Christopher Holt January 18, 2019
One prominent theme of the 2018 campaign was
“Medicare for all.” Now, what exactly Medicare for all means may not be clear,
but the idea resonated with progressive voters. It seemed a foregone
conclusion that the new House majority would fulfill their campaign promises
and push the issue to the front of the policy debate. It’s possible, however,
the conventional wisdom is wrong.
One notable data point was Wednesday’s
about-face by Rep. Anna Eshoo, the incoming chair of Energy and Commerce’s
Health Subcommittee. First, The Hill reported Chairman
Eshoo said she would move quickly to hold hearings on Medicare for all.
Then, Politico reported she had
reversed course, saying those hearings would only happen after many
other important policy matters were addressed if there was an
opportunity. Why the change?
The issue is fraught with peril for the House
majority. For one thing, you could throw a dart blindfolded on Capitol Hill
right now and hit a Medicare for all/Medicare buy-in/public option/single-payer
proposal—most of them lacking detail. There are myriad variations on the theme,
and ample disagreement among supporters as to what they’re talking about. Democratic
leaders are likely loathe to tackle an issue that could fracture their caucus.
Even with agreement on the general “Medicare”
branding strategy, the complexities of health care reform could make
Democrats slow to move decisively toward one proposal. Political messaging
will be shaped by the details of the proposals, and the details make the
proposition tricky politically—see as evidence the popularity of the “repeal
and replace” slogan on the right versus the success of each proposal the GOP
considered. AAF previously
detailedthat most proposals branded with the “Medicare” moniker
aren’t really about Medicare at all. Even the proposals that do touch Medicare
can’t accurately be called Medicare for all. Senator Bernie Sanders would
eliminate Medicare altogether (and, as an aside, also outlaw private
insurance), and Medicare buy-in proposals all claim that they would be paid for
fully by enrollee premiums, undermining the appeal of the buy-in option.
Polls are mixed, but they generally do not
support a hard shift to the left on health care. Polling on
single-payer/Medicare expansion suggests Americans are both unhappy with the
current system and uncomfortable with the idea of single-payer. AAF polling from
2018 found that voters opposed a single-payer system 51 percent to 41 percent.
A 10-point gap isn’t huge, but intensity of feeling is against single-payer
supporters, as only 28 percent strongly favor a single-payer system while 43
percent strongly oppose. Further, 55 percent of independent voters were
opposed, and the numbers only get worse for supporters the more the details are
explained.
The upcoming presidential race could also slow
any congressional movement on Medicare for all. Congressional leaders
are probably reluctant to get ahead of their eventual nominee, who will
have a huge say on where the party ultimately ends up.
Medicare is a generally well-liked program, so
it’s easy to see why supporters of national government-run health care would
embrace the name. But wrapping these proposals in the language of
Medicare is also an admission of their potential unpopularity. Perhaps it
shouldn’t be surprising if the race toward a “Medicare for all” government-run
health system is a little slower out of the gates than expected.
CHART REVIEW
Reacting to the discontinuation of Cost Sharing
Reduction payments in 2017, many insurers on the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA)
individual market exchanges increased only Silver premiums for 2019,
AAF’s analysis of 2019 ACA premiums finds. As a result of this
“Silver Loading,” there are many areas where Gold plans are cheaper than the
benchmark plan, as the map below shows. In 2019, of the 501 rating areas, 139
rating areas feature at least one Gold plan that costs less than the benchmark
Silver plan.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/weekly-checkup/medicare-for-all-hitting-the-brakes/#ixzz5dOFgILUu
Follow @AAF on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment