Andrew Yang on Healthcare: Does He Support Medicare For All or a Public Option?

Learn More About Andrew Yang Here:

Get early access to videos by supporting us on Patreon, YouTube or PayPal! Sign up here: or here: or here:

************************
Visit Our Website:
Follow Us on Twitter:
Like Us on Facebook:
Follow Mike on Instagram:
Audio Available on iTunes:

************************
The Humanist Report (THR) is a progressive political podcast that discusses and analyzes current news events and pressing political issues. Our analyses are guided by humanism and political progressivism. Each news story we cover is supplemented with thought-provoking, fact-based commentary that aims for the highest level of objectivity.

#HumanistReport #THR #MikeFigueredo

Andrew Yang on Healthcare: Does He Support Medicare For All or a Public Option?

66 thoughts on “Andrew Yang on Healthcare: Does He Support Medicare For All or a Public Option?

    • He does this perfectly, because he doesn’t just put him on the ropes, but he does it respectfully, communicating that this is an important issue for the constituents Yang is looking to tap into, and when Mike has him clarify his positions, he calmly explains why the more aggressive approach may be better, and that it’s something that needs serious review if he wants to pass the bar on the left. Doesn’t vilify for his position; I love my Jimmy Dore Show, but Jimmy roasted him as soon as Yang said something he didn’t agree with. Well Done Mike, looking forward to more!

    • dead soul He could also be molded in the wrong direction. Sorry, Yang is too unproven. Too risky. If you didn’t have a strong consistent track record you won’t get me vote.

    • I think yang understands the corruption wouldnt allow it either. Yang even stated that he would want bernies system as the end goal and basically as a plan to get to it in either this term or his next. Bernies plan is on a rollout for 4 years, it’s not as differnt.

    • id rather have $1000 a month and if im sick ill use that money to go to the dr. yang is way more for the people while bernie is more for his own dated ideas.

    • +Dewayne Thomas Yang is wrong, has not done his homework or does not REALLY UNDERSTAND the characteristics of the U.S. versus single payer systems. – public option without fail makes it MORE EXPENSIVE for everyone. That you would expect from thinking it through and that you can observe in the nations that “give” the public insurance companies a part of the “market”.

      see my comments under the thread of Carwin Byington and 1Needcoffeee Now

      TheRealNewsNetwork had 2 experts on (beginning of March 2019 I think), “Medicare for All will save the U.S. 1,5 trillion USD” (a speaker of doctors for single payer and an economist and numbers cruncher). They also deal with public option and why that is an inferior solution that undoes a lot of the potential for costs savings (one major cost saver is a very streamlined cost-efficient simple admin).

      The private insurers already have a cherrypicked pool (the most costly group is with Medicare or Medicaid – plus 65 years old, people on disability). With the public option it would be cherrypicking on stereoides. And it is not that the private insurers have earned themselves a good reputation so far.

    • christina hayes 100% Yang is not solid. He’s a just venture capitalist with some clever ideas. He’s no kinda fighter for the people! We have ZERO idea what kind of president he’s be. Way too malleable, way too risky. Not ready for prime time.

    • +christina hayes you don’t have to choose one or the other. You can root for Bernie as President as Yang as VP..that’s what I’m hoping for.

  1. Fiddling around the edges of capitalism to provide healthcare WILL NOT WORK! The only check to capitalism is socialism, so certain things that we recognize as rights MUST BE PROTECTED FROM THE MARKET!
    BTW, if you think that the government can compete with the market, you’re not savvy about how it can be manipulated. The sick people will flock to the government plan and the market will compete by ONLY accepting young, healthy people. It’s a trap!

    • +F Z Most wealthy countries DO HAVE SINGLE PAYER (I know that I live in Europe). In reality the non-profit insurance agency has “sub” divisions. Approx. 20 in Germany, 16 in Austria – that has historic reasons – but they show the traits of single payer, public non-profit, everyone gets the same coverage, mandatory participation, healthcare risks do not matter, income related contributions.

      The single payer agencies within a country coordinate, share price information. There is no out-of-network hospital etc.

    • +Xyz Same yes, there are situations where drugs will be necessary… but,most of the things you speak about, can be solved in other ways, but those ways are NEVER options presented to patients… until people were at least given options and doctors were not doling out drugs like candy, I might feel that some kind of medicare for all situation would be viable… as it stands now, it is absolutely unequivocally not a good idea to marry the government and pharmaceutical companies with the kind of scientific suppression and fraud being committed… but, most people are blind to what is going on and any effort to establish some medicare for all situation will likely be supported

    • +Xyz Same So what you are saying is that the argument that there will be lower drug prices negotiated (as a point to support medicare for all efforts) is currently an invalid argument? Good to know, thanks. Keep spreading that around, more people should know, because it sure seems like that is the number one reason why people think medicare for all is a good idea. They are just making assumptions.

