We are bombarded with countless TV commercials by private insurance companies claiming their “Medicare Advantage” plans are much better and more affordable than traditional Medicare.
Is this too good to be true? The assertion contradicts the research and analysis of health care experts who testified before a recent House Oversight Committee hearing on creating a universal health care system. Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) summarized their conclusions: “They told us that Medicare is a far more efficient steward of taxpayer dollars. Private insurance companies spend 17% more on administrative costs than Medicare does. That’s because private insurance companies spend money on things like marketing, commercials, and stock buybacks.”
Medicare has been consistently very popular with both its beneficiaries and the population as a whole since it began in 1965. However, there are holes. It is limited to seniors and certain people with disabilities. It doesn’t cover vision, hearing, dental or long-term care. Beneficiaries are responsible for monthly premiums, deductibles and coinsurance (known as “cost-sharing”).
As a result, progressives support “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All” bills, which would cover everyone. Dental, vision and hearing aids are included. No premiums, deductibles or coinsurance.
A team from three University of California campuses looked at 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer…
