The race for the Democratic presidential nomination is heating up, and healthcare is a key issue up for debate. A number of high-profile candidates, including Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren, have endorsed a Medicare for All solution to America’s healthcare problem. However, the idea is most closely associated with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has made it a central platform of his election bid.
The United States spends around twice as much on healthcare as other high-income nations, with inferior results. Worse still, around 45 million Americans, 13.7 percent of the population, have no healthcare whatsoever. The Medicare for All plan, which aims to create a nationalized healthcare system like those employed by virtually every other high-income nation, is highly popular among the general public. In late 2018, polls from Reuters and Harris found that at least 70 percent of Americans supported the proposal—including majorities of Republicans.
However, corporate media appear to be almost univocally against the idea, with the flow of doom-mongering stories increasing to a roaring flood as the notion gains more traction among the public.
Ignoring Opinion
Ignoring the many opinion polls showing widespread and increasing support for the plan, CNN (4/24/19) suggests “most Americans” do not want Medicare for All. The New York Times (10/19/18) told us, “Don’t get too excited about Medicare for All.” Evincing no sympathy for the tens of millions without any healthcare, it invited us to feel instead for the private doctors who would face a “cut in revenue” if the progressive plan were implemented. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (8/21/18) described it as a “preposterous proposal,” while USA Today (9/20/17) claimed Bernie’s plan is “all wrong for America.”
Invited on NBC’s Meet the Press (2/10/19), Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet argued it was a self-defeating notion, claiming what Democrats are really saying to the 180 million people who have private healthcare “and like it” is that they are going to take their beloved private insurance away from them. (Left unmentioned was the fact that 28 percent of people with employer-sponsored health insurance change plans every 12 months.)
The Wall Street Journal (11/12/19) called Medicare for All a “false promise,” despite evidence that it would save the US trillions.
Many outlets have raised concern about the price of such a measure. Libertarian magazine Reason (11/13/18) claimed it would “cost too much,” while the Wall Street Journal (11/12/18) warned of “the false promise of Medicare for All,” with both arguing that it would slow down the development of new drugs. But a study from the libertarian Mercatus Center accidentally proved Sanders’ plan would actually save the country trillions, with private savings more than offsetting increased public costs. And economist and FAIR contributor Dean Baker found that more government involvement in the pharmaceutical industry would save money and speed up drug development.
Nevertheless, other media outlets have kept up the relentless flow of negativity, dismissing Medicare for All as “too fragile” (Yahoo!, 4/22/19), “politically impractical” (Atlantic, 3/18/19), “fool’s gold” (Fox News, 1/11/19), a “populist bromide” (National Review, 9/11/17) and a “singularly bad idea” (Forbes, 9/28/17).
Lines of Attack
Many different lines of attack have been used to dampen public enthusiasm for a social-democratic healthcare system based on human need rather than profit. The Hill (1/31/19) used the “this is how Trump wins” argument to warn voters, claiming that Medicare for All is a “terrible” idea championed by “young Bolsheviks” pushing the Democrats to the left, meaning “Donald Trump is looking like a sure winner in 2020.”
One of our favorite genres of stories at FAIR is the “inexplicable Republican best friend” (FAIR.org, 2/26/19), where conservatives offer supposedly good-faith advice on how Democrats must adopt all manner of right-wing positions in order to advance. Writing in the conservative Wall Street Journal (2/12/19), William Galston of the Brookings Institute warned liberals that “Medicare for All is a trap” that will “assure Trump’s re-election.”
Alternatively, Fox News employed the “I am a liberal, but” trope, in which self-styled liberals espouse conservative ideas, to warn readers that nationalized healthcare is a “pie-in-the-sky idea” (2/2/19), and to claim that Medicare for All would “put the government in charge of making decisions about your health” and your body (1/30/19).
A Conflict of Interests
Brookings is funded in part by private healthcare donations, from groups like HCA and United Healthcare, a dependency that highlights a serious conflict of interest that is endemic in corporate media reporting on healthcare (and, indeed, on any major economic or political issue). This system of interlocking and conflicting interests is rarely acknowledged by corporate media, who also rely on medical and pharmaceutical companies for funding through advertising and patronage.
Fortune (4/24/19) published commentary about Medicare for All by Bill George, a Goldman Sachs executive, former CEO of Medtronic and former board member of pharmaceutical giant Novartis.
In an article headlined “The Fallacy of Medicare for All,” for instance, Fortune magazine’s Bill George (4/24/19) simultaneously argued that hospitals would be “swamped” with another 189 million customers, and that “half of all hospitals” would be forced to close. George is a Goldman Sachs executive who was formerly CEO of the private medical corporation Medtronic, and also sat on the board of pharmaceutical giant Novartis.
More blatantly still, CNBC (4/16/19) allowed United Healthcare’s CEO David Wichmann to claim that Medicare for All would “destabilize the nation’s health system,” leading to a crisis and a “severe impact on the economy.” At no point did CNBC challenge him, or even mention the glaring conflict of interest Wichmann might have. Indeed, it bolstered his credibility, telling its readers that he “rarely discusses politics,” implying that this was an entirely good-faith warning.
