Mr. Krugman has a really good column out today on Abdul El-Sayed’s support of Medicare for All and our healthcare “system” in general:
TL;DR: Our healthcare system is already more “socialized” than people think. And that’s not a bad thing.
It’s worth a full read. Some key highlights:
Government (through Medicare and Medicaid) pays out more than private insurers in our healthcare “system”
The government - directly and indirectly through tax breaks - pays for more than 2/3rds of Americans’ health insurance and healthcare costs.
Even with private employer-based health insurance plans (THE most popular way for people to have health insurance in this country), the government exerts significant regulatory oversight and provide significant financial incentives.
Private insurers are simply “middlemen” who provide zero added value while increasing administrative and total system costs (and, yes, as I’ve written before, Medicare Advantage is a scam)
Instituting M4A and paying for it through the tax code would actually be fairer and a “more progressive distribution of the cost… middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs.”
Of course, Republicans will attack El-Sayed by emphasizing his “foreign” name, his religion and subtly alluding to his skin color (even though he is the All-American Guy”) But healthcare is El-Sayed’s signature issue (and profession), so they will also yell “socialism” every time he mentions M4A.
So how to counter these healthcare accusations on the stump and take back Home Field Advantage?
My thoughts:
Pivot to Government Subsidizing Private Companies. Immediately turn the “socialist” accusation around to how for-profit insurers privatize profits and socialize costs. Something along the lines of “You know who is benefitting from the very socialism they scream about? Medicare Advantage corporate insurers who are paid by the government because they couldn’t make money insuring our parents and grandparents otherwise. You know who else cashes in? Private corporate employers and their CEOs who get a tax break for providing insurance to their employees.”
Point Out the Insanity of People Having to Literally Predict Their Future Health When Choosing Insurance (see my post: Choice. It's What's for Dinner). Something along the lines of, “You know what’s really crazy? People having to literally guess what their (and their family’s) health will be in the future so they can choose the proper coverage. Will someone in my family get sick or injured next year? What drugs will I need next year? Will I be somewhere “out of network” when I need healthcare next year? You know who doesn’t have to make these ridiculous guesses and choices? Every resident of every other developed country in the world.”
Point Out That Medicare is More Efficient Than Private Insurance. How about this: “Did you know that administrative overhead for Medicare and Medicaid runs at about 2-4%, while private insurers suck up around 15-20% for overhead and profit? That’s billions of dollars being diverted to “middlemen” private corporations, shareholders and CEOs instead of going to improve you and your family’s health.”
I’m sure there are more rebuttals and talking points. However, in my experience as a candidate, effective messaging on an issue relies on endlessly repeating a very few relatively short, easily understandable and directly relatable responses.
People tend to vote on what they believe directly impacts their lives. The previous bullet points are an attempt to take amorphous healthcare policy at the federal level and bring it into people’s homes and relate it to their base-level concerns. Hopefully, they also help someone like El-Sayed find a path to break into voters’ Circle of TrustTM.
The Bee Gees - Stayin’ Alive
/
