John Oliver on Medicare For All

He does an excellent job of explaining what it is and addresses the three main criticisms that opponents make against it: that it will cost too much, that it will increase wait times, and that it will eliminate choice. He also makes the important point that that while Bernie Sanders calls it Medicare For All, his proposal is actually much better than Medicare now, covering eyeglasses and dental needs and not requiring any premiums.

This is something that everyone should see so that they can better argue against those who criticize the proposal or pretend, like Pete Buttigieg, who claim that they have a better one, whose faults Oliver points out.


  1. consciousness razor says

    I’m not happy with the way Oliver dealt with the “choice” bullshit. He more or less says “hey, you’re already fucked, because your choices are already constrained in various ways…” That’s not the point he needs to be making, in order to address the wrong assumptions people have regarding the alleged “lack of choice” in M4A.
    It’s so frustrating how often this comes up, even from sources that seem to be saying something positive about it. For instance, that NBC polling question from your other thread give a false impression of it “replacing all private health insurance.” This makes people think workers in the culinary union (to pick a salient example) wouldn’t be allowed to have more coverage than what M4A provides, because M4A would do away with “all” such things. Many people think it means nobody would have any of those specific types of choices. That’s simply and demonstrably false, so there’s no need (and it just confuses matters even more) if you try to make excuses or deflections or counterattacks like Oliver did.
    From the Sanders and Jayapal bills (S. 1129 and H.R. 1384):

    (a) IN GENERAL. – Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for –
      (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or
      (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
    (b) CONSTRUCTION. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of additional health insurance coverage for any benefits not covered by this Act, including additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.

    The entitled rich who are constantly lying to everyone about this are acting as if it would make any sense to say that poor folks choose to have no healthcare, as if even middle class people choose to pay much more than they should be paying, as if anyone chooses to have fewer choices about which doctors/hospitals may treat them, etc. It’s complete bullshit.

  2. consciousness razor says

    Sorry, jumbled things up in editing….:
    “so there’s no need (and it just confuses matters even more) to try to make”
    Still bad writing style, I know, but the point is that it’s both unnecessary and counterproductive.

  3. Kevin Dugan says

    A point that I’m not sure I’ve ever heard mentioned is that employers, especially large corporations, are fond of letting go older workers partially because of their increased health costs. With M4A, this would no longer be a motivation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *