They have to. That's the real debate - and it's not trivial. Just saying M4ALL is misleading if we don't talk about how to price it b/c it assumes we just use Medicare pricing. Won't work.
Replies
And we'd also have to unwind ESI. Also not trivial. Best to call it what the real goal is. Not Medicare - but UHC.
aug 25, 2025, 8:23 pm • 0 0 • view
The biggest issue is that the rollout might take years and if the government changes party hands they could stop it before people see the benefit. M4A gets you much closer quicker.
aug 25, 2025, 8:30 pm • 0 0 • view
I disagree - Medicare now has 4 parts so it's already way more complex than UHC. It's also been heavily tarnished by "Medicare Advantage" - and this latest group is now advocating for "Medicare Advantage For All." Not what we want at all.
aug 25, 2025, 8:42 pm • 0 0 • view
If it included parts a & b & d and dental and vision and was paid for by taxes with no deductibles or copay… I’d take Medicare advantage for all.
aug 26, 2025, 12:50 am • 0 0 • view
... an idea that first appeared w/ Truman in the late 1940's. ... and given the regulatory capture - I would argue we're further away from that possibility than ever. Bernie and M4A had their shot. Time to move on. Single payer works - but isn't required. Single pricing is.
aug 26, 2025, 2:37 am • 0 0 • view