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

Save Us From The Health Care Reformers: They’re The Problem, Not The Solution

257e412251dd752f730fd7cb60c52ee2

John C. Goodman

Dr. Goodman’s article is a fantastic foray into the dark history organized medicine, culminating with a brutally honest assessment of the cartel that resulted. He gives a great preview of the good stuff in Greg Scandlen’s new book, Myth Busters: Why Health Reform Always Goes Awry, summarizing the oft-repeated myths we hear about healthcare economics thrown around like dogma.

Source: Save Us From The Health Care Reformers: They’re The Problem, Not The Solution

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

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.” “

Health Care: You Are Not the Customer (David Goldhill) – YouTube

David Goldhill

Health “insurance” is NOT…INSURANCE. When everyone’s house is on fire at the same time we’re not talking about managing risk, we’re talking about a perpetually increasing spend.

Please listen to this insightful explanation by David Goldhill where he discusses this phenomenon and explains why Healthcare is not the economic Island that we made it out to be. Instead, much of what we believe and what we’ve done to healthcare, as far as economics and regulations, has made it an island unto itself. This is a huge part of the problem and one that has largely been self inflicted.

Why the healthcare industry will eliminate PPO networks parts 1 and 2 | Michael (Mike) Dendy | Pulse | LinkedIn

Mike Dendy CEO/Vice-Chairman, AMPS, Inc

Since PPOs make their revenues off access fees with absolutely no responsibility to screen claims for accuracy and since their market value is directly tied to the number of physicians and facilities they have inside their networks, employers and their administrative payers’ demands for transparency have gone unmet over the last decade. This has led to the significant movement to eliminate PPO arrangements altogether as they not only provide no real value to the healthcare equation but in many cases promote a negative value. This is the efficient market theory at work, all elements within a market that do not add value to the overall market will eventually be eliminated.

Source: Why the healthcare industry will eliminate PPO networks parts 1 and 2 | Michael (Mike) Dendy | Pulse | LinkedIn

A New Approach To High Deductibles

John C. Goodman

Is this a good deal? If you are a high-income individual with a lot more than $10,000 in the bank, this product may not be for you. But if you tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck and have trouble saving for medical expenses, insuring against your deductible may make more sense than trying to fund it with a savings account.

Health Matching Services is a very innovative firm, but it has to struggle with tax laws and regulatory regimes that look like they were designed with no thought at all. And of course, the ridiculously high deductibles offered by primary insurers are the perverse result of Obamacare.

In a rational world, the tax law would provide a level playing field for premium payments and deposits to medical savings accounts. Competition in a secondary insurance market would provide consumers with many choices. For example, some might prefer to self-insure for the first $3,000 and buy the kind of secondary insurance described above for the remaining $7,000 gap.

Who knows? But for the perverse incentives of Obamacare and other insurance regulations, primary insurers might offer these choices. A secondary market for health insurance might not even be necessary.

Source: A New Approach To High Deductibles