Reality Check: Medicare for all is a socialist’s dream

Medicare for all is a socialist’s dream — and an American Nightmare

Excerpt:

we know exactly what Medicare for All would look like.

First, it would be unfair. Forty-four million Americans paid for their Medicare benefits by contributing for 40 years or more into the Medicare Trust. The rest of the American public did not contribute their fair share, so why should they be given for free what others paid dearly for?

Second, even in its present form, Medicare isn’t sustainable. The Congressional Research Service reports the Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent in less than 10 years. When that happens, Medicare will be broke and seniors will not get the care they need. Why would anyone want to extend the problem of no-care to everyone?

Maybe when candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez promote Medicare-for-All, they’re looking for a system where the government provides health insurance to all for no charge. But wait! We already have such a system. It’s called Medicaid. Maybe supporters of Medicare-for-All are really advocating Medicaid-for-All.

Medicaid is a failure. Because mandates from Washington dictate how the states spend their money, states are not in control of the largest single item in their budgets. And because Medicaid spending comes first, other state priorities must accept the leftovers. Worst of all, Medicaid provides inadequate access to care and instead of making people healthy, Medicaid has caused unnecessary suffering and even death.

Let’s face it, Medicare-for-All is really code for government controlled, single-payer healthcare. After all, England and Canada appear to have successful single-payer systems. Why shouldn’t it work here? 

It all depends on how you define success. The British and the Canadians pay a very high cost for their systems, and not only in monetary terms. Single-payer health care systems take away individual choice, they discourage life-saving research and innovations, and they exchange quality of care for a balanced budget

And there are heart-breaking cases such as Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard — babies in Great Britain who were left to die at the behest of the government. In the National Health Service, the government has the final say in all medical decisions — not patients or their families.

Americans, even those who respond favorably to polls about a vague Medicare-for-All system, would never stand for that.

There is death-by-queueing in single payer systems, where sick persons die from treatable conditions because they could not get care in time and succumb “waiting in line” for care. You don’t even have to go outside the U.S. to see these avoidable deaths. In our own single payer or Medicare-for-All system, the VA, “307,000 veterans may have died waiting for medical care.” 

Medicare-for-All, aka government-controlled healthcare, is precisely what we don’t want. It will either deny us the care we need or land our nation in bankruptcy court. Most people thought the cost of Obamacare, $1.34 trillion, was excessive, but that’s peanuts compared to the $18 trillion price tag for Bernie Sanders’ — and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s — Medicare-for-All.

Instead of government-controlled, insurance-dominated healthcare, we need to return to our roots, to what made our country great: the free market. In 2017, the U.S. spent $3.4 trillion on healthcare for 323 million Americans, or $10,526 for every man, woman and child. Imagine if every family of four put $42,105 in an HSA every year! and simply shopped for and paid for their health care. No government stealing our money to pay its bureaucracy. No insurance company delaying or denying care. Just the old but right doctor-patient relationship with no one and nothing in between.

Comment: We are on Medicare. Fact ... if you don't have Medicare supplement plan, your out of pocket would sink you!

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion https://t.co/tT8iRoTx15

— James Peet (@jrpeet) July 30, 2018

'Medicare for All' proposal splits Minnesota Democrats https://t.co/jB9vCCbghz

— James Peet (@jrpeet) July 30, 2018

Contrarian view:

https://t.co/ipEoaOEA6L

— James Peet (@jrpeet) July 30, 2018

Another view:

Liberals will try to discredit this estimate by impugning Mercatus’ sources of funding, but their peg—$32 trillion over ten years—aligns precisely with the nonpartisan Urban Institute’s 2016 estimate: $32 trillion. https://t.co/dXS1uyGgHp https://t.co/6hSR5Gmy9Q

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 30, 2018

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez gives jumbled word salad when asked about her plans for Congress https://t.co/o4OdmwliNk pic.twitter.com/UkFxSlj8cz

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 6, 2018

‘Medicare for All’: The Impossible Dream https://t.co/lngr5P9wFp

— James Peet (@jrpeet) March 5, 2019

Congress’s budget gnomes tip-toe around single-payer’s reality. https://t.co/lthMNNFt7s via @WSJ

JP: CBO walks through “key design components and considerations” in a report that aims to bore and deploys the word “could” 209 times.

— James Peet (@jrpeet) May 5, 2019

Medicare A required at age 65?

Should You Enroll in Medicare if You're Still Working?

Excerpt:

Why You Shouldn't Enroll in Medicare Part A While Still Employed: You should pass on Medicare Part A while working if you are making contributions to a health savings account (HSA) and wish to continue to do so while working. Enrolling in Medicare Part A will terminate that option.

Should I enroll in Medicare if I'm still working past age 65?

Excerpt:

Am I required to enroll in Medicare if I keep working? If you are still working and covered under your employer's or union's health insurance, you are not required to enroll in Medicare at age 65.

