Home | About | Donate

Paying for 'Medicare for All'? No Problem

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/26/paying-medicare-all-no-problem


The question of “paying for Medicare” is nothing more than a distraction.

The real cost issue is that the medical industrial complex will no longer be able to pay for as many lobbyists and own as many politicians when M4A is in place.


It’s good seeing you here, Ray.

1 Like

If all these countries can do it, then you know the GREED CAPITALIST fix is in!

1 Like

Watching Warren stumble on stage when asked “how are you going to pay for it?” was a serious red flag to me about Warren, as the author brings up, it’s not that hard.
Now the good news, as someone who has advocated for a “single payer” system for years, what we’re seeing today with this issue is very good news. Never in the past have so many professional people (accounts, doctors, nurses, etc.) been onboard defending EIM4A and countering the lies produced by the healthcare insurance system. This IMO, is what will be needed to counter the brainwashing the public has received for years, and convince the remaining nay-sayers among them, that EIM4A is their best option for funding our healthcare system. To all professionals defending, thank you.


M4A could easily be paid for with the 99% coming out ahead but this guy’s numbers are way off.

  1. The $1.5 trillion number is what would have been needed in extra tax revenue had M4A been in place in 2017 given about a 9% reduction in total health spending per the UMass study. (not 20%)…he’s forgetting about increased usage. $3.5t spent times 0.91% minus $1.7 spent by govt(s) = $1.5t.
  2. Eliminating the cap on income subject to the 12.4% Social Security tax (6.2% employer and 6.2% employee) and taxing investment income at the 6.2% rate (already proposed by Sanders but to strengthen Social Security, not to fund M4A) would have raised about $350 billion in 2017, not $1.5 trillion.
  3. The $3 trillion per year figure is not what total healthcare spending would be. It is approx. what would need to be raised in additional taxes to fund it for the 10 year period of 2022 through 2031.

Had M4A been in place in 2017, it could have been funded thusly:

  1. $600 billion - a 7.5% payroll tax paid by employers with the first $2 million in payroll excluded (proposed by Sanders’ team)
  2. $400 billion - Bernie’s proposed tax on extreme wealth
  3. $300 billion - a 6% tax on household income, including investment income, with the first $100,000 earned being excluded from the tax (the same $300b could be raised with a 4% tax on all income with the first $29,000 excluded…proposed by Bernie’s team).
  4. $200 billion - a 5% tax on foreign revenue (not profit) on goods produced outside of the U.S.

Thanks… for writing this article…

I just want to pose a question, as it is worrying me. I’ve noticed that there are lots of ads on the idiot box, and the net, to call the number on the screen. Medicare is offering coverage for dental, hearing, free prescriptions, transport to Doctor visits, etc, etc, etc. All this at little cost, no co-pays, etc.
**My question is, is this a scam to divert people back into the existing Medicare et al system, to divert them from Medicare for All? Even if they are recording the numbers that are calling to ask about this, to use it as a “groundswell” of those who want to keep their Medicare.
**I may be wrong, but I smell a rat. The timing is too close and this is close enough to Medicare for All to kill it. Believe me, if they can screw that up, we will be cursing ourselves until the bombs drop.
**Anyway, I hope that wiser heads than mine will look at this and see if it is on the level or not. As I say, it could just be a diversion to kill Medicare for All. They’d think nothing of pumping a few hundred million into a phony scheme to kill Single Payer and the Green New Deal.
**Perhaps I’m just turning into a cynic, but I don’t think so.