Would Medicare for All Increase Your Wages?

See every side of every news story by downloading the free Ground News app: ground.news/healthcaretriage
Medicare for All, which would extend health coverage to all Americans, has been a hot topic of debate in recent years. Researchers have looked into the many ways that a switch to Medicare for All might change our lives, and one of those areas of change might be wages. Employer provided healthcare is baked into our current system of healthcare, and there are a lot of studies that look at how employer paid premiums can depress wages, and how our paychecks might shift in a M4A-type situation.
Related HCT episodes:
1. The Pitfalls of Health Care Cost Sharing:
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Meredith Danko - Social Media
Tiffany Doherty -- Writer and Script Editor
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Mark Olsen - Art Director, Producer
#healthcaretriage #medicare #medicareforall

[@scotthendricks5665]

When ever I see these numbers it's frightening. The Australian government spends about $4000 per person per year and we get universal coverage. How can premiums be $7000 per year. Insanity.

[@grantcivyt]

There is a lot of bad regulation that keeps competition from working in the US. There's also a terrible tax structure that's created a marketplace dominated by insurers with very destructive business practices.

[@scottabc72]

@@grantcivyt The best way for 'competition to work' is to not pay for unprofitable people or unprofitable medical care. Purely For profit health care can never work for a whole population

[@grantcivyt]

@@scottabc72 That's a narrow view of the situation. Doctors, like many other professions, have historically charged on a sliding scale dependent on the patient's ability to pay. That arrangement encourages judicious use of health care and creates a pressure to reduce prices. Our present system encourages price inflation.

[@scottabc72]

@@grantcivyt This isnt the 1800's anymore. Whats the sliding scale for a complicated procedure involving several highly paid experts? The lowest possible rate would still be out of reach for many people which is my point.

[@heatherclark9405]

@@grantcivyt Regulations that inhibit the marketplace are not the problem in US healthcare. The problem is that we have turned over our healthcare to the market, which operates on one precept: to make a profit. If that means denying care, opaque pricing, fine print in insurance contracts that render a patient powerless, those are the breaks. In fact, regulation has been decreasing in the healthcare "marketplace," not increasing, over the past 50 years, with zero accountability. The pollution of our democracy with dark money has only added fuel to the fire as rich, powerful vested interests pay to create "regulations" that favor their industries. Healthcare does not function like a market commodity. If it's being done correctly it costs money, it doesn't make money. The most effective, most efficient way to bear this cost is to share the risk across a single 320 million member pool (the total US population), negotiate prices using the power of that pool, cut out the rapacious middleman aka health insurance, reduce the costly waste of needing to bill hundreds of different insurers and policies, and protect our doctors and nurses from having to fight insurance co's every day simply to be allowed to do their jobs providing needed care to patients. Reducing their burnout inflicted by insurance co's also reduces costs. Noone asks the public schools to make money, noone asks the fire dept. to make money, noone asks the military to make money or even pay for itself. We pay for these together because we accept them as a necessary public good. (Though if we reduced spending on the military imagine how much more would be available for public health.)

[@AshenSeraph]

Corporate America: "You're paying less for your health, so we'll just cut your paycheck to adjust for that. I always wanted a new lambo. 3 just isn't enough."

[@quintessenceSL]

Worse- employer based health insurance is touted by the freemarket overlords as the gold standard. But that keeps you locked in to a particular vendor and the terms your employer negotiated. It's essentially a company town for insurance. A real free market would argue to end tying insurance employment and just give you the money.

[@AshenSeraph]

@@quintessenceSL I wasn't trying to say that the current system was any good by any means. I am a strong believer in single payer, and for more reasons than just costs. I just think saying wages will go up is seriously underestimating the depravity of Wall Street.

[@grantcivyt]

@@quintessenceSL I don't know what free market "overlords" you're referring to. We don't actually have any overlords that are free marketers in their legislative capacities. As you suggest, a free market wouldn't encourage employer health insurance through tax incentives.

[@MarshallTheArtist]

@@AshenSeraph Wall Street has nothing to do with how most people get their income.

[@AshenSeraph]

@@MarshallTheArtist Technically correct, but the context I used the term never implied the average person is making money out on stock investments. I was using the term as a shorthand for corporate culture, not saying that the average person was somehow getting money out of it. I was evoking the idea that has overwhelmed corporate America of putting investors before employees.

[@apark8787]

What timing of this video, the White House just dropped Medicare drug-price negotiations from the spending bill this morning. Looks like Medicare for All won't happen in the immediate time horizon.

[@pnwmeditations]

I think M4A is inevitable, but I suspect it will take a generation to fully implement.

[@sheepwshotguns42]

gotta vote in the primaries, and we need to demand the most left wing progressive issues based candidate possible. and between elections we need to be in the streets demanding change.

[@LeftWingNationalist]

I'm just sitting out elections until I believe the nominee will implement it like I did the last two elections. I show up for a carrot. I don't give a shit about the stick.

[@sheepwshotguns42]

@@LeftWingNationalist then you are contributing to maintaining the status quo. voting is literally the least you can do to set the stage for more effective resistance.

[@bucketiii7581]

The electoral work is finished. Direct action is what is left.

[@Praisethesunson]

What if those potential saving just went to the shareholders instead? Asking for a major corporation.

[@apark8787]

Exactly. When did a company ever pass on cost savings to higher wages for workers? Just juice up those dividends and share buybacks!

[@d_dave7200]

It can actually be mandated. Require employers to pass on the savings during at least the first year. It won't stop them from cutting pay a year later, but at least it will be obvious to workers that they just got a pay cut, which makes it harder for employers to do.

[@cbryce9243]

@@northernmetalworker Not of they make $7.25 an hour, they can't!

[@mdavid1955]

Just raise the Medicare payroll tax. Expand the system to everyone. You could still have private plans to supplement medicare. (Aka Canada, Australia)

[@cbl6520]

Canada only allows this in a few providences. Otherwise, it’s illegal, even if you’re teasing the line between living and dying and desperately need care.

[@M_M_B_]

Marianne Williamson 2024!

[@TokenSelf]

Employer-provided health insurance isn't about reducing salaries. It's about control. Employees are a lot less likely to leave the company if they'll immediately have to: - Shop for a new provider. - Pay full, hefty premiums from their savings. - Find new doctor(s) depending on who's covered on the new provider. - Hope they last until they get a new job AND their probationary period ends.

[@rubidot]

💯

[@allwet66]

for 8 years in a row we got a raise in August and our health premiums went up the exact same amount in January. By the time i retired my healthcare costs were the largest deduction from my check by a long shot. more than fed/state taxes more than social security taxes.

[@DevotedpupaVODs]

Surprisingly fair assessment of M4A considering the sponsor was a health insurance app. Good job on staying honest there.

[@harshbarj]

Sadly I feel some employers would just keep the money for themselves. Even though that money was technically part of that employees income.

[@scottabc72]

Agreed and I think this is partly why the poll he mentioned had so many people saying their wages wouldnt go up with Medicare for all

[@sojourner4726]

Sounds like it be really cool if there was some sort of way for people to unite together and advocate for their joint interest against the bosses greed. And to have the workers collective interest represented instead of the individual being too weak to negotiate much of anything. Kind of like why an actor would have an agent.

[@scottabc72]

@@sojourner4726 Theres a word for this: "Unions"

[@Naruedyoh]

In countries with public healthcare we just don't need to worry, we know that even unemployed we get healthcare

[@grantcivyt]

People on Medicare, Medicaid and social security also think they don't have to worry, but none of those programs is financially secure. They are badly mismanaged and their solvency is only as good as the government's ability to borrow more and more each year. Fun fact: the US national debt is already at hundreds of thousands of dollars PER TAXPAYER! And I'm pretty sure that's just the official debt and not the promised benefits like healthcare and social security.

[@d_dave7200]

Good video. The only thing missing is that it's been proposed that this transition could be improved by actually /mandating/ that wages rise. Let's say you release the text of your M4A bill today, going into effect in January 2022. You write in that bill that any employer providing health insurance to any worker as of yesterday, or at any point between now and the end of 2021, must take the amount they're paying and put it back into the workers paycheck for 2022. You couldn't stop employers from decreasing workers pay later, but by doing that up front, it would make it harder for employers to do so. Workers would see clearly what was happening (a pay cut), and hate their employer for it. And without being tied to their employer for health insurance, they have more potential to leave for a better option.

