Health care is becoming a main point of contention as the U.S. gears up for the 2020 presidential election. Several Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), have called for Medicare for all, while Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell are in favor of cutting health care spending.
Medicare, along with Medicaid and Social Security, are the largest expenses in the U.S. And according to eHealth CEO Scott Flanders, this is “all the more reason” why an idea like Medicare for all is “nearly irrational” to discuss.
“You’re already saying that it’s a challenge to fund what we’ve already committed to our seniors,” Flanders said on Yahoo Finance’s On the Move. “So, to layer on another 180 million people outside of the employer market into Medicare would just collapse the system.
Sanders bill ‘would actually outlaw all private insurance’
The Congressional Budget Office stated in a May 2019 report that a single-payer health care system transition “could be complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive.”
As it stands, approximately 156 million Americans are insured through their employer, while another 21 million are insured through the private market. At the same time, more and more Americans are becoming uninsured in the Trump era.
In Sanders’ proposal, Americans would gain universal health care coverage, while employers would be prohibited from providing separate plans. However, it would also require at least $3 trillion a year in new government revenue, as Yahoo Finance previously reported, leading to higher corporate and individual taxes.
“The bill that’s been promulgated by Bernie Sanders would actually outlaw all private insurance,” Flanders said. “So, 180 million employer-insured individuals and families would lose the insurance they have now.
He added: “We think it’s highly unlikely that that’s a realistic prospect, but there will still always be a private insurance market for the treatments that aren’t covered by a government plan.”
Rising health care costs have become a major issue in the country. In fact, a recent Gallup poll indicated that 55% of the country worries “a great deal” about the affordability and accessibility of health care.
‘It’s just so Byzantine’
Part of America’s issue with health care involves prescription drug prices — in 2015, those accounted for 17% of all health care costs. Flanders, though, doesn’t want to place the blame there.
“It’s easy to attack the pharmaceutical industry,” he said. “But, it’s important to remember they only represent 10% of the total cost of health care, and the medications they create solve and cure a lot of diseases. So, I’m personally resistant, even though they’re an attractive whipping boy, to go after them.”
Pharmacy benefit management systems “have increased the cost savings by negotiating volume discounts,” Flanders said. “But, they also bring an additional layer of expense into the system. That’s the challenge with the ecosystem of health care today — it’s just so Byzantine and complicated [that] it’s hard to know where to go attack the costs.”
Still, despite his objections to Medicare for all, Flanders does recognize the significance of Medicare’s current standing, especially as it relates to senior citizens.
“Medicare is the one aspect of the health care system that has higher customer satisfaction,” Flanders said. “The hospitals, the doctors have all learned to live with Medicare. And so, it’s part of the system that works — that’s why it’s become a popular Democratic platform to say ‘Medicare for all,’ because Medicare is an aspect of the system that’s generally delivering on strong patient outcomes at a reasonable cost.”
But, Flanders added, “these are commitments that we’ve made to seniors. Seniors have paid into Medicare their entire lives. It’s just not right to think about curtailing those benefits.”
Subscribe to Yahoo Finance:
About Yahoo Finance:
At Yahoo Finance, you get free stock quotes, up-to-date news, portfolio management resources, international market data, social interaction and mortgage rates that help you manage your financial life.
Connect with Yahoo Finance:
Get the latest news:
Find Yahoo Finance on Facebook:
Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter:
Follow Yahoo Finance on Instagram:
What he means is that Medicare For All would collapse his profits.
why wouldn’t Government plans cover everything? in fact Govt. should charge people on percentage of their income for all inclusive medical coverage , they will end up making monies and insurance companies have been kind of middle men between people, their care and doctor’s and have made so much monies without giving people complete coverage, people still dip into their pockets to pay for either medicine or some treatments and doctor’s are lamenting that they are not paid well by insurance companies either so it means there is something very wrong somewhere, private coverage ought to be for the ones who want it and why should procedures cost so much? what is the reason behind these inflated costs? Government has enough monies to co pay for it for those who cannot afford it because of the costs and are made to suffer for no reason except payments.
O M G , Why can’t the American Public Do the Simple Math … Insurance Companies = Scam … Want a Raise America …?? 30 to 50 % of the Costs of Health Care Related costs are Insurance Related , Just Ask Your Doctor … Sheese ! Do Some Research … !! .. We Need a Realistic Option / Competition to This Monopoly & Some Form of a Single Payer Option is the Only Answer … Now look at the Wallstreet ‘ Cash Cow ‘ in Finance … Some Form of a Public Banking Option / Glassteagal Act would Reduce Corruption / & Malfeasance Dramatically , Not to Mention the National Debt … Wise up People , ‘ No More Bailouts ‘ because of Wallstreet Speculation & Bankster Related Shenanigans … Another Crash is Coming & Who do You think is Going to be on the Hook for all the Speculation of the last 20 yrs …?? .. Pottersville … Or Bedford Falls / George Baily … Your Choice …
WE SHOULD MAKE MEDICARE FOR ALL FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE LESS THAN 100,000 DOLLARS,,SO THE RICH CAN KEEP THEIR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS,THAT THEY SO DEARLY LOVE AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE FOR ARE POLITICIANS,,GOVERNMENT WORKERS WHO MAKE MORE THAN 100,000 DOLLARS,,THEY SHOULD BY THEIR OWN PLANS,,LIKE THEY WANT THE MIDDLECLASS TO DO,,,WHY SHOULD THE TAX PAYERS PAY FOR MITCH MCCONNEL AND NANCY PELOSI AND THE REST OF THE POLITICIANS HEALTH CARE WHEN THEY MAKE OVER 175,000 DOLLARS,THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR OWN.THAT WAY THERE WOULD STILL BE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE FOR THE RICH,,WHO WANT TO PROTECT IT SO MUCH.
People like He and their personal very unreasonably high income which are mostly coming from gaming and rooting the system leading to the collapse.
Of course an ex CEO will say that because they’ve been making obscene profits from it. What do seniors pay $100-$120 mo? Most plans at work cost triple or more with the employer covering the same or more on top of that. You don’t think that all those $$$ means big profits for the fat cat insurers at the top? OF COURSE IT DOES! I can see where Bernie is going with this as insurers and Big Pharma have been gouging us for many years. If other countries can do it so can we