Posted in Access to healthcare, Economic Issues, Government Spending, Healthcare financing, Medical Costs, Medicare, News From Washington, outcomes, Policy Issues, Reforming Medicare, Tax Policy, Uncategorized

Medicare Hypocrisy for All – Foundation for Economic Education

Gary M. Galles
Gary M. Galles
“Medicare is not even close to sustainable in its present form, much less to be leveraged to cover the entire population.”
Saturday, October 5, 2019

“Because of the wealth transfer to early enrollees, as well as from ensuing expansions, Medicare provided many with a great deal. But that deal was the result of dumping an enormous bill on future generations (bigger than the unfunded liabilities for Social Security plus the national debt).

As a result, Medicare was a far worse deal than M4A salesmen and women admit, and it is now decaying at an increasing rate.

With that bill starting to arrive, Medicare is not even close to sustainable in its present form, much less to be leveraged to cover the entire population (although one can understand the vote-buying potential in promising massive new M4A generational transfers).”

https://fee.org/articles/medicare-hypocrisy-for-all/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Accountable Care Organizations, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, Canadian Health System, Direct-Pay Medicine, Economic Issues, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Quality, Reforming Medicare, Uncategorized

What You Need To Know About Medicare For All, Part I

A study by Charles Blahousat the Mercatus Center estimates that Medicare for all would cost $32.6 trillion over the next ten years. Other studies have been in the same ballpark and they imply that we would need a 25% payroll tax. And that assumes that doctors and hospitals provide the same amount of care they provide today, even though they would be paid Medicare rates, which are about 40% below what private insurance has been paying. Without those cuts in provider payments, the needed payroll tax would be closer to 30%.

Of course, there would be savings on the other side of the ledger. People would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums and out-of-pocket fees. In fact, for the country as a whole this would largely be a financial wash – a huge substitution of public payment for private payment.

But remember, in today’s world how much you and your employer spend on health care is up to you and your employer. If the cost is too high, you can choose to jettison benefits of marginal value and be more choosey about the doctors and hospitals in your plan’s network. You could also take advantage of medical tourism (traveling to other cities where the costs are lower and the quality is higher) and phone, email and other telemedical innovations described above. The premiums you pay today are voluntary and (absent Obamacare mandates) what you buy with those premiums is a choice you and your employer are free to make.

With Medicare for all, you would have virtually no say in how costs are controlled other than the fact that you would be one of several hundred million potential voters.

Remember also that there is a reason why Obamacare is such a mess. The Democrats in Congress convened special interests around a figurative table – the drug companies, the insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals, the device manufacturers, big business, big labor, etc. – and gave each a piece of the Obamacare pie in order to buy their political support.

As we show below, every single issue Obamacare had to contend with would be front and center in any plan to replace Obamacare with Medicare for all. So, the Democrats who gave us the last health care reform would be dealing with the same issues and the same special interests the second time around.

It takes a great deal of faith to believe there would be much improvement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2018/09/07/what-you-need-to-know-about-medicare-for-all-part-i/

Posted in Access to healthcare, British National Health Service, Dependency, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, News From Washington, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

Hoaxes, Scams, and Your Medical Care – AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Marilyn Singleton

“…we continue to have a slew of healthcare hoaxes: corporate stakeholders, legislators, and government agencies promise everything and have no accountability for their failure to keep their promises.

Take the large health systems’ claim that hospital consolidation and buying up physician practices would benefit consumers with cheaper prices from coordinated services and other unspecified savings. A major study of California hospital mergers found just the opposite…This finding seems obvious to any of us who has the choice of shopping at Walmart or Target or Costco.

Logic aside, some legislators believe that having the government take over medical care would solve our access and cost problems. Single payer means no competition whatsoever. The single payer plans (H.R. 1384 and S. 1804) that abolish private insurance leave patients with an empty choice…

Realistically, these single payer bills make it financially unfeasible for physicians to privately contract with patients. Thus, only well-heeled patients, along with independently wealthy doctors, can buy their way out of the system.”

