In the News

The Devilish Details of Government-Run Health Care


08.12.19

WASHINGTON, DC – Every American will be covered. No out of pocket health care expenses. No more middle-man in America’s health system. These are the promises – bellowed breathlessly from Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail – of Medicare for All, a one-size-fits-all health care system.

While the promises of government-run health care sound nice, the devil is in the details when it comes to the real-world implications for Americans:

Americans lose control of their care – The term “government-run” means just that. Under Medicare for All, Medicare for America, Public Option, or any of the Medicare for All-lite proposals from Democrats, the government is in the driver seat in health care decisions, and the patient is on the back burner.

$32 trillion – That’s the price tag for government-run health care. This plan is so expensive, that doubling taxes on every single American and every single American business would not be enough to pay for it.

Wait times will increase, care quality will decrease – In countries that have implemented government-run health care, patients experience horrible wait times for sub-par medical care. In Nova Scotia, one mother waited three years for a cancer diagnosis due to a lack of access to a family doctor. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes:

“Medicare for All would also encourage folks to consume more health care even as it slashes payments to doctors and hospitals and thus contracts supply. Rationed care and waiting lists are inevitable.”

158 million – That’s the number of people who would lose their employer or union-sponsored health insurance, before being forced into a plan picked by the federal government.

Bottom line: the devilish details of government-run health care are troubling, which is why we need a hearing at Energy and Commerce to give Americans the answers they deserve on Medicare for All.

Kamala’s Medicare-for-All Straddle

By Editorial Board

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamalas-medicare-for-all-straddle-11564702139

Progressives say Medicare for All merely replaces the premiums you hate with taxes, but it isn’t so simple. A 2016 analysis from Kenneth Thorpe at Emory University found that more than 70% of working privately insured households would pay more for health insurance under the Sanders plan. Medicare for All would also encourage folks to consume more health care even as it slashes payments to doctors and hospitals and thus contracts supply. Rationed care and waiting lists are inevitable.

Click here to read the full article.

Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?

By Editorial Board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-have-big-ideas-we-need-big-good-ideas/2019/08/01/2b5bed02-b499-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html?noredirect=on

That means, first, that proposals should meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility — a bar that, for example, the Medicare-for-all plan that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren favor does not clear. Ms. Warren’s Tuesday night zinger was aimed at former congressman John Delaney (Md.), who had pointed out correctly that the numbers behind the proposal simply do not compute: The senators cannot deliver a system that provides far more benefits than other single-payer systems they claim as their model while preserving the level of care and access that insured Americans currently enjoy. They should make the case for a government monopoly on health care if they want, but they should be honest about the trade-offs.

Click here to read the full article.


Subcommittees
Health (116th Congress)
In the News