[@virtualalias]

They'd have to mandate the pay rise or it would just be seen by the company as an excellent opportunity to lower costs. The cut costs could then be put into any number of things, not just some comic villain's pockets.

[@mrquark]

Medicare for all would give Medicare better bargaining power with providers, at least to the extent it's allowed to bargain. That would lower costs overall. At least some of those lower costs would be passed along to employees. Some would go to stockholders. Healthcare providers and insurance companies wouldn't be thrilled, but those are some the best off anyway, and they benefit from legal or de facto restrictions on competition, so my sympathy for their complaints is not high.

[@cbl6520]

Problem is that the costs that Medicare negotiates don’t reflect the actual cost of the care being provided, in other words, it’s artificially low. Truth is that Medicare for all would be a very broken system, that would significantly restrict access to care and limit what services would be available to whatever the global budget set at the time would allow for. So if you need a bone marrow transplant for your advance leukemia like Laura Hillier in Canada did, but there isn’t enough positive pressure rooms available to perform the procedure, you’re put on a 6 month waiting list and left to die waiting for care like she did.

[@paxundpeace9970]

The key is that Medicare for all would be a single payer system that would mostly cut out greedy private companies.

[@Praisethesunson]

But without greedy private companies where will shareholders go to extract money from people who literally need that service. Oh wait, I forgot corporations are buying houses in bulk. That's how.

[@Original_Tenshi_Chan]

@@Praisethesunson Fuck, this makes me want to cry. I mean, I know it's true, but it's so infuriating how hard it is to convince "conservative" middle class, working class, and working poor to vote for their own self interests. They would rather vote against rights (like voting rights, bodily autonomy, etc) than to vote for better living standards. It's worse when you see shit like the latest bill aimed at ONLY raising taxes for the 700 richest Americans who have completely evaded taxes due to loop holes, was countered with shit like The Zodiac Killer (ted cruz) proposing a 15% "patriotic tax" on the working class and poor instead of actually taxing those 'poor, weak, and under represented billionaires'.

[@grantcivyt]

Important to remember that greed is what motivates people to find efficiencies. Pay attention to your grandparents' Medicare usage and you'll find a lot of wasteful spending. Businesses work hard to keep the people who pay their bills happy. It's important also to remember that with M4A it's some bureaucrat in government that pays your healthcare provider.

[@heatherclark9405]

@@grantcivyt Maybe your grandparents "wasted" Medicare money but the data show that Medicare spends significantly less per person than does private insurance, even though the Medicare population is an older, sicker pool. And as for the argument that inefficiency drives innovation, not in the healthcare "marketplace" which incentivizes treatment over prevention, cherrypicking, and denying expensive but necessary care. Profit driven insurance is at the root of this obomination we call we call our healthcare system but major hospitals and for-profit hospitals have figured out how to work the system to maximize what they extract. Even the attempt at cost control under ACA only worked to incentivizes higher charges, with the law that required insurers to spend at least 15% of what they take in on actual healthcare. It wasn't enough that this allowed insurers to keep an astounding 85% for themselves and their shareholders -- but it also created no incentive for insurers to negotiate lower prices for patients because 15% of higher expenditures is greater than 15% of lower expenditures. Even then the govt has to chase the insurers down to return any annual "surplus" they weren't able to hide to premium payers. The deepest flaw of the current system is that you, the patient, aren't party to the contract between the insurer and the provider. Whatever "rights" you have must be fought for through channels set up by the players who profit by your loss. God help you if you have to go to court to protect your rights with all the money you have leftover after paying uncovered medical costs. Is it not enough to know that half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical debt and half of those happen to people WITH INSURANCE? Medical debt does not exist in any other modern industrial nation. And those people have lower costs, universal coverage, and better health outcomes. What more is there to say?

[@grantcivyt]

@@heatherclark9405 Again, I'm happy we agree that bad government policy has empowered insurers beyond all reason. You state that Medicare spends less per person than private insurance but that sounds like very funny math. It also leaves aside the expenses by Medicaid and similar programs. It further ignores the reality that government shapes the "free" market those for-profit entities operate under. Our supposed free market disallows importation of cheaper meds, bars nurses from crossing state lines, allows existing hospitals to deny new hospitals, and provides enormous subsidy to health insurers in the form of tax breaks.

