Medicare for All or Profits for a Few – misleading information

Our issues with health care in America are not because of insurance company profits.

Below is an excerpt from an article on Common Dreams (whatever that is). It purports to dispel the misleading information used by insurance companies to crush M4A. What you read below is more misleading and inaccurate than anything I’ve seen from the insurance industry. BEWARE‼️

Clearly, we need a better way to provide coverage to all Americans. Yes, linking health insurance to employment needs to be rethought. Yes, we can surely simplify claim administrative processes, especially for physician offices.

We can do all those things without M4A as currently proposed.

The problem with commentary such as you read below is that it creates the illusion that under M4A there will be no limitations on seeking care, no limitations on the care your doctor prescribes, no concern about costs by the patient in any way. In other words a blank check for all Americans for any and all health, dental, vision and long term care.

Talk about misleading and misinformation😱. No universal system in the world does that, none. In addition, those systems in other countries continuously take steps to manage their costs and budgets.

The other old tune is that the ills of our system are there because we “enrich the executives and shareholders of health insurance companies.” That is pure nonsense. Executive pay and insurance company profits are a very small part of total costs, an insignificant portion of premiums

As far as health status and outcomes are concerned, much of that disparity comes not from the health care system, but the health status and lifestyles of Americans, obesity for example. And, it’s not true the US ranks last in all categories. In addition, what does M4A do to improve outcomes if it is total hands off any care Americans receive?

More care is not better care and we already provide a great deal of unnecessary care.

Yes, employer-based health insurance will end, but it will be replaced by a single-payer system that doesn’t depend on what an employer is willing or able to provide. A single-payer system will cover people no matter where, or if, they’re employed. A significant side benefit is that people will gain power vis-à-vis their employers, because they won’t feel compelled to stay in bad jobs for fear of losing coverage.

Yes, Medicare for All might require higher taxes, but with the end of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and claims denials, most people will experience a net economic gain. Instead of insurance companies and their shareholders coming out ahead, everyone else will.

No, Medicare for All doesn’t mean government control of what happens between people and their doctors. The current system is what restricts freedom. We see this when insurance companies overrule doctors and force people to seek care from in-network providers.

Medicare for All would mean freedom for doctors to provide the treatment they deem best, as well as freedom for people to choose the best health care providers they can find. The good news, according to 2019 polling data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, is that, despite the insurance industry’s efforts to kill Medicare for All, a majority of Americans favor such a program. But the margin is slim, and support depends on how well people understand what Medicare for All would do and what it wouldn’t do. Better understanding leads to greater support.

Back in the day, the ads that worked best to deter teen smoking were not those that focused on health. The most effective ads were those that showed tobacco company executives scheming behind closed doors to sell a product they knew was deadly and addictive. When people know they’re being played, they resist. Which suggests that building public support for Medicare for All depends, in part, on continuing to expose the health insurance industry’s efforts to mislead and misinform. Americans today pay more for health care than any other people in the world. Yet in study after study, we rank last among developed nations in measures of access, quality, and outcomes.

Countries with a national health service or a national health insurance system leave us in the dust, sicker and dying earlier. One reason we’re in this fix is that we pay not only for health care but also to enrich the executives and shareholders of health insurance companies.

We also pay more because providers pass along the overhead costs of dealing with hundreds of private insurance companies. Paying these extra costs does nothing to improve our national health status.

Source: Medicare for All or Profits for a Few | Common Dreams Views


  1. Anybody who can think for themselves and is in touch with the real world knows that most of this was BS. The half-nots (have not worked for anything thus they have nothing) believe this stuff.
    Free doesn’t have a cost to them and has no restrictions. Curiosity I wanted to know who wrote this garbage. Checking the source I found that Michael Schwalbe is professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. His most recent book is Making a Difference: Using Sociology to Create a Better World. A socialist who brainwashes our youth. I wonder if he is willing to work for free?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s