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

Cuomo Administration Ducks Important Questions on Nursing Homes

A new report from the state Health Department tries to deflect blame for thousands of coronavirus deaths in the state's nursing homes – but undermines its own case by withholding data and engaging in tendentious analysis. Read More

Nursing Home Vacancy Rate Soars, Hinting at a Higher Coronavirus Toll

The vacancy rate in New York's nursing homes has more than doubled since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting that the death toll among residents may be thousands higher than officially reported. Read More

Unsure of COVID Impact, NY Insurers Roll Dice on Rate Hikes

The health insurance industry's rate applications for 2021, , reveal deep uncertainty about the long-term impact of the coronavirus pandemic on medical costs. Some companies anticip Read More

Hospitalization rising in some areas

Coronavirus hospitalizations are surging in parts of upstate, including three regions that the Cuomo administration authorized to begin reopening today. Read More

Uneven ‘relief’ for NY providers

A review of federal emergency payments to New York health-care providers reveals a striking disparity: Four of Manhattan's most prosperous private hospitals collected more individually than the 11 city-owned hospitals combined. Read More

A grim toll gets worse

The full toll of the coronavirus pandemic in New York is likely thousands higher than the official death tallies, according to newly released federal data. Read More

More fiscal turmoil for Medicaid

In a sign of pandemic-related strain on state finances, the Cuomo administration is postponing a series of multi-billion-dollar Medicaid payments over the next three months. Read More

Upstate escapes the worst

With the coronavirus pandemic hitting some parts of New York much harder than others, Governor Cuomo has signaled that he will begin to relax shutdown restrictions in low-virus parts of the state. Here's a closer look at how infection and fatality rates vary from region to region. 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
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@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.