Home | About | Donate

As Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Kill Medicare for All, New Tool Shows 'Why We Desperately Need, and Can Absolutely afford, #SinglePayer'


The link to the tool in the article goes to PNHP twitter which for whatever reason isn’t working well for me.

To see the tool, go to https://www.kff.org/interactive/household-health-spending-calculator/

I wouldn’t say it is that great. I’m looking for a much better version that I hope our side can put together that has perhaps a similar look and feel, but lets you put in much more info: what state you are in, exactly your family size not a dropdown of 3 choices, exactly your income, exactly your medical insurance if it is a dominant carrier, what your copays cost last year and then showed you what you would expect to pay given the initial funding scheme for Medicare for All. We are absolutely going to need this and I hope somebody PNHP, healtoverprofit, or whoever is already thinking of how they will put this together.


This is not necessarily true. Their total revenues may well go down, but they won’t need or have a large staff of employees to navigate the myriad and inconsistent benefits from all the difference coverage “choices” that the insurance company claims we all want to have. It’s more likely their net income will go up while their revenues go down.


It already says this:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Which didn’t for instance prevent this sort of nonsense from opponents of health care being a basic right rather than a business opportunity.

Reliance on a document when devised had no concept of universal health care/insurance is to say least ‘optimistic’.


Yes, I know of the challenges, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful with this argument. The challenges have mostly centered around the compulsion to buy insurance, not on the question of whether the government can provide insurance.

By the way, I’m not just blindly relying on “a document” but on the jurisprudence that has accumulated around it since it’s adoption and the manner in which the Supreme Court has approached its interpretation. We may have five justices now who are on the far right of the spectrum, but even they observe some constraint in applying the Constitution to facts on the ground. That’s not to say they couldn’t rule the other way, only that I see it as unlikely. But I admit I thought they wouldn’t rule on the Second Amendment in the way they have. Nothing is certain.

My point is that there is ample language in the Constitution to support single payer health care. The Constitution is not our present obstacle, it’s politics.


Consider where the Constitution is precise e.g. "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. " as opposed where it is somewhat ambiguous - (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) and consider an amendment which not only explicitly gave the power to administer a single-payer health insurance scheme to the Federal Government, but made it also obligatory for it to do so.

In another constitutional federation (Australia), the people in 1946 voted (they vote there directly on the constitution) to give the power to the federal government to provide universal health insurance. However before this was implemented there was a change of government and the option of single-payer health care was not taken up until another change of government in the early 1970s. Even then a subsequent changes of government saw it dropped and then re-established in the mid 1980s.

Since then however, apparently reference to American health care has made those suggesting any retreat from single-payer universal health insurance to quickly crawl back into their holes.


I wouldn’t object to such an amendment, I just think it’s highly unlikely and not necessary. We can’t even get the ERA passed, much less this. It takes a super majority (2/3) in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. That’s much more difficult than simply passing the law. If it then becomes necessary to pass an amendment, so be it.