Galvani was the lead author of a recent report in the Lancet journal, which concluded that Medicare-for-all would save the United States $450 billion annually as well as, conservatively, around 68,000 lives a year. All in all, more analytical support for a long-overdue policy initiative.
The basics of this issue are by now well known:
• Coverage for everyone is perfectly achievable in the United States. When you have a $20 trillion economy, you have options.
• Universal coverage would end up being cheaper than the present system.
• It has public support.
• People have no personal attachment to their health insurance plans; they just want more and better coverage—or coverage period.
• The United States is (embarrassingly) alone in the developed world on this issue.
• The healthcare systems in countries that do enjoy universal coverage in turn enjoy immense public approval. There is around 90 percent approval in Canada of their system. According to the New York Times (Feb. 5, 2018), in the UK "the National Health Service is seen as one of Britain's most cherished institutions—a greater source of pride, according to some polls, than even the monarchy."
Despite Medicare-for-all being a worthwhile goal that would improve the country, Washington and the major news outlets have other priorities.
As was constant in the lead-up to the 2016 election, the current mainstream coverage of campaigns like those of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is reflexively hesitant.
Just recently, CNN's Chris Cillizza ponderously expressed concern about "How comfortable or uncomfortable" Bernie would be in the role of nominee. A day earlier, Fareed Zakaria, also at CNN, voiced paternalistic anxiety about Sanders's climate policies, and also takes a can't-be-done view of Medicare for All. David Leonhardt, columnist at the New York Times, considers Sanders a "problematic nominee."
This was just two days (Feb. 15-16), and I wasn't even looking hard (see Fair.org for good round-ups of negative Bernie coverage). In other words, the mass media continues its hand-wringing and appeals to moderation. "Sure, we don't like Trump, but is Bernie electable?" It's important to keep in mind that the self-appointed voices of reason at CNN and the Times will continue to spread doubt about Sanders. His crime, of course, is that he's not a "moderate." He's not a "centrist."
However, Bernie Sanders is precisely a centrist. His positions track with majoritarian public opinion—the definition of the liberal center. Those like Cillizza, Zakaria, and Leonhardt are not centrists. And they do not care about who suffers under the current healthcare system. They have high-paying jobs. They have health insurance. They are fine. (One imagines them on Trump's payroll.)
Sanders and Warren have run moderate, centrist campaigns. Medicare-for-all is moderate, centrist policy. But especially in the current atmosphere, when your views are in synch with the public's, you come off as a leftist.
• Coverage for everyone is perfectly achievable in the United States. When you have a $20 trillion economy, you have options.
• Universal coverage would end up being cheaper than the present system.
• It has public support.
• People have no personal attachment to their health insurance plans; they just want more and better coverage—or coverage period.
• The United States is (embarrassingly) alone in the developed world on this issue.
• The healthcare systems in countries that do enjoy universal coverage in turn enjoy immense public approval. There is around 90 percent approval in Canada of their system. According to the New York Times (Feb. 5, 2018), in the UK "the National Health Service is seen as one of Britain's most cherished institutions—a greater source of pride, according to some polls, than even the monarchy."
Despite Medicare-for-all being a worthwhile goal that would improve the country, Washington and the major news outlets have other priorities.
As was constant in the lead-up to the 2016 election, the current mainstream coverage of campaigns like those of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is reflexively hesitant.
Just recently, CNN's Chris Cillizza ponderously expressed concern about "How comfortable or uncomfortable" Bernie would be in the role of nominee. A day earlier, Fareed Zakaria, also at CNN, voiced paternalistic anxiety about Sanders's climate policies, and also takes a can't-be-done view of Medicare for All. David Leonhardt, columnist at the New York Times, considers Sanders a "problematic nominee."
This was just two days (Feb. 15-16), and I wasn't even looking hard (see Fair.org for good round-ups of negative Bernie coverage). In other words, the mass media continues its hand-wringing and appeals to moderation. "Sure, we don't like Trump, but is Bernie electable?" It's important to keep in mind that the self-appointed voices of reason at CNN and the Times will continue to spread doubt about Sanders. His crime, of course, is that he's not a "moderate." He's not a "centrist."
However, Bernie Sanders is precisely a centrist. His positions track with majoritarian public opinion—the definition of the liberal center. Those like Cillizza, Zakaria, and Leonhardt are not centrists. And they do not care about who suffers under the current healthcare system. They have high-paying jobs. They have health insurance. They are fine. (One imagines them on Trump's payroll.)
Sanders and Warren have run moderate, centrist campaigns. Medicare-for-all is moderate, centrist policy. But especially in the current atmosphere, when your views are in synch with the public's, you come off as a leftist.
