IBD editorial on Bernie's Free Health Care for all, but who pays unemployment for Insurance Workers?
Thank You, Bernie Sanders, For Exposing The True Cost of Socialized Medicine
Health Reform:
For decades the left has been pushing “single payer” health care
without ever coming clean about how much it would cost. Now, thanks to
Bernie Sanders, we have our answer. And the price tag is mind-boggling.
Sanders’ plan would eliminate private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare in favor of a single, government-run program, which he calls “Medicare for all.” There’d be no out-of-pocket costs for health care and long-term care.
When he released his plan, Sanders claimed it would cost about $14 trillion over 10 years. But not to worry, he said, since it would be fully paid for by the rich, and the middle class, and the working class, who would all see their taxes go up.
However, a new study from the liberal Urban Institute says that Sanders’s plan would cost more than twice what he says.
For starters, Sanders claims that he could somehow extend free care to everyone while still spending $6 trillion less over the next decade than would be the case.
Wrong. The Urban Institutes says that Sanders’ plan would actually increase national health spending by $6.6 trillion. The reason is simple enough — providing “free” care would encourage more people to use health care.
In addition, the report says, Sanders would have the federal government pick up all health costs currently paid for by state and local governments, as well as all costs paid for by individuals and businesses.
When you add it all up, the Urban Institute says, the price tag works out to $32 trillion over 10 years. In other words, Sanders’ plan would increase the already gargantuan size of the federal government by almost two-thirds.
Yes, state and local government, businesses and individuals will save money on premiums and out-of-pocket costs. But the idea that they’d be better off requires a suspension of disbelief that is almost impossible to maintain.
The idea that a central government can plan 1/6th of the economy better than the private sector, for example, is belied by every other attempt at socialism.
And anyone who thinks health care quality would improve just needs to look at the string of calamities in Canada, the U.K. or the single-payer Veterans Health Administration, which are each characterized by massive waste, chronic delays, doctor strikes, lack of innovation and worse outcomes for specific diseases.
Medicare itself, which is what Sanders wants to extend to everyone, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. A recent Government Accountability Office report found that improper payments accounted for 10% of its budget.
Sanders’ response is that the Urban Institute is wrong about the federal government taking over state and local health costs. But even so, that would only knock the bill down to $28 trillion.
He also says the Urban Institute “significantly underestimates the savings in administration, paperwork and prescription drug prices that every major country on earth has successfully achieved by adopting a universal health care program.”
But as IBD has pointed out, Sanders overestimates the potential savings. Even if his plan could miraculously eliminate all public and private overhead costs, he’d still be $2 trillion shy of his promised $6 trillion in savings, government data show.
Give Sanders credit for exposing the enormous cost of the left’s socialist dreams. And give him credit for making it clear how extreme the Democratic Party, which made Sanders a serious contender for the nomination, has become.
Sanders’ plan would eliminate private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare in favor of a single, government-run program, which he calls “Medicare for all.” There’d be no out-of-pocket costs for health care and long-term care.
When he released his plan, Sanders claimed it would cost about $14 trillion over 10 years. But not to worry, he said, since it would be fully paid for by the rich, and the middle class, and the working class, who would all see their taxes go up.
However, a new study from the liberal Urban Institute says that Sanders’s plan would cost more than twice what he says.
For starters, Sanders claims that he could somehow extend free care to everyone while still spending $6 trillion less over the next decade than would be the case.
Wrong. The Urban Institutes says that Sanders’ plan would actually increase national health spending by $6.6 trillion. The reason is simple enough — providing “free” care would encourage more people to use health care.
In addition, the report says, Sanders would have the federal government pick up all health costs currently paid for by state and local governments, as well as all costs paid for by individuals and businesses.
When you add it all up, the Urban Institute says, the price tag works out to $32 trillion over 10 years. In other words, Sanders’ plan would increase the already gargantuan size of the federal government by almost two-thirds.
Yes, state and local government, businesses and individuals will save money on premiums and out-of-pocket costs. But the idea that they’d be better off requires a suspension of disbelief that is almost impossible to maintain.
The idea that a central government can plan 1/6th of the economy better than the private sector, for example, is belied by every other attempt at socialism.
And anyone who thinks health care quality would improve just needs to look at the string of calamities in Canada, the U.K. or the single-payer Veterans Health Administration, which are each characterized by massive waste, chronic delays, doctor strikes, lack of innovation and worse outcomes for specific diseases.
Medicare itself, which is what Sanders wants to extend to everyone, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. A recent Government Accountability Office report found that improper payments accounted for 10% of its budget.
Sanders’ response is that the Urban Institute is wrong about the federal government taking over state and local health costs. But even so, that would only knock the bill down to $28 trillion.
He also says the Urban Institute “significantly underestimates the savings in administration, paperwork and prescription drug prices that every major country on earth has successfully achieved by adopting a universal health care program.”
But as IBD has pointed out, Sanders overestimates the potential savings. Even if his plan could miraculously eliminate all public and private overhead costs, he’d still be $2 trillion shy of his promised $6 trillion in savings, government data show.
Give Sanders credit for exposing the enormous cost of the left’s socialist dreams. And give him credit for making it clear how extreme the Democratic Party, which made Sanders a serious contender for the nomination, has become.
No comments:
Post a Comment