screen-shot-2019-02-24-at-5-13-58-pm-273x300-7656328At Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand gave a misleading description of the “Medicare for all” proposal that she says she helped to write – implying that it calls for a voluntary buy-in rather than mandatory government coverage.

Gillibrand cosponsors Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act of 2019, and describes herself as the author of the section dealing with the transition from the status quo to single payer. That bill does provide for an optional buy-in during a four-year transition period, but it would work differently than she described during the debate.

Here is what she said on stage in Miami:

In 2005, when I ran for Congress in a 2-1 Republican district, I actually ran on Medicare for All, and I won that 2-1 Republican district twice. And the way I formulated it was simple: Anyone who doesn’t have access to insurance they like, they could buy it in [at] a percentage of income they could afford. So, that’s what we put into the transition period for our Medicare for All plan. … The quickest way you get there is you create competition with the insurers. God bless the insurers if they want to compete; they can certainly try. But they’d never put people over their profits, and I doubt they ever will. So what will happen is people will choose Medicare. You will transition. We would get to Medicare for All. And then your step to single payer is so short. I would make it an earned benefit just like Social Security, so that you buy in your whole life. It is always there for you and it’s permanent and it’s universal.

This account differs from the bill language in important ways.

  • The buy-in would not be available to anyone who wants it. Applicants would have to be at least 55 years old in the first transition year, 45 in the second and 35 in the third. 
  • Buy-in premiums would not be based on a percentage of income, but on the program’s average projected cost per recipient. The net cost would be reduced for many enrollees through tax credits similar to those offered under the Affordable Care Act.
  • The buy-in period would be limited to three years. At the beginning of the fourth year, Americans would no longer “choose” to buy the federal plan. Enrollment would be automatic and universal.
  • Even if private insurers successfully competed with the federal plan, they would be effectively banned and put out of business at the end of the third year.

These inconsistencies raise doubts about where Gillibrand stands on a central issue for Democrats in the 2020 race – the role of private and employer-based insurance in the nation’s health-care system. Her debate statement implied that it would continue to be an option, but the legislation she touts says otherwise.

Another thorny issue is how much what she calls an “earned benefit” would ultimately cost for taxpayers. Gillibrand initially claimed the price tag would be just 4 percent of income, then clarified that employers would also have to contribute a similar amount. As discussed in previous posts, neither rate would come close to raising enough revenue for a single-payer system.

 

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

The Essential Plan’s accumulated surplus balloons to $8 billion, with no fix in sight

The state's Essential Plan has generated billions in surpluses as the program automatically drew pandemic relief money that it did not need Read More

New federal health funding is headed for Essential Plan limbo in New York

Washington's newly enacted climate, health and tax package harbors an only-in-New York glitch: It pours even more money into the state's Essential Plan, which is sitting on a multi-billion-dollar surplus that officials have Read More

New York’s health insurance price controls are not working

In what has become a rite of summer, the state Department of Financial Services on Wednesday approved substantially higher health insurance premiums for 2023 Read More

New York’s health insurance affordability problem gets worse

New York's health insurance affordability gap surged to a new high last year, with state residents paying an average of 16 percent more. Read More

New York’s Medicaid costs are soaring at double-digit rates

New York's already high Medicaid spending is growing at a double-digit rate for the second year in a row, recently released state figures show. After dipping during the first year o Read More

As the session winds down, watch for health costs to go up

The closing days of the legislative session could prove costly for New York health insurance consumers as lawmakers push a raft of proposals that would make coverage more expensive, harder to find, or both. Read More

Answers needed on Governor Hochul’s health-care budget

The health-care agenda laid out by Governor Hochul in her budget proposal this week leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Here are a few of them. Read More

Putting Governor Hochul’s $10 billion health-care ‘investment’ in context

In her State of the State address this week, Governor Hochul prominently called for a $10 billion "multi-year investment" in the state's health care system, including $4 billion earmarked for wages and bonuses, with a goal Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100

General Inquiries: Info@EmpireCenter.org

Press Inquiries: Press@EmpireCenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.

Empire Center Logo Enjoying our work? Sign up for email alerts on our latest news and research.
Together, we can make New York a better place to live and work!