You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

Rampell: The appeal of ‘Medicare for all’


Despite the rise of the tea party and unified Republican control of government, one decidedly anti-free-market idea appears ascendant: single-payer health care.

And it’s no wonder, given that a record-high share of the population receives government-provided health insurance. As a country, we’ve long since acquiesced to the idea that Uncle Sam should give insurance to the elderly, veterans, people with disabilities, poor adults, poor kids, pregnant women and the lower middle class.

Many Americans are asking: Why not the rest of us, too?

A recent survey from the Economist/YouGov found that a majority of Americans support “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.” Similarly, a poll from Morning Consult/Politico showed that a plurality of voters support “a single-payer health care system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan.”

Divining the longer-term trend in attitudes is difficult, as the way survey questions on the topic are asked has changed over time. Calling it “Medicare for all,” for example, generally elicits much stronger approval, while emphasizing the word “government” tends to depress support.

But some survey questions that have remained consistent in recent years show support has been rising for the broader idea that the federal government bears responsibility for making sure all Americans have coverage.

Since 1987, the share of Americans who receive some sort of public insurance has roughly doubled, to about 4 in 10 as of 2015. That’s not counting the people who receive subsidies to buy private insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

Expansions of government coverage have been cheered by many liberals, but they also have bred suspicion and jealousy.

In both the recent YouGov and Morning Consult polls, the age group most opposed to single-payer was the only one that basically already has it: those 65 and up. In other words, single-payer for me but not for thee.

Seniors are probably worried that expanding coverage to more Americans could put their own generous benefits at risk.

Many of those outside the growing pool of public-insurance beneficiaries, on the other hand, have become resentful of the fact that everyone else seems to be getting a big fat government handout. Or so they perceive.

Often what Trump voters say they want is not a return to pre-Obamacare days; rather, they want in on the great insurance deal that they think their lazy, less-deserving neighbors are getting.

In fact, that recent YouGov poll found that 40 percent of Trump voters support Medicare for all. Among Republicans overall, the share rises to 46 percent.

Among politicians, attitudes are somewhat different.

Expansion costs a lot, which doesn’t exactly jibe with the GOP’s tax-cutting agenda. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his compatriots seem to further believe — despite all evidence to the contrary — that the private sector is on the verge of some innovation that will magically reduce costs and give all Americans the coverage and care they yearn for.

But even Democrats don’t have the stomach for the battle required to replace our system with single-payer. Which is understandable — while I also favor universal health-insurance coverage, I’m skeptical it will be achieved through single-payer, given both the state of our political process and Americans’ cultural allergy to tax hikes.

Even so, somewhere out there, Bernie Sanders is smiling.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: A road map for dealing with campus radicals

Jonathan Haidt is a member of one of America’s smallest fraternities — m those who attempt to see beyond their own prejudices. In the left-leaning Chronicle of Higher Education, he notes that “intimidation is the new normal” on college campuses. The examples are well-known: The shout-down/shutdown of Heather Mac Donald at Claremont...
CARTOON
CARTOON

CARTOON VIEW JOHN BRANCH
Letters Finally, we have county leaders who get it about development

Finally, we have leaders who get it I would like to thank the county commissioners who voted against the development west of The Acreage (“Commission nixes project near Acreage,” Thursday). I only wish you had been in office before Minto and this Westlake city were planned. Every day it’s a hassle getting in and out of The Acreage...
POINT OF VIEW Who needs local government? We’ve got Tallahassee

Every year, local governments in Florida come under attack by the very same people who tell the federal government to stay out of their business, our state legislators. Local government’s self-determination, or “home rule” is guaranteed by our state constitution. Local governments can do anything not denied to them by state law. And...
Opinion: The day Bill O’Reilly got fired

On the day Bill O’Reilly was fired, Serena Williams announced she was 20 weeks pregnant. Fans did the math and concluded Williams must have had a baby on board in January when she won her 23rd Grand Slam singles title in dominating fashion. That, said TV tennis analyst Pam Shriver, made Williams’ win “even more spectacular.&rdquo...
More Stories