In Canada, everyone is guaranteed access to health care by the government.
The same is true for France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and every other country that we think of as comparable in terms of levels of wealth, democracy and economic development.
In spite of providing universal care, these countries also spend much less on health care than the United States. In Canada, per person spending is 60 percent what it is in the U.S. In Germany, spending per person is 56 percent, and in the United Kingdom it's 42 percent of what we spend.
People in other wealthy countries not only have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates, they also have comparable outcomes when looking at more narrow health issues like treatment for cancer or heart disease.
We spend roughly twice as much per person as those in other wealthy countries and have pretty much nothing to show for it in terms of better health. This is the context in which critics of Medicare for all are telling us it is not possible.
If the argument is that it won't be easy, the critics have a point. The reason we spend twice as much for our health care is that big actors in the industry get twice as much money here.
Drug companies charge us twice as much for drugs as they do in other wealthy countries. The same is true for medical equipment companies who charge far more for kidney dialysis machines and MRIs than in France and Germany.
And our doctors and dentists get paid twice as much on average as their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
In addition, we spend more than $250 billion a year paying insurance companies to administer our chaotic system.
Doctors' offices, hospitals and other providers spend tens of billions more on administrative personnel who have to deal with the paperwork and issues that are caused by having a range of insurers, each with their own payment rules and practices.
These interest groups will use all of their political power to protect the income they get under the current system. The pharmaceutical industry will fight measures to rein in their profits in the same way the tobacco industry fought public health advocates who sought to curb smoking. The same is true for the medical equipment industry.
And doctors and dentists will fight like crazy to preserve a pay structure that puts most of them in the top 1 percent of wage earners. This will also be true of insurers faced with a more efficient system that will put most of them out of business.
While a well-designed pathway can get us to Medicare for all, we can't do it all at once.
To begin, we can look to lower the age of Medicare eligibility from the current 65 to 60 or 55 in an initial round. We can also allow people of all ages to have the option to buy into a public Medicare-type system.
We can also start getting our costs down. This means lowering drug prices, both by negotiating in the same way as other countries and directly funding research so that newly developed drugs can be sold as cheap generics.
We should do the same with medical equipment. And we can subject our doctors and dentists to the same sort of foreign and domestic competition that workers in other professions face.
These steps can get us on a path to Medicare for all, on which we will quickly be extending coverage to millions of people, while substantially reducing the cost of care for everyone.
We are smart enough to be able make the same sort of guarantees on providing health care as every other wealthy country.
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank.
Editorial on 03/24/2019