Recent studies suggest Medicare for All will save us money (https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all).
I recognize that the current expenditures on health care premiums roughly equals the cost of M4A.
The problem with health care in the US is not just its cost, or coverage, but the inflation of those underlying costs due to systemic inefficiencies in that system. Medicare’s structure is one of the main causes of that systemic inefficiency. It does not give the coveree any reason whatsoever to throttle their own services consumption (which, btw, is why the ACA was actually MORE expensive than letting the uninsured use the ERs for health care.)
IOW, M4A doesn’t address the problem of health care inflation. What it does is codify that problem into law.
So, if you literally go to a “Medicare for All”, the costs balance out fine — — for the first few years of the program. Then, the inflation problem destroys that balance, and you’re raising taxes. Raising them A LOT.
Put another way, you can try any health care coverage scheme you like. If you don’t address the underlying causes of health care hyperinflation, then all you’re doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks.
And we have to support a Green New Deal if we want to live on this planet.
No, we have to address the drivers of climate change. And we are; the US has dropped its carbon emissions massively over the last 15–20 years, WITHOUT any sort of massive government plan to force it to happen. If that’s insufficient (and it appears to be), then there are reasonable ways to incent people to throttle their usage, although politicians can’t seem to think past the rather ineffective “let’s just give them a tax break” numbskullery.
But, more importantly, the term “New Deal” is politically toxic to the right, because it implies massive government spending and increased taxation, making it a political non-starter. Kind of like when the US first named the Afghan adventure with a term that included the word “Crusade”. (There are certain terms you want to avoid when engaging with Muslims.) “New Deal” is one of those terms you need to avoid if you’re seeking a bipartisan solution.
You want to save the planet? Find a plan which everyone can get behind. If you try to do this with a “if they don’t like it, jam it down their throats” political strategy, it will fail.
Did you mean anything in specific when you mentioned a “price tag”?
Not particularly. The point is that polling is always suspect when a new benefit is being poll-tested. Everyone will always vote for a free lunch; but when you tell them what the bill for it will be on April 15…… not so much.