Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Medicaid Saved Obamacare and Single-Payer May Be Back on the Agenda Sooner Than You Think

A lot of the reporting on Trump’s epic failure on the attempted repeal of Obamacare has focused on the Freedom Caucus, a group of libertarian-minded representatives for whom the administration’s bill did not go far enough in obliterating the gains from the Obama administration’s expansion of health care coverage.

But the defeat of Trump’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) may have had more to do with the pressure — including grassroots organizing — and risks faced by many Republican representatives who feared taking away insurance that most voters want. And one cannot assume that all members of the Freedom Caucus acted out of ideological concerns; they too have constituents that need health care.

Much of this is explained, with examples and some history, in an excellent article from The New York Times. And there are broader implications for the way forward.

About 11 million of the approximately 20 million people who gained health insurance under Obamacare did so under its provision for expansion of Medicaid, the joint Federal/state program that provides health insurance for low-income Americans. The expansion included people with income up to 138 percent of the poverty line.

The Times summed up how far-reaching Medicaid had become, now enrolling 21 percent of the population — more than Medicare (the program of public health insurance for Americans over 64):

Medicaid now provides medical care to four out of 10 American children. It covers the costs of nearly half of all births in the United States. It pays for the care of two-thirds of people in nursing homes. And it provides for 10 million children and adults with physical or mental disabilities […] almost two-thirds of Americans in a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation said they were either covered by Medicaid or had a family member or friend who was.

Medicaid is not a universal entitlement, but it is an entitlement that now affects tens of millions of people who are not poor. This provides it with some considerable political protection. The only major entitlement that was taken away from us was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was undone by the Clinton administration in 1996. It was vulnerable because it served only poor people; sadly, since its repeal, there has been a large increase in the number of people living in extreme poverty.

The Republicans thought they could similarly decimate a program that was designed for low-income people, but this one now has too big of a base. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Republican bill would have reduced the number of people receiving Medicaid by 14 million over 10 years. And a lot more people would be affected than these numbers indicate: millions go in and out of enrollment, and millions of people have family members in nursing homes or who are disabled, that they could not afford to take care of without Medicaid.

In the area of health insurance, as in retirement income, universal social insurance is clearly the way to go. Social Security has become the “third rail” of American politics — nobody can touch it — because it works and because most Americans believe in the basic values that it represents: that people have a right to a secure retirement, and it is reasonable to tax current income in order to provide for the future retirement security of everyone. Attempts to partially privatize it in the 1990s and in 2005 were defeated.

Obamacare was a step toward universal health care, most importantly with the expansion of Medicaid. Obama could not get universal, single payer health care but the system that was created suffers from a number of weaknesses, including adverse selection in the private insurance exchanges that it created (i.e. not enough healthy people in the insurance pool). Trump has announced that he would await its impending “implosion” and “explosion,” and has plenty of administrative power to sabotage the current system. Other Republicans have declared they will find a way to repeal it.

In the wake of the Republican defeat, Bernie Sanders announced that he would introduce a bill for universal, single payer, health insurance — i.e. Medicare for everyone. With the Republicans controlling Congress and the presidency, this may seem a symbolic or even quixotic gesture. But there are some sensible reasons to relaunch this effort right now. Even if the Democrats were in charge, it would take a few years to make any significant progress toward this goal. If present trends continue, the Trump presidency will be an unmitigated disaster, and we will be facing a very different political alignment four years from now.

Some polls have shown majorities in favor of single payer health care. In the last election cycle we also went rather quickly from a widely believed politician-and-media-backed falsehood that Social Security was in serious financial trouble, to even Hillary Clinton saying that benefits needed to be expanded, not cut. That is the direction that the country is going, with Bernie Sanders, despite losing the Democratic presidential primary, being one of the most popular politicians in the country; and Trump in the doghouse with 37 percent approval.

The economic case for universal, single-payer health care has long been irrefutable, and the fact that we pay twice as much per person for health care as the average high-income country and have worse health outcomes is a constant reminder. Of course there is the political power of the private insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and other special interests, and that has stood in the way. But look at what just happened to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That was legislation that the most powerful interests in the country — not only corporations but also the “national security state” wanted so badly they just couldn’t stop lying about it. And yet the public interest prevailed.

That was a result of 20 years of organizational and educational work. Hopefully it won’t take us that long to get to real universal health care. But there is no time to waste.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

More articles by:

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail