Joshua Holland: Medicare-for-All Isn’t the Solution for Universal Health Care? – MR Live – 8/3/17

We need your help to keep providing free videos! Support the Majority Report's video content by going to

In this Majority Report clip,

Watch the Majority Report live M–F at 12 p.m. EST at or listen via daily podcast at

Download our FREE app:

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member:

LIKE us on Facebook:

FOLLOW us on Twitter:

SUBSCRIBE to us on YouTube:

Joshua Holland: Medicare-for-All Isn’t the Solution for Universal Health Care? – MR Live – 8/3/17

29 thoughts on “Joshua Holland: Medicare-for-All Isn’t the Solution for Universal Health Care? – MR Live – 8/3/17

  1. let me get this straight- now that we’re on the verge of some kind of universal, single-payer system in this country – duplicitous assholes like Sam and this moron are going to fight it because we spend so much of our GDP on it now ???

    • Of course not. He is simply warning that given the momentum toward single payer here in the States, there is a danger of dumping money into the new system without really thinking of how to manage the costs.

      He’s saying that other countries gradually created their own universal healthcare systems, and then maintained costs by making adjustments over time. Whereas we seem to want to implement a system like theirs all at once.

      Sam and the crew have said time and time again that they support a state run healthcare system for everyone. That hasn’t changed.

      The guest even clarifies here…

    • You’re mad. There are countless viewers who’re asking to have guests on to talk about different options.

      On some things they agreed on, and on other things Sam disagreed.

      He’s going to have more guests.

    • call me mad, will you ..?????
      ( btw- pick yourself up the free version of Gramarly )

  2. Funny Jerko would point to the twitter feed, when in the past he said the twitter feed was not considered official communications. Guess you can have it both ways.

  3. I’m Canadian, so I don’t know how medicare works fully. But aren’t there still co-pays and such? So isn’t the term medicare for all a bit misleading? I might be ignorant on the subject, so enlighten me.

    • Dave Hobbs yeah, but they’re incredibly low in the cases where you need to to contribute , and those cases are few and far between

  4. Sam is right it’s easy and often politically expedient – to lump universal health coverage (UHC) and “Single Payer” together, they are not the same thing. So I did a google search of the differences it’s a bit long but give it a scan anyway ..

    Single-payer healthcare – is a system in which the state, rather than private insurers, pays for healthcare costs.– The term “single-payer” thus describes the funding mechanism, referring to healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work.

    In general, single payer health care means that all medical bills are paid out of a single government-run pool of money. Under this system, all providers are paid at the same rate, and citizens receive the same health benefits, regardless of their ability to pay.

    Economist says Canadian-style, single-payer health plan would reap huge
    savings from reduced paperwork and from negotiated drug prices, enough
    to pay for quality coverage for all – at less cost to families and

    What is the public option?
    The public option refers to a portion of Obamacare that would have created a Medicare-like health insurance policy that most U.S. residents could purchase as an alternative to purchasing policies from private health insurers.

    National health insurance (NHI) – sometimes called statutory health insurance (SHI) – is a legally enforced scheme of health insurance that insures a national population against the costs of health care. It may be administered by the public sector, the private sector, or a combination of both.

    Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses. Economist say there would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt

    *There was no definition for the current Rep plan of repeal and replace — because there are no words to describe it — O_o

  5. around 1:07:00 “crisises”? haha. Meanwhile, Gorka who on one hand says the trumpster does pronounce policies via twitter is quoting the trumpster’s twitter feed here. very very strange.

  6. Has anybody else noticed that “John From San Antonio” is really just and alter ego of Lindsey Graham?

  7. Should’ve mentioned that Dave Rubin says he supports “single payer” but when he describes what he thinks single payer is, he describes Obamacare. “Single payer is private insurance and the government facilitates the exchange around it”. He literally says this. The guy is a complete buffoon and it’s pathetic he’s taken seriously. We can thank Sam Harris for launching his career into legitimacy.

  8. Donald Trump is so into mounting a crisis you’d think they were Russian prostitutes. I mean these crisis just seam to stream out from all directions. I’m just spraying.

  9. Consider a HYBRID program that offers basic coverage issued by the government. It is for everyone legally in the country. If the coverage offered is not enough, people can buy additional insurance for upgrades. This way, the insurance company gets to stay in the game and it won’t be a shock to many people.

    Over the years, as the program continues, more things could be added to the basic coverage and insurance companies can scramble to see what they can offer to entice people to pay for their “service.”

  10. Because corporate taxes were so high in the 50s and 60s, corporations, rather than loosing that money to the government invested in R&D or paid their workers better. This is why Bell Labs was so influential back in the day. Ever since the state lowered corporate taxes to next to nothing, instead of investing – why would they? – corporations began playing financial games, lowering investment and R&D by the private sector as a result.

  11. That last caller is correct. It’s mental to keep private insurers. It will always be a constant battle as long as they exist. I’m not making the argument they must be destroyed from an ideological perspective but a practical one. It’s all or nothing. The existence of private insurers is the bane of healthcare. And they will ALWAYS have their lobbyists and republicans (and dems) will always seek to wind back the clock. Keeping any kind of private insurers is IRRATIONAL from a policy and political perspective. It’s just inviting and even begging for failure.

Leave a Reply

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