    • +Mel King you got that right – it is not the size of the pool btw. that makes the public option so much more expensive (or any solutions that allows the private insurance companies too much room – which is when the public coverage is not COMPREHENSIVE or if it is underfunded).

      Even efficiently run healthcare must have enough funding !

      A public option means GIVING the private insurers a share of the pie, even though they bring nothing to the table. it is a gift to the industry, to rich insured (if they can opt out – why should they help fund the system they do not use with their taxes – see the education system in the U.S.). It creates a chance for doctors to make do without publicly insured patients).

      Pools with only 300,000 people can function well (see iceland) BUT not when there is cherrypicking going on – it allows the profiteers to sneak in profits and it is not possible to compare the costs per person (benchmarking).

      90 % of costs are caused by 10 % of patients (old age is a major factor, so Medicare already is a gift to the private insurers, they have a cherrypicked pool already). And of course they would get rid of the costly patients, proudly present their offers (which are overpriced if you know the 10 : 90 ratio) and badmouth the costs of the public agency that has to cover the most costly patients.

      Which would present the reason for defunding it – “after all private is better and costs less”.

      Also: the wealthy can retreat to the medical equivalent of a gated community if they are not mandated to pay into the public system (and if they pay they will want to get something in return and complain if they find it insufficient – which is a good thing !).

      If the system is good – and it can be – at reasonable costs – then it will be good for EVERYONE. The affluent are a vocal group they will not put up with crap if they use the same coverage / facilities as the lower income people.

      A reasonably funded and well run system should have acceptable wait times and should be good – if not, the wealthy will riot.

      In a 2 class medical system it is much easier to defund the public system (the Republicans will not do that when their voters use the same system). The rich and affluent will just abandon the public system – next step they will push for defunding the public system.

      Doctors can have enough “private” patients (especially certain kind of specialists and in urban areas – think dentists, eye doctors). they will get more money from the private insurers so they will refuse to accept publicly insured if they can – which then CREATES the need for (overpriced) private insurance.

      If (almost) ALL are covered by Medicare doctors / hosptials MUST accept the contract of Medicare. Only if they are really exceptional or have a special offer (accupuncture for instance) they will attract enough patients for a “private only” practice. Just being the only eye doctor in town or having acceptable wait times will not suffice to justify “private”.

      If there are private insurance contracts the doctors will try to “milk” them: think unnecessary procedures, keeping people longer in the hospital, being eager to do surgery. It is known that doctors have LESS surgery than the average population).

      And of course the country _misses out on the cost-savings of a very streamlined administration._ That is an important factor why single payer systems always ! beat private insurance: less admin (instead of countless differing private contracts ), one software solution, no profit for shareholders and no incentive to have procedures that do not deliver better outcomes.

      If EVERYONE can have a test, the agency will monitor the outcomes – often it will be avoided costs, or at least the well-being of the patients. “Just for the sake of it” will be too expensive, and such cost-drivers will be found.

      Medical care is expensive and gets more expensive (ageing population, better but more expensive treatments) – so even single payer nations are always looking out for opportunities to cut costs.

      Where I live (Austria) the public insurance agency also has other tasks. For instance after some time they cover pay for sick leave (first the company must pay – the funding comes from other contributions, not from the healtcare deductions).

      Tell the agency about a new procedure that reduces rehab time, tests that detect severe cases in time, treatments that deliver better outcomes, survival rates etc. – they will be all ears.

      As a public non-profit that has to serve the common good they can play the long game and look at the big picture.

    • Old people have never contributed to this country in anyway. Especially rich, old people. Most old people I know don’t even pay taxes, it’s ridiculous! While also ruining the Earth and not caring about serious issues like climate change. This is why we need less old people, the next generation has realized what boomers are doing this country and this planet.

  2. As far as an arguement for a public option this is probably one of the best ones I have heard, but I still think MC4A is vastly superior. I think one thing that is almost completely overlooked when it comes to a single-payer system is the fact that you don’t have give one single thought to your health insurance. In Sweden I don’t have to do anything and I know I can go to the hospitals no worries, compared to the horror stories that come out from the US solely from searching for what insurance to purchase, let alone what happens when they you have to go to the hospital. This definitively made Yang drop a little in my eyes. Also this was an excellent interview with some great questioning, huge props Mike.

    • The one thing Bernie has mentioned about MC4A is the complete elimination of private insurers. Even in it’s current state right now, US Medicare still has an option for private insurance in Part C and Part D. The problem is that health insurers make $1T a year in revenues, that’s a lot of congressional vote buying power and lobbying influence that’s hard for one man to overcome. Even in Sweden, there is private healthcare that covers about 10% of the population via supplemental insurance. Doctors also are less expensive to train and make less salary in Sweden.

      So if you want to do the same in the US, then now you’re talking about taking on the Health Insurance and Medical Industries, and I know Bernie also wants a piece of big Pharma as well. I mean with those industries combined, they will make every congressional representative and even their staffers millionaires before they give up their golden goose.

    • +Speed of Lin No. Bernie also stated in an interview that if you want things like cosmetic procedures, you can use supplemental private insurance. But for most basic needs you don’t need to, including eyecare, dental, ear, etc.

    • For Single Payer to work, we need everyone to enroll in a Single Public Health Insurance program. If people can choose to opt-out or choose their own private insurance, prices will continue to climb. Single Payer works by pooling risks from the entire population, not just a subset of the population. Also, it gives the government a large Buying Power to negotiate the prices down. Having private insurance companies for basic healthcare means the costs remain high like they are now. It’s the same in other countries, Canada, etc. Private insurance is only used for things like cosmetic procedures, fertility treatments, travel insurance, and a few other areas not covered by public medical insurance. This kind of confusion is what made Hillarycare and Obamacare the failure that they are. We must make sure that all candidates know what they’re talking about when they mention Universal Healthcare.

    • +Mel King I remember him saying that, but I mean for 99% of services / procedures it sounds like Bernie is for eliminating private health carriers. That’s a fine position to take, and theoretically should reduce overall healthcare expense as a ratio of GDP, but the issue I worry about is the $1T health insurance industry standing in Bernie’s way due to him unwilling to compromise or negotiate with them.

      Look at Trump’s promise about reducing pill prices, and yet he couldn’t do anything in the face of big pharma. He couldn’t even do anything against tax prep companies despite them being a much smaller lobbyist group. I’m still waiting to mail my taxes on an index card.

    • DA REAL Johnny Appleseed Why not? I guess he’s for reparations on top of UBI then? Idk why otherwise he could be better (to you). Health is extremely important. No need to be so vulgar/aggressive.

  3. We in Canada have single payer but we also still have private insurance because our dental and glasses are not covered.So the insurance aren’t going to go broke but they will make less money.BOO HOO!!!

  4. I love he did this interview. I respect him more and more.

    Mike, you freaking rocked it!!!! I wish you would hold the primary debates

    • +Xyz Same Holy cow. Are you writing a book? Listen, I agree with you that healthcare would be much more cost-effective and efficient under a public plan. Yang does not dispute that either. He just wants the transition to be more natural and gradual than just pulling the plug on private insurance on some arbitrary deadline in 4 years.

    • +Rock Lee bruh he’s said after private insurers are mostly phased out he fully supports transitioning to a full fledged Medicare for all route. Like I said it’s just a reasonable and easier transition period.

    • +spoon We have that system here in Ecuador. A public option is a terrible idea. It means bad healthcare for the poor and good for the rich. It does not get rid of the insurance company which does not help with the costs. Imagine the Republicans cutting the public option’s funds so more people go to the private sector.

    • +Diego Benalcázar Lol wow, so not only do hypochondriacs use up way more medical care than they need but they get sent to a socialized psychiatrist once they are diagnosed and use up even more money. Insane.

  5. You have my respect Mike. I love Yang and he’s got my vote. I’m just glad you were able to press on this and it looked like Andrew was very open to your ideas. Great Interview

  6. Andrew is more like, “I have many steps that will lead to that.” He said that he will implement Single Payer in his second term and start with a public option. He isn’t against Single Payer, he just believe in a transitional phase. But he can still change his mind, he even agrees with Mike on his points against private insurance.

    • Well, Yang used to be for single-payer but he changed his policy page, and now argues for public option instead. I’m very disappointed. For Single Payer to work, we need everyone to enroll in a Single Public Health Insurance program. If people can choose to opt-out or choose their own private insurance, prices will continue to climb. Single Payer works by pooling risks from the entire population, not just a subset of the population. Also, it gives the government a large Buying Power to negotiate the prices down. Having private insurance companies for basic healthcare means the costs remain high like they are now. It’s the same in other countries, Canada, etc. Private insurance is only used for things like cosmetic procedures, fertility treatments, travel insurance, and a few other areas not covered by public medical insurance. This kind of confusion is what made Hillarycare and Obamacare the failure that they are. We must make sure that all candidates know what they’re talking about when they mention Universal Healthcare.

    • +Vanna Mae Hey! “Incremental change” is the same mantra all socialists have been tauting since the 20th century.

      Well…except for the Marxists.

