Wednesday nights democratic primary debate was dominated by talks of healthcare by the candidates. The discussions ranged from health policies to the skyrocketing drug prices which are among the key issues of the candidates. Each had different views on the topic of healthcare. Read the article below to find out what some of their ideas are and what they think they could do to better the healthcare system.
During Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate — the first in a two-night event viewed as the de facto launch of the primary season — health policies, ranging from “Medicare for All” to efforts to curb skyrocketing drug prices, were among the key issues the 10 hopeful candidates onstage used to help differentiate themselves from the pack.
Health care dominated early, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) using questions about the economy to take aim at pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) emphasized the difficulties many Americans face in paying premiums.
But the candidates broke ranks on the details and not all of their claims stayed strictly within the lines.
Only two candidates — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Warren — raised their hands in favor of banishing private insurance to install a government-sponsored Medicare for All approach.
Klobuchar, a single-payer skeptic, expressed concern about “kicking off half of America off their health insurance in four years.” (That’s correct: In 2017, a majority of Americans had private coverage, with 49% getting that insurance through work, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who also supports maintaining a private insurance system, outlined his own universal health care plan, based on a “Medicare for America” bill in Congress.
The single-payer talk set off other discussions about the role of health insurance and the cost of care. We fact-checked some of the biggest claims.
Warren: “The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system. $23 billion. And that doesn’t count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington.”
We contacted Warren’s campaign, who directed us to a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a nonpartisan group of industry regulators. It supports her assessment.
The report says that in 2018, health insurers posted $23.4 billion in net earnings, or profits, compared with $16.1 billion a year prior.
This came up in the context of Warren’s support for eliminating private insurance under a Medicare for All system. However, the financing and price tag of such a system is unclear.
Booker: “The overhead for insurers that they charge is 15%, while Medicare’s overhead is only at 2%.”
This is a flawed comparison. Booker said administrative overhead eats up much more for private carriers than it does for Medicare, the government insurance program for seniors and the disabled. But Medicare piggybacks off the Social Security Administration, which covers costs of enrollment, payments and keeping track of patients.
Also, Medicare relies on private providers for some of its programs, and overhead charges there are higher. Medicare’s overhead is less than that of private carriers, but exact figures are elusive.
The insurance companies’ trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), reported in 2018 that 18.1% of private health care premiums went to non-health care services. That includes taxes of 4.7% and profits of 2.3%. The Medicare trustees reported that in 2018, total expenses were $740.6 billion, with administrative expenses of $9.9 billion. That comes to 1.3%, less than Booker said.
Warren: “I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke, and one of the No. 1 reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that’s not just for people who don’t have insurance. It’s for people who have insurance.”
Is the No. 1 reason people go broke the cost of health care? We’ve rated similar statements Half True — partially accurate but lacking important context.