[@confusedwhale]

The question is... Would employers freely give workers money that they could otherwise pocket to pad their bottom line? There would have to be wording in Medicare For All that stipulated any funds previously contributed to an employee's medicare be distributed to the employees.

[@norahflower2357]

if unions are free from bargaining for basics like healthcare then it stands to the reason they'll be in a better positon to bargin for wages when healthcare is something guaranteed to everyone. (which it should be)

[@confusedwhale]

@@norahflower2357: You're assuming that people who have medicare through their employers are in a union.

[@d_dave7200]

Yes, this. It can be mandated. Not permanently, but certainly for the first year. That way if employers then tried to take it away, it would at least be obvious to their workers that they're actually getting a pay cut.

[@molybdnum]

So basically, "If your employer found a way to save several thousand dollars a year in administrative costs, do you think they would pass that savings on to you /in increased wages/?" No, no, a thousand times no. They aren't now for anything else, and it wouldn't change. Would they re-invest that savings in something else, like expanding infrastructure or buying back shares or hiring more new employees? Probably. But not a single soul in any management position is ever going to voluntarily say to existing employees - we're giving you more money you didn't ask for just because we happened to have it. Employers can and will obfuscate, bluff, and outright lie about this sort of thing even in the most employee-favorable job markets. "Sorry, the budget for raises hasn't changed - you're going to be saving money anyway, so it's almost like you got raise already!" The best, and often only way to get a raise is and will continue to be entering a new job at a new negotiated compensation.

[@heatherclark9405]

It's true that employers will never willingly hand over savings to employees in the form of higher wages. They would rather do just about anything else with that money. But willingness has nothing to do with it. The data cited in the video clearly show that in most cases wages do and will increase, to varying degrees, when health insurance costs are eliminated or reduced. It may not be a one-to-one exchange but it's a net increase for wage earners. And in MA, where I live and where health insurance is legally required, the video cites a precise correlation in insurance and wage increases. Those savings and wage increases would be even greater if we moved to a single payer system and cut out the expensive, useless middleman: the private insurance industry, which we now subsidize. The labor market has many variables that impact wages but here's one that can upset the applecart in favor of workers and small business: When health insurance is decoupled from employment, workers can go anywhere they want without fearing loss of healthcare for themselves and their families. Big corps would no longer have a threatening advantage over small employers or innovative start-ups. The labor churning that would result from the freedom of workers to change jobs at will, without threat of financial devastation and death hanging over their heads, would seriously incentivise employers to hold on to workers with higher wages and compete vigorously for candidates, using the money they saved on extortionistic health insurance.

[@paxundpeace9970]

Mandating private insurance has shown to be expensive for employees and employer. While many have only limited access to public options.

[@ernestchew88]

Love the content. Audio is soft though... maybe can bump it up a little

[@cbpd89]

Wow. We pay something like $12k annually for our family's health care, and we still have to pay a percentage after the deductible is met.

[@jessetorres8738]

We need Medicare For All here in the U.S., especially during this time with the Coronavirus pandemic! What's more "pro-life" than ensuring that every person has guaranteed affordable healthcare regardless of their job? If we all had access to basic healthcare, we would have the "freedom" to live long lives and rarely have to worry about medical bankruptcies. Taxes will go up, but the overall cost will go down. If some of us need additional healthcare than Medicare, then we have the "choice" to get additional insurance. If every other developed country (Canada, Germany, The U.K., France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Taiwan, Japan, S.K., H.K., Singapore, Australia, and N.Z.) can implement this system and save money, then why can't we do the same and help "Make America Great Again" for everybody at least on the issue of healthcare? And if American citizens die from lacking access to affordable health insurance then we are failing our country's promise of defending "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for its citizens as well as "promoting the general welfare" of all the people living here.

[@hansb1337]

I'm from the Netherlands; we don't have some sort of "Medicare For All" or single-payer health-care here. In fact, we have one of the most privatised healthcare markets in Europe and have consistently been ranked as one of the top countries when it comes to healthcare.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@hansb1337 One of the top? How many of the other top rank countries have privatized health care? Sweden, Taiwan, North Korea, Austria, Japan, Belgium, France , the UK ...

[@Peppermon22]

I would love to keep that $500 a month! That could go to more of a house payment, an emergency fund, on my children. Too bad that will never happen.

[@reismith]

I'm very sceptical that employers would raise wages if they no longer had to pay for employee healthcare. Some more ethical companies might and there might be some competitive pressure to do so with jobs needing to raise wages to attract employees but more likely the savings would just be rolled over into profits.

[@Nzombii]

Tying workers to a job for life saving healthcare is great for employee retention

[@teknophyle1]

Audio is a bit quiet

[@ahjgbhlahgaohgl]

I'll take any health insurance at this point.

[@ahadumer418]

Why don’t you have heath insurance

[@Peppermon22]

@@ahadumer418 because it’s $500 a month before even seeing a doctor. The doctor cost $20-100 with coverage. Then you pay for any labs.

[@Peppermon22]

This is why I work for low wages at a school district. It’s the only job with a pension and health insurance I don’t have to pay. Now my kids need coverage and it eats up $500 of my check.

[@cuniryu]

MCFA - It is the most basic right.

[@John-jf7kv]

It would allow for unions to be able to bargain for more because they don't hold the necessity of healthcare over your head.

[@fourcatsandagarden]

while companies would have even more money than they already have to pay workers more, history has shown that they won't 'trickle it down,' as it were (unless and until they are forced to - which is why everyone needs to unionize!). BUT it does give them fewer excuses to keep wages down, and it would also alleviate the problem of high premiums and high deductibles, so workers would have more money regardless.

[@heatherclark9405]

Nifty video. Y'all are asking the key question: What makes us think that an employer would pass on ANY savings to workers as increased wages? Obviously, they won't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. But the extensive data cited here show that, indeed, even when other variables of the labor market are factored in, wages will rise for most people. Unionized workers fare better, no surprise there. And in tight labor mkts, the scales tip in favor of the worker. But the bottom line, supported by data, is: M4A=cost savings=higher wages. And this doesn't even include the lost employer time wasted on managing insurance bullshit; the unpredictability of insurance premium annual price increases that wreaks havoc with business planning; the competitive advantage of a healthy workforce. Oh, and that stuff about healthcare as a human right? That too.

[@spencesouthall7248]

Health benefits are a tax free way to give an employee more money. Medicare for all for all bills over $100k, private insurance to cover the first $100k and pay directly to the patient to allow doctors/pharmacies set their own prices.

[@vermontmike9800]

Give us an NHS style of system.

[@ejesbd]

In 2011, I took a 15% wage cut to go from contractor to employee in the same company because of "benefits".

[@MrNicoJac]

Audio was too low this episode

[@peterthree]

While I appreciate all of the objective information provided by Dr. Carroll and Healthcare Triage, this video is missing a key player in the employer/employee saga of who pays for what... it's BIG PHARMA. Here's a (fairly) simple solution. Limit the cost of drugs so that employees/employers don't foot the bill for overpriced and overprescribed medication, surely a big number will "appear" for the equation...

[@8sun52]

Physicians for a National Health Program

[@volunteersshlloka8450]

Namaskaram We are Volunteers for Isha Hatha Yoga Teacher & would like to get into a business Collaboration with you. Do let us know how can we contact you.

[@Unsensitive]

I'd support Medicare for all, once society and government stops promoting garbage dietary policies. With proper dietary and nutrition policies, education, & incentives for people to eat that way, healthcare costs would drop due to a massive reduction in chronic disease: diabetes, dementia, heart disease, Alzheimer's, atherosclerosis, stroke, cancer, etc Food compass? Apparently a bowl of lucky charms is healthier and more nutritious than a steak or eggs. These people know nothing about nutrition, or are flat out liars with an agenda 🤥.

[@bluejedi723]

if we all pay more for universal healthcare through wages/taxes and everyone gets dental/vision- everyone wins because we're all healthy. Teeth, not just for chewing!

[@sojourner4726]

I enjoyed this video. But I mostly came for the comment section to read the libertarian brain rot.