    • +Dylan Haymore Except people aren’t advocating for socialism, but rather the Scandinavian model of social democracy which is a term that has become interchangeable with “Democratic Socialism.” Big difference.

  7. Mike you should be the one interviewing all of the candidates. You get right to the meat of the issue and really pull out the truth. I like that you don’t allow from Yang to conflate M4ALL with a public option. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! And candidates need to stop acting like they are.

  8. Asking SMART questions instead of lazy “how do you pay for it?” Talking points. You’re great at this, Mike!

  9. I’d like to just add, in his most rally, He declared his support for single payer and if not a Public option. I think your line of questioning changed/altered his strategy about what’s possible for everyone!

  10. If Yang’s goal is something similar to Taiwan’s healthcare system. I am perfectly fine…In Taiwan, every citizen has high quality single payer health insurance. And they won’t stop you buy extra private insurance and go to private hospitals.

    • +minationis sapientiae There are a lot of things I like about Andrew Yang, but his answers on Medicare for All in this video were pretty bad. If he supports Taiwan’s system, then he supports Medicare for All because that’s basically what Taiwan has. Taiwan doesn’t have a system where there’s private insurance combined with a public option. So if he supports Taiwan’s system, then he should just say he supports Medicare for All, not a public option. Or he could say, “I support Medicare for All as an end goal, but I will also accept a public option as an interim step. If and when we pass a public option, I will keep fighting to pass Medicare for All.” I get the impression that Yang wants universal coverage but has a vague sense that a public option will get us there as effectively as Medicare for All would.

    • ​+Kenneth Huang I can understand that, but I really don’t see anyone beating trump besides yang (he’s taking trump voters away). I also don’t agree with everything yang says but I truly think he’s the only guy thats really for the people.
      And out of all the people running he will do the best in bringing both the right and left together and pushing us forward. He’s not an end all but he’s the best place for us to start.

    • ​+minationis sapientiae I’m pretty sure Bernie Sanders could beat Donald Trump. Every time he talks to conservatives, they gave him standing ovations. We saw this again with his Fox News town hall.

      Andrew Yang… as far as his positions on the issues go he could beat Trump easily, but after seeing him stumble through his answers here on such a high-profile issue as Medicare for All, I’m worried that he won’t come across as cogent and prepared for the Presidency. It doesn’t help that he’s never held elected office and that he’s going to be hammered on his lack of experience throughout the campaign. (No, the same argument won’t work against Trump because 1. Trump will have already been President for almost four years, and 2. As poorly informed as Trump is on the issues, I’ve never actually seen him stumble through an answer. He almost always seems to bullshit his way out of any question in the most natural manner.)

      If Yang could just come up with a simple and clear answer to his position on Medicare for All, that would assuage my concerns about him considerably. Again, I think he should just say what I wrote above: “I support Medicare for All as an end goal, but I will also accept a public option as an interim step. If and when we pass a public option, I will keep fighting to pass Medicare for All.” Boom. Simple, clear, direct, and the right position to hold.

      Finally, let me say that, pretty much ever since I learned about Yang, I’ve found myself wishing that he would run for a lower office, like Governor of New York. He could do a lot of good for his state and he would have a lower-level testbed to implement UBI and demonstrate its positive effects. I’m enormously supportive of most of what Yang is saying and I think he could very much have a bright future in politics, but I don’t think this is his time for the Presidency.

    • It’s quite clear the Yang prefers Medicare for All, and is working toward it practically, as he does with all of his policies. Reasonable transitions. Stating that he’s not for MFA is disingenuous and willfully obtuse.

    • +Rave It’s not quite clear when you look at Yang’s webpage for Medicare for All. As seen on the screen grab at 0:41:

      — Either through expanding Medicare to all, or through creating a new healthcare system, we must move in the direction of a public option to ensure that all Americans can receive the healthcare they deserve. —

      Is this clear to you? Just from that sentence, I can’t tell if he supports expanding Medicare to everyone (i.e., actual Medicare for All), “creating a new healthcare system” (what does that mean? that could mean any number of things), or creating a public option that competes alongside private insurance companies. Or all three! His use of the words “either” and “or” lends to the interpretation that he basically supports just about anything, especially when “creating a new healthcare system” is thrown into the mix.

      After parsing his comments in this video and elsewhere (which are hardly crystal clear themselves), I do think that he supports Medicare for All and would either push for it from the get-go or push for it after a public option has been passed, whichever is easier politically. But he needs to say that. Right now his responses are all over the place which suggests to me that he hasn’t put as much thought into how he should answer questions about health care as he should.

  11. I love Yang… he’s not a purist to any issues he just wants to do what works. What’s the most viable option. I would have love to have known what’s his time frame on getting everyone covered since his plan slowly lowers the age

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *