Single-Payer is Cheaper AND Better than What We Have – Three Sources

Imagine! Even the the establishment paper known as The New York Times admits that single-payer health coverage – which we could easily make happen by simply expanding either Medicare or Medicaid to cover everybody – would save us money. 

Now, the thing to be aware of after California’s postponement of Medicare for All based on “incompleteness” of the bill or the myth that it wouldn’t be affordable (since a study by the California State Senate claimed it would cost more than the entire current state budget), is that paying health coverage through the state budget naturally does mean that the tax revenues needed for the state budget will have to go up, but that this is not really a problem because – at the same time – our healthcare premiums will completely disappear, and they are higher than the rise in taxes! They are higher because we are currently paying a middle man (the private, profit-seeking, and care-denying insurance) plus billing staff at hospitals and doctor offices, and because we don’t negotiate drug prices.

So, taxes would go up, but the savings on health insurance premiums would more than make up for the rise in taxes. So, on the whole we would save. Plus, taxes can be tied to income and so tax more from the rich who can afford more, further helping those of us who are struggling financially.

Below is the NY-Times article and two interesting data sources with very telling graphs about how bad and overpriced our healthcare is in international comparison:

1. Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money – The New York Times
2. Health resources – Health spending – OECD Data
3. Health status – Potential years of life lost – OECD Data

---

Support alternative media and citizen journalism. Help us any way you can.