLICK HERE.
Americans Don’t Support Medicare For All Once They Learn What It Means:
- 58 Percent Of Americans Oppose Medicare For All When They Learn It Would Eliminate Private Health Coverage. (Ashley Kirzinger, Cailey Muñana & Mollyann Brodie, “KFF Health Tracking Poll – January 2019: The Public On Next Steps For The ACA And Proposals To Expand Coverage,” KFF, 1/23/19)
- 60 Percent Of Americans Oppose Medicare For All When They Learn It Would “Require Most Americans To Pay More In Taxes.”(Ashley Kirzinger, Cailey Muñana & Mollyann Brodie, “KFF Health Tracking Poll – January 2019: The Public On Next Steps For The ACA And Proposals To Expand Coverage,” KFF, 1/23/19)
- 70 Percent Of Americans Oppose Medicare For All When They Learn It Would “Lead To Delays In People Getting Some Medical Tests And Treatments.” (Ashley Kirzinger, Cailey Muñana & Mollyann Brodie, “KFF Health Tracking Poll – January 2019: The Public On Next Steps For The ACA And Proposals To Expand Coverage,” KFF, 1/23/19)
Medicare For All Would Cost Americans $32 Trillion & Require Massive Tax Hikes:
Independent Studies From Both The Liberal-Leaning Urban Institute And The Libertarian-Leaning Mercatus Center Have Estimated Costs Of Medicare For All Proposals At More Than $32 Trillion Dollars Over Ten Years. “The left’s wish list is headlined by a single-payer health care plan in Congress that two nonpartisan studies, one by the liberal-leaning Urban Institute and one by the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center, each estimate would cost the federal government $32 trillion over 10 years … [Medicare for all] requires a massive new source of tax revenue.” (Benjy Sarlin, “As The Progressive Push For Big Spending Grows, So Does The Democratic Divide On The Deficit,” NBC News, 8/19/18)
The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget Found That “Medicare For All Would Mean Increasing Federal Spending By About 60 Percent,” And “Require The Equivalent Of Tripling Payroll Taxes Or More Than Doubling All Other Taxes.” “Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.” (“How Much Will Medicare For All Cost?” Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget, 2/27/19)
Democrats Won The House Not On A Platform Of Medicare For All, But By Focusing On Protecting And Building Upon What’s Working In Our Health Care System:
A Study By The Democratic Group Third Way Found That “Just Two Of The 92 Democrats In The Most Competitive House Races Last Year Ran Ads Endorsing Medicare-For-All, And Both Of Those Candidates Lost.” “In a study, the centrist Democratic group Third Way found that just two of the 92 Democrats in the most competitive House races last year ran ads endorsing Medicare-for-all, and both of those candidates lost. ‘None of the people that were able to win in tough districts in 2018 ran on Medicare-for-all, and the reason is that they can’t,’ says Matt Bennett, Third Way’s executive vice president for public affairs. ‘People in those districts don’t support it.’” (Ronald Brownstein & Aaron Kessler, “Have House Democrats Lurched Left? Not Those From Swing Seats,” CNN, 3/5/19)
Prominent Democratic Strategist: “Most Of The Freshmen Who Helped Take Back The House Got Elected On: ‘We’re Going To Protect Your Health Insurance Even If You Have A Pre-Existing Condition,’ Not ‘We’re Going To Take This Whole System And Throw It Out The Window.’” “Most of the freshmen who helped take back the House got elected on: ‘We’re going to protect your health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition,’ not ‘We’re going to take this whole system and throw it out the window,’’ said Kenneth Baer, a Democratic strategist.”(Jonathan Martin & Abby Goodnough, “Medicare For All Emerges As Early Policy Test For 2020 Democrats,” The New York Times, 2/2/19)
Recently, Many Prominent Democrats Have Expressed Concerns Over Medicare For All:
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Speaker Of The House: “And by the way, how’s it gonna be paid for? … All I want is the goal of every American having access to health care. You don’t get there by dismantling the Affordable Care Act … Anyway, this is not a bumper-sticker war – this is a complicated issue.” (Tessa Stuart & Jann S. Wenner, “Nancy Pelosi: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, 2/27/19)
Representative Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), House Democratic Campaign Chief: “What do we have — 130 million-something Americans who get their health insurance through their work? The transition from what we have now to Medicare for all, it’s just hard to conceive how that would work. You have so many jobs attached to the health care industry … I think the $33 trillion price tag for Medicare for all is a little scary.” (Scott Wong & Mike Lillis, “Dem Campaign Chief: Medicare For All Price Tag ‘A Little Scary,’” The Hill, 3/6/19)
Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate: “That legislation takes insurance away from 180 million people who get it from their employer, 80 percent of whom like it … It takes it away from every single union that has collectively bargained for their health-care plan. It takes it away from 20 million people that have Medicare Advantage who love Medicare Advantage.” (James Hohmann, “The Daily 202: Decrying Court Packing, Michael Bennet Pleads With Democrats To Care More About Electability,” The Washington Post, 3/18/19)
John Hickenlooper, Former Colorado Governor And Democratic Presidential Candidate: “I probably would oppose Medicare for All just because there are over 150 million people, Americans who have some form of private insurance through their business, and the vast majority of them are happy with that. I don’t see how you transition from taking something away from all those people that are already happy.” (John Hickenlooper, “One-On-One With John Hickenlooper, MSNBC, 3/7/19)
Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama Chief Of Staff And House Democratic Campaign Chief: “Earth to Democrats: Republicans are telling you something when they gleefully schedule votes on proposals like … Medicare for all … When they’re more eager to vote on the Democratic agenda than we are, we should take a step back and ask ourselves whether we’re inadvertently letting the political battle play out on their turf rather than our own. If Trump’s only hope for winning a second term turns on his ability to paint us as socialists, we shouldn’t play to type.” (Rahm Emanuel, “How Not To Lose To Donald Trump,” The Atlantic, 3/10/19)