 |
| Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- U.S. Senator and 2020 Democratic Socialist presidential candidate: Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist) Socialist Republic of Vermont) |
“Medicare for All,” or a single-payer system, is being championed by many on the progressive left, with advocates arguing that it will cut costs by reducing overhead and promote overall health by giving all Americans access to preventive health care.Their opponents argue Medicare for All is a political non-starter that would force Americans off employer-based plans, reduce incentives for doctors and providers, increase bureaucracy and inefficiencies in the system, and lead to worse care overall, all the while inflating the already swelled federal deficit. Should private health insurance exist? Or is it time for Medicare for All?
FOR THE MOTION:
Dr. Adam Gaffney - President, Physicians for a National Health Program
Joseph Sanberg - Co-Founder, Aspiration & Chair, CalEITC4Me
AGAINST THE MOTION:
Nick Gillespie - Editor-at-Large, Reason
Sally Pipes - CEO & President, Pacific Research Institute"
Just to correct the moderator John Donvan: a government-run, Medicare For All health care system would replace the private health insurance system in America, but the Federal Government wouldn't pick up the costs of everyone's health care. Those costs would instead be picked up by the taxpayers. Instead of paying for our health care through our private insurance or out-pocket, we would pay for our government-run, socialized health care, probably through payroll taxes. So a government-run health care system, even if it's just government-run health insurance, would of course not be free for anyone.
Not to go to far down the road here and to sound like I'm picking on John Donvan, but every time I hear someone argue that government services are free, it reminds me of the great quote by the Classical Liberal economic professor Milton Friedman who said there's no such thing as a free lunch. What he was talking about was government services (or if you prefer public services) and arguing that everything that government does come with a cost.
Socialists (or Social Democrats, if you prefer) argue those costs that government will impose would be cheaper and better (at least in the long-term) than anything that you can get from the private sector. Fine, you can argue that, but you're being intellectually dishonest honest or you are simply just ignorant about how government is financed in this country.
I could layout the case for why I'm against a government only run health care system in America (even if it's just government-run health insurance) but that's being done for me in this video by Nick Gillespie and Sally Pipes and I don't think I can improve on that.
I will close with this point and suggestion: for people who who want a government-run health insurance system in America, they need to be intellectually honest with Americans and tell them how would they finance that government-run health insurance system. And tell people how much it will cost them and how it would be paid for. Because even people who want government-run health care pays taxes and understands how government is paid for.