Comment: The ship has sailed for us because both Kathee and I are on Medicare. I was still working at 65 and should not have enrolled in Medicare A. I continued to contribute to an HSA plan and was penalized for that. Kathee retired at 65 so there was no issue for her.

Finally enacted: New Medicare Cards Will Not Display Social Security Numbers

New Medicare Cards Will Not Display Social Security Numbers

Excerpt:

A new Medicare card is coming, one that will no longer display a cardholder’s Social Security number, or SSN. To protect seniors from identity theft, President Obama recently signed a bill that requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue new Medicare cards that don’t display, code, or embed SSNs. Medicare advises senior citizens to carry their cards at all times, but doing so makes them more vulnerable to identity theft. If a wallet or purse is lost or stolen, identity thieves have access to an SSN. For more than a decade, we and other Federal agencies have recommended taking SSNs off of Medicare cards. However, the amount of money and effort this would take has prevented it—so the new law includes funding and instructions for HHS to consult with the Social Security Administration to "establish cost‑effective procedures” to modernize Medicare cards. The bill gives HHS four years to issue modernized cards to new beneficiaries, and four more years to issue the new cards to existing beneficiaries.

Comment: But up to 8 years to implement! The bill ... see section 501

“Medicare Part E”?

House Dems want Medicare for everyone

Excerpt:

The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

The Problem:

Republicans also note that Medicare is already $37 trillion in the hole and is projected to go bankrupt by 2018. “Has anyone noticed that Medicare is completely broke?” said Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who worked in the White House on President George W. Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security.

Comment: It's a big problem!

Should Medicare be the Public Option?

Leading Blue Dog suggests opening Medicare to all

Excerpt:

Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross, who made headlines by rejecting a compromise he'd negotiated on a public health insurance option, has suggested to Democratic leaders that the government-run Medicare program be opened to those without insurance.

Here's the problem: # 1 - It's complex

Nearly 65? Time for the Medicare Maze

Excerpt:

NOW that you’re about to retire, there’s good news and bad news about your health insurance. The good news: When you turn 65, you’re eligible for Medicare — all in all, a pretty affordable way to get coverage for doctor bills, hospitalizations and, more recently, prescription drugs. The bad news: You’ve got a big job ahead of you, sorting through the Medicare bureaucracy.

For someone new to the system, the hundreds of options Medicare provides can be daunting. “We’ve seen C.P.A.’s get stymied,” said Paul Gada, personal financial planning director at Allsup, a provider of Social Security and Medicare consultation services that is based in Belleville, Ill. “The process can be difficult for even the most savvy individuals.”

More important, the choices you make now as a new retiree may have consequences down the line when your health care and financial needs change. Confusing as Medicare may be, it is better to learn the ins and outs of the system early than to try to figure it out 20 years from now. The newly eligible have a seven-month period to enroll, starting three months before their 65th birthday. And numerous resources are available to help both newcomers and veteran Medicare users.

Not long ago, retirees simply went to their local Social Security office and signed up for Medicare A, which covers hospitalization, skilled nursing facilities, hospice and some home health care. Then they signed up for Medicare B, which provides coverage for doctor’s fees for a premium ($96.40 a month in 2009). That was the end of it.

[Read on (link) for the complexities!]

Here's the problem: # 2 - It's going broke!

Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report

Excerpt:

The financial troubles daunting the Medicare system have deepened during the past year, according to a government forecast that says the federal fund that pays for hospital care for older Americans will become unable to cover all its bills a dozen years from now.

The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.

The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected.

Comment: And the above article is 3 years old .... Latest

Medicare insolvency due to high MA payments

The recent report on the deteriorating financial condition of the Medicare trust funds heightens the sense of urgency in overhauling the nation's high-cost but inefficient healthcare system. The Medicare hospital fund now faces depletion by 2017, two years earlier than the previous projection. The nation's economic decline has reduced tax revenues to support the program, while healthcare spending continues to climb.

Medicare expenditures are expected to increase at a faster pace than either workers' earnings or the overall economy, with outlays rising from 3.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) last year to 11.4% by 2083. These gloomy projections reflect continued growth in the volume and intensity of healthcare services over the next 75 years; an increase in the number of beneficiaries as the baby boomers begin to hit age 65; and the addition of the Part D prescription drug program in 2004.

The Medicare model is not viable!

Medicare Is No Model for Health Reform

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama told a New Hampshire town-hall meeting last month that "if we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role." Did the government really get Medicare right? Here are the top 10 reasons this program should not be a model for reform, and why it would be dangerous for the federal government to be put in charge of any more of our health sector:

1) Medicare is going bankrupt. The Medicare Trustees estimate that the program will run short of money starting in 2017. Medicare will drown in a sea of red ink, with spending over the next 75 years outpacing dedicated revenues by nearly $38 trillion.

Comment: Only the top reason is shown. But it is the 800 lb Gorilla!