[@TacComControl]

The only problem with the idea of wages rising if medicare for all becomes a thing is that employers purposefully keep wages as low as they can possibly get them down to. They'll just pocket the savings from a M4A pass. Mind you, if you're spending LESS of those wages on expensive insurance plans, then you're going to come out with more cash in pocket, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that employers are in any way reliable when it comes to the prospect of being decent human beings, and not sycophantic capitalist dirtbags.

[@d_dave7200]

It can be mandated that the costs are passed on in wages, at least initially.

[@TacComControl]

@@d_dave7200 in theory. In practice, capitalists will almost certainly say that they are passing those costs on to wages, only to lower the wages initially. Anything to line their own pockets.

[@d_dave7200]

​@@TacComControl You can base it on what benefits were provided at a date prior to the bill text being released, inclusive of any benefits added before the law becomes active. That will prevent them lowering wages that way. But also, lowering wages is actually pretty hard for companies to do -- they typically need a really good excuse ("recession", "we lost money this year"), or they're inviting unionization and strikes. Low wages usually come about by there just not being enough pay raises to account for inflation. By forcing the money into people's wages during the first year, it will be hard for employers to take it away. Some really bad ones will, but most will not. The biggest issue will likely occur with new hires after the law goes into effect. Some employers will try to give them lower wages, especially if they don't know what their coworkers are being paid. However, with an increased ability to move between jobs, now that heath insurance isn't tied to it, competition may reduce these issues as well.

[@myothersoul1953]

Health care is one way companies compete for workers. Take that away and then what benefits would the use to entice workers? Wages?

[@Noschool100]

Yes?

[@harmonicaveronica]

Wages, PTO, and other non-wage monetary compensation like stock options and retirement contributions. Plus other non-health insurance benefits, like life insurance, disability insurance, vision/dental if that wasn't part of Medicare, and employee assistance programs. Healthcare is a big piece of it, but is only one piece

[@myothersoul1953]

@@harmonicaveronica It could any of those things which the employee would get instead of health insurance.

[@metabeard3788]

lol, CEOs would just move those extra wages into their own paychecks

[@sojourner4726]

Sounds like we need a labor movement. The American tendency to constantly except that they live off the benevolence of their bosses and not doing anything about it is both hilarious (because it hurts so much) and sad.

[@barbaramorse5963]

Im voting #Marianne2024. Just look at her policies.she is and will fight for m4a. She is following fdr. Simple just vote for her.

[@opinionatedape5895]

You'll make more money, which will then be taken by the government..."The study estimates that a typical Canadian family consisting of two parents and two children with an average household income of $142,449 will pay $14,474 for public health care this year. Single Canadians will pay $4,894 for health care insurance in 2020."

[@sojourner4726]

Americans spend around 14% of their paycheck on average to pay for health insurance. And often this health insurance will not provide adequate coverage to meet need. Sounds like we come out ahead 4% and be able to utilize medical services when we need them instead of putting things off.

[@reciprocating_popcorn_blade]

@@sojourner4726 I love how the argument is so degraded that it's basically: "You'll have to pay almost as much as you were!" like that makes any sense

[@jnzkngs]

Wth the former president being able to pay $750 total federal income tax for the year, less than I pay in a 2 week pay period, I have a pretty good idea about who is actually going to be paying for any programs like this.

[@SterbsMcGurbs]

But what about taxes on those workers? How would that extra government spending effect taxes?

[@sojourner4726]

It sounds like you have a question that you haven’t investigated yet because the answer is widely available.

[@SterbsMcGurbs]

@@sojourner4726 What I'm getting at is would the rise in wages be greater than the rise in taxes required? I'm not arguing for or against single payer healthcare but not taking into account taxes in this video seems to be only telling half of the story.

[@burrito-town]

Why is the audio in this video so quiet that it's nearly inaudible??? Right click on the video and select 'Stats for Nerds'. From there, you can see that KZbin measures the audio as nearly 17 dB too quiet. Someone at Healthcare Triage really dropped the ball when it came to checking audio levels on this video.

