David Ihde: ‘Medicare for all’ based on rosy assumptions
August 10, 2018
In response to Lia Kozatch’s letter touting the savings of Medicare for all as providing more for less and saving the country $2 trillion in the process over 10 years, this assumes Bernie Sanders’ claim of bringing all reimbursement claims rates down to the Medicare rate, which would be approximately 40 percent lower than the private insurance claim rate.
The study however, did not envision less spending on healthcare but instead said any expenditure-cutting promises are dubious and so are Bernie’s claims that “federal bureaucrats will be paragons of efficient management contrary to past experience.”
It also does not assume what is already a fact, that most people on Medicare have a supplemental insurance plan. Taken together with the above dubious assumptions on reimbursement rates and efficiencies, the real total will be north of $42 trillion over 10 years. And nothing in the study addresses the higher demand for healthcare and what no additional providers would do to the system.
Now before you think that I’m just blowing right wing hot air, the information came from the author of the study himself, Charles Blahous. In other words, Bernie and the Left cherry picked his study, then added their own rosy assumptions.
Speaking of rosy assumptions, if the government is off on their projections like they were initially with Medicare by a factor of 7.5 you are looking at north of $200 trillion. Any bets?
And we haven’t even talked about the unconstitutionality of such an undertaking. Better to leave these kind of decisions and experiments to the states where it belongs.
Recommended Stories For You
So far three states have outright rejected single payer through referendums and two — California and Vermont — couldn’t figure out how to pay for it and scrapped it. Borrowing from the Chinese to pay for this on top of the already astronomical amount we already have is unsustainable.