Source: Hoaxes, Scams, and Your Medical Care – AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, big government, British National Health Service, Consumer-Driven Health Care, Dependency, Economic Issues, Education, Free Society, Free-Market, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Leadership, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Medicare, outcomes, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Reforming Medicare, Uncategorized

4 Questions for Politicians Claiming Single-Payer Will Lower Health Care Costs – Foundation for Economic Education

Unfortunately, outrage buys fewer tongue depressors than one might hope. The top health insurers averaged 4.1 percent profit in 2017 (per Yahoo Finance). That’s taken on half (at most) of spending for-profit insurers handle. Eliminating those profits would save about 2 percent. Since health care gets 4.5 percent more expensive every year, that would in effect roll prices back to last August.


The UK saw costs risewhen it launched the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948. Health Minister Aneurin Bevan bought doctors off (“stuffed their mouths with gold”) to win support for it. Pent-up demand put it over budget immediately. In the first year, it spent 32 times what it had planned for eyeglasses. It had to raise salaries to attract more nurses. Prime Minister Clement Attlee pleaded over the radio with citizens not to overburden the system.

https://fee.org/articles/how-we-know-single-payer-wont-lower-health-care-costs/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Canadian Health System, Economic Issues, Government Spending, Healthcare financing, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, News From Washington, DC & Related Shenanigans, Policy Issues, Protocols, Reforming Medicaid, Reforming Medicare, Tax Policy, Uncategorized

Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

“Notably absent from Sanders’ proposed single-payer system was a detailed plan to pay for it. The senator said he would lay out the tax hikes necessary to fund his new system in separate legislation.

That may be because enthusiasm for single payer tends to die down pretty quickly once people get a sense of what sort of tax increases would be necessary to fund it. An Urban Institute analysis of a previous version of Sanders’ plan estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over a decade.

It promises huge overall savings along with coverage that would be far more expansive, and far more expensive, than Medicaid for all, with no clear way to pay for it, and no specific strategy for driving costs or spending down.

In 30 years of political advocacy, Sanders has not solved any of the fundamental problems with single payer. He has merely opted to pretend they do not exist.”

[Note: On annualized basis, that would more than double the amount we currently spend annually on healthcare.  And past projections related to the costs of gov’t programs always vastly underestimate the actual costs, as evidenced below. – The Sovereign Patient]

“The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.” http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster

Source: Medicaid for All Would ‘Bankrupt the Nation,’ Warns Bernie Sanders—In 1987 – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Posted in Access to healthcare, big government, DC & Related Shenanigans, Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Liberty, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, Organizational structure, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Reforming Medicaid, Reforming Medicare, Subsidies, Tax Policy, third-party payments, Uncategorized

Are You Sure You Want Medicare for All? – Reason.com

A big part of the problem, as Cato’s Tanner pointed out earlier this year is that “Americans want widely contradictory things from health-care reform. They want the highest-quality care for everyone, with no wait, from the doctor of their choice. And they want it as cheap as possible, preferably for free.” Promising, as Sanders and Warren do, to give everybody high-quality health care without regard for ability to pay will always find an enthusiastic audience. But delivering on that promise is likely to give us not the illusion of Medicare for All, but rather its awful, unsustainable reality.

Source: Are You Sure You Want Medicare for All? – Reason.com

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, Organizational structure, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Quality, Reforming Medicaid, Reforming Medicare, Subsidies, Uncategorized, Wait times to see a doctor

Most Americans Want Government-Run Health Care Until They Find Out the Government Will Run Health Care – Hit & Run : Reason.com

“While 55 percent of Americans say they want a single-payer/Medicaid-for-all plan, those in favor tend to change their minds when they hear that it means giving the government more control over health care, or that Americans would have to pay more in taxes.

That tracks with other polling on the issue. A May poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found support for single-payer state healthcare at 65 percent statewide, but that number dropped to 42 percent when respondents were told at least $50 billion in new taxes would be required to pay for it. That’s a pretty optimistic view of the taxes that would be required to pay for single-payer in California; the actual cost would be well over $100 billion annually.

Are you sure you want government-run health care? Many Americans don’t seem to understand the question. But once they do, the answer is “no.” “