Why Medicare-For-All Is Such A Big Lift

#244: ObamaCare Passed By A Whisker
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:

"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."

So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer.  Which is the traditional role of insurers.  Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.

This all makes sense when seen objectively from above.  But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.

You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few.  You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable.  Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:

1.  That enormous increase in taxes.
2.  The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3.  The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4.  The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility.  Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.

Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four.  That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters.  Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers.  Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so.  Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.

When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook.  So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.

Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare.  So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter.  Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).