Medicare for All vs Medicare Advantage for All
Why not both?
Premise
Milton Friedman: “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
Paul Krugman: “An Insurance Company With An Army” [1]
Let’s agree with Mr. Krugman’s assessment that for the United States “[t]he vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.”
Mr. Friedman (no relation) argued for a free market - the market will supply the demands of the consumer.
Proposal
Let’s replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with something that could work. Bernie Sanders has cried for years that the United States should have Medicare for All. Conservative thinkers recently have riffed on that idea and proposed Medicare Advantage for All. A natural liberal/conservative split between a public system and a private system.
In true competitive manner, let’s try both. This would require transitioning to a universal system where all citizens are covered by Medicare, with options to choose between traditional government-run, single-payer insurance and private Medicare Advantage plans. The ACA fell short in its ability to provide near universal coverage at an affordable rate. It’s past time to try something different.