Bernie’s Bad Health-Care Plan

Dec 2014
16,698
5,997
The Milky Way
#1
A bad idea made even worse.


Government programs often become more expensive over time. Medicare for All is growing without even having gotten into law. The version of the plan Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vt.) has just introduced will now cover long-term care, which had been omitted from previous bills.

But the expense of the bill — which would necessitate large increases in debt, in middle-class taxation, or in both — is hardly the only objection to it. Scores of millions of people with private health-insurance plans, the vast majority of whom are satisfied by them, would be forced to participate in a government plan instead. Roughly another 20 million on Medicare Advantage, again mostly satisfied customers, would find their plans terminated, too, for being too market-like for socialist tastes. At the same time, the plan would impose unprecedented and draconian reductions in pay for medical providers, which is bound to have a negative effect on the supply of care.

Naturally, the legislation also takes care to socialize the cost of abortion-on-demand and to trample on medical providers who harbor conscientious objections to it.

For decades, a lazy talking point on the left has held that other countries, with socialized medical systems that achieve better health outcomes at lower costs than ours, point the way forward for us. The apparent difference in health outcomes usually turns out to reflect differences in lifestyle and measurement. And no country, as Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, has socialized a medical sector as large as ours and then forced it to downsize. Sanders is proposing an expensive, dangerous experiment that has never been tried and, if Americans are lucky, never will be.


Bernie Sanders' Health-Care Bill: A Dangerous Experiment | National Review
 
Mar 2019
258
154
Portland, OR
#2
A bad idea made even worse.

Government programs often become more expensive over time.
Other nations with universal healthcare pay 2 1/2 times less for healthcare.

Medicare for All is growing without even having gotten into law. The version of the plan Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vt.) has just introduced will now cover long-term care, which had been omitted from previous bills.
Long-term care will increase the taxes/premiums people have to pay and greatly boat healthcare costs, however people who get conditions that require long-term care are often bankrupt by the cost later in life. Maybe we can have a long-term care fee that people can opt out of, but the more years you pay, the better your long-term care benefits.

Bernie is a socialist and socialists tend to make the government covering a lot more. However Medicare for all will need the approval of moderates to pass and I doubt they can include long-term care while trying to minimize the new taxes.

But the expense of the bill — which would necessitate large increases in debt, in middle-class taxation, or in both — is hardly the only objection to it.
Private insurance already costs our country 2 trillion per year and total healthcare costs are projected to go from 3.5 trillion today (1.5 trillion in other developed nations) to 6 trillion by 2027. We don't need to increase the debt, if we fully fund the program by completely replacing the expensive healthcare premiums with a tax, which is basically a government healthcare premium.

Also, every other nation in the world has been so much better at making their programs cost-effective that they pay significantly less in public healthcare spending to cover 100% of the population as we do on just Medicare and Medicaid alone. If we emulate their systems we might actually be able to bring down those healthcare taxes, or expand public healthcare coverage to cover more.

Scores of millions of people with private health-insurance plans, the vast majority of whom are satisfied by them, would be forced to participate in a government plan instead.
Aren't we already forced to participate in Medicare and Medicaid? I haven't seen a dime I have put into Medicaid. At least with Medicare for all I am actually getting something out of my tax dollars right now instead of them going to someone else. By expanding these programs, I won't have to pay that expensive private insurance, all that out of pocket, be afraid of losing coverage if I lose my job, or delay seeing the doctor because I know it will cost hundreds of dollars. I can tell you that the vast majority of people aren't happy with our healthcare plans and believe what we are paying for them is outrageously expensive.

Roughly another 20 million on Medicare Advantage, again mostly satisfied customers, would find their plans terminated, too, for being too market-like for socialist tastes. At the same time, the plan would impose unprecedented and draconian reductions in pay for medical providers, which is bound to have a negative effect on the supply of care.
If you don't like your public healthcare you can always add some private coverage on top like people do in other countries, and this is easily affordable since healthcare in general costs so much less. Or we can allow people to opt out of Medicare for all completely and get a voucher to pay for private insurance. Or we can include something like the Medicare advantage. I do think that Bernie is too extreme and he needs to look at some great universal healthcare systems that includes free market ideas too.

Naturally, the legislation also takes care to socialize the cost of abortion-on-demand and to trample on medical providers who harbor conscientious objections to it.
I personally think that if a facility or person doesn't want to perform an abortion they shouldn't have to. However abortion is great preventative care and is vastly cheaper than the cost of giving birth to a child and supporting that child all the way to adulthood. It reduces overpopulation and the number of low-income children who use government programs. Abortion in the first trimester is often just a simple pill that ends the pregnancy, thats pretty sweet.

For decades, a lazy talking point on the left has held that other countries, with socialized medical systems that achieve better health outcomes at lower costs than ours, point the way forward for us. The apparent difference in health outcomes usually turns out to reflect differences in lifestyle and measurement.
Other developed countries tend to have much higher rates of smoking and alcoholism which are just as taxing on healthcare systems as obesity. Also, they have a much higher older population because they tend to have a lot fewer children. If the government is so bad at running things and so bad with money, then why aren't they so much more expensive that us? The reason is because other developed nations are far better at controlling costs and still maintaining good quality.

And no country, as Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, has socialized a medical sector as large as ours and then forced it to downsize. Sanders is proposing an expensive, dangerous experiment that has never been tried and, if Americans are lucky, never will be.
Some developed nations like Germany, the UK, and France are quite large and still have the same low healthcare costs as very small countries. In fact the second most expensive healthcare system in the world besides the US is Switzerland, which is very tiny and Germany which is much larger has far lower costs per person. We can easily administer our healthcare on the state level to make our system workable if there is a size problem.
 
Dec 2014
16,698
5,997
The Milky Way
#4
VA care is what we will end up with if single payer ever becomes law.

Don't worry though! The politicians will have ther own health care.
 
Likes: chevy

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
69,029
58,542
CA
#5
If you don't like your public healthcare you can always add some private coverage on top like people do in other countries, and this is easily affordable since healthcare in general costs so much less. Or we can allow people to opt out of Medicare for all completely and get a voucher to pay for private insurance. Or we can include something like the Medicare advantage. I do think that Bernie is too extreme and he needs to look at some great universal healthcare systems that includes free market ideas too.

I think this idea is really good.
 
Apr 2012
935
1,000
#6
I wonder why there is so much talk about a new healthcare system but very little investigation of how the systems are set up in other countries.

We shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel when everyone else already has them.
 
Nov 2018
6,726
2,141
Maryland
#8
Health care is front and center and it should be, but nobody seems to have the answers. Bernie, like many on the left, seem to think there is an unlimited amount of money to take care of everyone. I don't fault Bernie for wanting to see his dreams become reality, but he isn't looking at the cost and the repercussions of his plan. If only we had the money.............

I am not one claiming to be an expert on health care. I don't have a plan, but I would support a plan that covers the largest number of people, with low-price drugs, that doesn't cause an undue burden on their pocketbook. But, is there such a plan, and who is bold enough to bring it to the forefront?