Financial Media Meltdown
Despite the doom-mongering, public support for a publicly financed US healthcare system continues to increase, and the financial press has moved from concern to panic over the specter of free healthcare for all. Market Watch (4/23/19) gloomily noted that Medicare for All “looms large” over the industry, Forbes (4/19/19) described it as “unnerving investors,” while Bloomberg (4/16/19) reported that “health stocks are crumbling” as “fears” of Medicare for All are “snowballing.” CNBC’s Trading Nation (4/20/19) claimed that there could be more “pain ahead.” Medicare for All would “crush” us, said Mark Tepper, president and CEO of Strategic Wealth Partners—“us” meaning the for-profit healthcare industry.
Bloomberg (4/18/19) also warned that “there may be more pain to come” for the “vulnerable.” This was not referring to the pain of tens of millions of vulnerable Americans with no healthcare at all, but the “pain” of reduced profits for investors in “vulnerable” medical and pharmaceutical corporations, such as United Healthcare, Medtronic and Novartis. Perhaps this explains why there is such stiff opposition from their spokespeople in the media.
Despite all the concern trolling, reading the financial press highlights the fact that corporate media oppose Medicare for All not because of legitimate queries and concerns about its implementation, but because they are owned by investors with stakes in highly profitable medical and pharmaceutical companies—the very same companies that supply them with millions of dollars each year in advertising. With so many candidates endorsing Medicare for All, it seems the 2020 election will force America to decide between the pain of tens of millions without adequate healthcare and the pain of wealthy traders losing investment opportunities in the for-profit healthcare industry.
Well— major media and BIG corporations, you are WRONG! Medicare for ALL is what is needed now, for WE the People. I am sure you have heard of us. WHEN Medicare for All passes, and ALL people have decent health care—-then guess what, MORE people will be needed in the health industry. Imagine that—more employed Americans and at decent wages. This will create even more jobs! In fact, you need to focus in this win win for the nation and the people. WE the People need some benefit of being citizens—-I’m not sure what that is at the moment, since so many of us pay more taxes than AMAZON—–but hey , Jeff, with more employed Americans you too will make even more money, and when We the People have jobs with good wages, YOU Mr. Bezos will make even MORE money—–and that should be musical money to your alimony. ears. Meanwhile, listen up , major media, with a functional healthcare system for ALL—-we might even be able to afford buying your magazines and newspapers. Imagine that—-but remember , when all citizens from top to bottom live in good economic times, YOU benefit too, with people buying more of your wares. Don’t worry BE HAPPY—with MEDICARE for ALL!
Actually there are several countries that have achieved high quality, affordable, universal health care without using a single payer model. For example Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan all have adopted the German “Bismarck” model which relies on strictly regulated private health insurance mainly paid for by individuals or employers.
The German model is the world’s oldest, by far, created in the late 1800s by Otto von Bismarck who was concerned that impoverishing the middle class would badly destabilize the country.
In the nineties Switzerland was reforming its out-of-control for profit system which was similar to ours. After studying the various approaches that have worked, they realized that the German model was the easiest and least expensive to transition to. They always have the option of implementing single payer but so far that has not been necessary. The Swiss consistently rank their health system care highly.
I believe that, like Switzerland, it would probably be easiest to transition to a system like Germany’s. The Medicare administration is already overwhelmed with the flood of retiring baby boomers. (I had to wait several hours on four different visits just to sign up because of issues with my qualification.) Also private insurance companies already handle about 30% of Medicare policies through the Medicare Advantage program as well as by providing supplemental insurance.
Medicare administration is not being overwhelmed by retiring baby boomers. Medicare administration is far more efficient than the private health insurance system.
Switzerland’s system is the second most expensive in the world behind that of the US. That is because they still rely on a for-profit model.
Supplemental insurance is another gift to the insurance industry. The insurance industry should have no role in a properly designed Medicare for All system.
Follow the money. Blood money.
You may notice that the trail leads also to Joe Biden, who is against Medicare-for-All.
Has anyone read Biden’s position in the establishment media? We have another conservative parading around as a Democrat. The neoliberal for-profit media is out there reporting their own push-polls to elevate the mile wide, inch thick candidate.
Headline should be reworded. It just reinforces the idea.
I’m SOOOooo tired of hearing from conservatives (ie; virtually all the sources mentioned in the article are putatively fiscal conservatives) who were ALWAYS oh-SO seriously concerned about balancing the budget that we always had to be cutting back on any social-welfare expenditures. But ever since Reagan and his fellow ‘conservatives’ took-over, deficits have repeatedly gone-up ESPECIALLY because of the unconscionable military spending along with other conservative policies like tax reductions, ‘free-trade’, privatization, anti-union, anti-science, corrupt government agencies, etc, etc. And of course they long-ago cowed the voters & Democrats so that Clinton & Obama quickly fell in line (with minor exceptions).
Note; the old Milwaukee Journal used to be a relatively liberal newspaper until they were merged with the conservative Milwaukee SentInel (hence the oh-so clever name Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which was actually the winner of a naming-contest they ran) and the liberals were mostly let-go.
I’m very supportive of Medicare for all, it’s about time America stepped up and supported it. Still amazed at how special interest control what our media portray’s , and supports . Hopefully the people will see it’s advantages to them and support the candidates who are pushing for it
This is such a silly debate. Two things:
1) It is completely unsustainable – it’s math, goofy. Crappy care for all that we also can’t pay for is not an answer.
2) You would actually trust THIS government, given their horrible track record in running ANYTHING efficiently, with the healthcare of your family, and just jump in that public pool willingly? Hint – it’s an empty pool, and very, very deep.
Bottom line – until we get medical costs at par with the money available to pay them, all of this is academic masturbation.