Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Stay on top of the latest market trends
Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.
Sports news worthy of your time
Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.
Tech news worthy of your time
Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.
Get the inside stories
Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
The House Ways and Means Committee recently held a hearing about universal coverage, examining incremental and more sweeping Medicare for All style strategies for getting to universal coverage. That means one way or another everyone would be covered, right?
The catch: In practice, universal coverage will not mean 100 percent coverage, because making everyone eligible for some form of coverage or financial assistance does not mean everyone will actually get covered. Even under Medicare for All, some populations could be left out.
- That reality does not make it a less worthy goal to work to expand coverage as much as possible.
By the numbers: Thanks to progress made under the Affordable Care Act, we are at 90% coverage now. As the chart shows:
- More than half of the remaining 27 million uninsured are eligible for coverage now, or for subsidies to help them get coverage, but remain uninsured — mostly because insurance is not affordable for them.
- A separate significant share, 4.1 million, are ineligible because of immigration status. Only one state, California, seems interested in covering some of this population.
The big picture: Making people eligible for coverage or financial help does not assure they all get covered, and that that would remain the case whether we expanded eligibility for subsidies, expanded Medicaid in more states, put in place reinsurance mechanisms, or revitalized outreach and enrollment efforts, to pick several of the incremental policies that have been proposed.
- A pragmatic definition of universal coverage through incremental measures might take us to something like 95% coverage of the non-elderly population. That’s a guesstimate; it could just as easily be 96% or 94%.
We could cover everyone from birth through a Medicare for All style plan. But for that to happen, progressive Democrats would have to have substantial control of the White House, the House and Senate — and overcome fierce interest group opposition.
- And to win passage, it’s possible that a political compromise would be necessary that would exclude coverage for the millions who are ineligible for coverage now due to their immigration status.
The bottom line: Universal coverage is a powerful rallying cry for Democrats and an important goal for progressive voters in the primary elections. But to appeal to as many voters as possible, making health insurance affordable for everyone — including by covering as many of the remaining uninsured as possible — might be a more effective rallying cry for the general election.