[@1000jdg]

As a person who was recently forced to get Medicare, I can tell you that dealing with the downsides (poorer coverage, government employees who don't care because they don't have to, hidden costs, etc.) makes me long for the time when I had real insurance. As for whether Medicare for all would change wages, I think the studies are flawed. (I have read some of them but you don't provide references in the episode description 🙁). First, public employees and especially NY school employees are an outlier for a number of reasons. CA school employees would be a even greater outlier. Also, employers and employees look at compensation differently. Employers look at Total-R, while employees look mostly at take-home pay. When an employer looks at the cost of insurance - say under the Warren plan - they don't care if it is a tax or a payment to a company. If their taxes increased by the amount they "saved" by not paying a premium to an insurance company, the Total-R for the employee doesn't change. I don't see any incentive for an employer to give a salary increase. Finally, both Social Security, and Medicare are on life support because of the incompetence of the sociopaths (AKA politicians) who have for years lied about funding. I can't see any way that a Medicare for all plan would not increase debt. As you said, someone has to pay for it. The default position is to kick the can down the street and hope that some future generation will take care of it. BTW, the one person most responsible for us not having a "medicare for all" type plan already in place is Ted Kennedy.

[@sojourner4726]

Right there’s not a reason for them to give more money because it’s a relationship based on The boss’s benevolence and power over the people who actually produce and create the profit. This is why a laborer union movement in this country would massively beneficial.

[@setrellagazali8351]

Hii I needs insurance Medicare’s anything’s do you have one

[@Mar0na]

I can barely hear this video even on max.

[@DinoRamzi]

With M4A, wages will likely rise, depending on how tight the labor market is. But taxes will also rise. I suspect (with Canadian experience) that taxes will rise more than wages. Also health could arguably decline as people demand more healthcare, since it is free to them at the point of service. And we all know low-value care risks disproportionate morbidity.

[@Noschool100]

Idk, health may actually rise as people use a service they used to never used due to costs. We do have some of the lowest physician visits in the west.

[@talideon]

Except if other countries are a model for what might happen, it's more likely costs would _fall_ even if people were to use it more. Preventative medicine is much cheaper than dealing with people when there's a _real_ issue. The problem isn't people _using_ healthcare, but the _kind_ of care that's given. And that doesn't even take into account the effects of crippling medical debt on the US economy. The real measure though is if M4A is paired with proper cost controls, as you find in proper universal healthcare systems, and if something is done about degenericization of drugs.

[@DinoRamzi]

@@talideon Prevention is costly because it applies to the entire population to prevent an event that typically happens to < 1% of the population. Even obesity treatments are not cost-effective. All I can say is the public health analysis is much more complex than it seems. Even when the data supports an intervention, people aren’t interested.

[@Unsensitive]

You also have to remember that many are paid under the table, not paying the taxes that would be collected to pay for this healthcare. Since taxes would definitely need to rise, this would probably become more common. This would shift a greater burden to other taxpayers.

[@Joso997]

Increase? By what logic?

[@Praisethesunson]

Maybe watch the video first.

[@apark8787]

Hope that companies will pass on the premiums saved to higher wages for the workers. I'm skeptical, but even if that were true, it would be offset by higher taxes. No free lunch.

[@jojo-pk]

The same quality health insurance is typically cheaper with public/universal/single payer health care systems.

[@tacomonkey222]

Is increasing taxes a way to make your wages higher? Same question only with a more honest premise

[@Joso997]

@@jojo-pk in theory. Statistically yes, but not from the individual perspective

[@ericboyd152]

I am wonder what would happen if you forced all people to purchase there own heath insurance and drop all the regulations that limit heath insurance competition. Also, How would making the hospitals deal directly with the patient for all payment then the patient deals with insurance. The deals insurance providers and health service providers have are ridiculousness. Removing\obfuscating the consumer out of the payment for the services allows for price manipulation on both the insurance and hospital side.

[@ahadumer418]

We can’t remove all regulations if we do than people who have pre existing conditions won’t get healthcare coverage like me I have a conditions that makes me obese I will lose weight now because I am taking medication but still lots of people have asthma and heart conditions and if we have no regulations insurance companies will issue lifetime cap on how much care can you receive so if you remove regulation me and my brother would die okay right now I have Chip which is Medicaid for children whose parents make to much money I will lose that coverage after I graduate high school

[@msbae]

No, it would raise taxes.

[@TessaAvonlea]

Did you try watching the video?

[@paxundpeace9970]

For the rich.