Tag: Medicare for All

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Unconstitutional Medicare-for-All

 

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All (MfA) proposal, which calls for $20.5 trillion in new taxes on everyone but the middle class (ahem), has generated fierce political controversy that threatens to upend the Democratic presidential primary. Economic critiques of her MfA program on the left and the right are a dime a dozen. Yet surprisingly, there has been a stunning silence on the possible constitutional challenges that could be raised against the program. But because other variations of the MfA program may yet be introduced, including one by Senator Bernie Sanders, it is better to think through these issues in advance.

In general, there are two kinds of constitutional objections that that can be raised against any federal program—those based on claims that the program violates federalism, and those concerned with the protection of religious and economic liberties. Dealing with these various issues depends critically on one’s basic approach to constitutional interpretation—whether one adopts a New Deal jurisprudence or a classical liberal one. Under the earlier classical liberal view, all government action was viewed with suspicion. The dominant attitude sought to slow down adventurous legislation. Speaking generally, statutes that strengthened common law interest in property and contract were favored.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Cost of ‘Medicare for All’ Isn’t Just Taxpayers’ Dollars — It’s Also Jobs and Income

 

“Medicare for All” plans, such as those proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, qualify as “big structural change,” to use Warren’s phrase. The elimination of private health insurance in favor of “free” government health coverage is certainly change that’s big and structural. Same goes for all the tax increases and the payment of much lower rates to physicians and hospitals.

But those are the known big structural changes, or BSCs — at least the ones mentioned in candidate plans. But what about other BSCs that may be less obvious? Would, say, overriding drug patents affect the type of early-stage development done by biotech firms and funded by venture capital? Undercutting that innovation mechanism would qualify as a BSC.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Warrencare

 

Elizabeth Warren recently rolled out her new “Medicare-for-All” plan with the strong claim that “Health Care Is A Basic Human Right.” She then backed up that claim with a story about how, when she was in middle school, her father had a heart attack and their health care expenditures nearly cost her family its home. From those two observations, she has crafted her massive entitlement system which will, when the dust settles, collapse. It will fail as individuals become unable to receive timely health care, and it will exacerbate the dislocations that plagued the Warren family. Why? Because her two points represent the worst way to think about health care, both on the revenue side and on the expenditure side.

On the first point, the stirring claim that health care is a “right” obscures all references to correlative duties. Under classical legal thought, a right to health care referred to the ability of a person to take his own money and spend it on health care with whatever health care providers that he chose. The correlative duties on the rest of the world were not to fund his care but to stand aside and let those contracts go forward as the parties chose. As in all areas of human endeavors, voluntary transactions normally generate gains for both sides. In health care markets, families and individuals are often unsure what contracts to make or why. But their best cure is to hire agents who can fill their knowledge gap, whether as personal advisors, employers, cooperatives, or religious or social groups.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Warren’s Health Plan, SNL, and Partial Equilibrium Reasoning

 

That Saturday Night Live cold-open about Elizabeth Warren pitching her “Medicare for All” plan to skeptical Iowa voters may seem like an in-kind donation to the Warren campaign. Kate McKinnon’s impression of the Massachusetts senator is both spot-on and compelling.

But there was one way in which the sketch was unfair to Warren. At one point, “Warren” is asked why she claims her plan will cost $20.5 trillion over a decade even though many economists put the cost at 50 percent higher or more. “Warren” then dismisses all these estimates as “pretend,” then adding, “You ready to get red-pilled? Money doesn’t exist!”

More

Member Post

 

You can pay for “Medicare for All” by just cost shifting corporations paying for insurance to paying an equivalent amount per employee in tax. I keep seeing opponents pointing out this is a new tax that will be passed on to consumers, that its a huge number, or that it isn’t enough. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/11/01/lol-ben-sasse-has-the-perfect-response-to-elizabeth-warrens-insane-healthcare-plan-n2555726 This is […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Good polls, confusing polls and politicizing math are the focus of our martinis on Wednesday. Jim and Greg are glad to see Republican U.S. Senate challenger John James already in a virtual dead heat with Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in Michigan. They also shake their heads as a new Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows a […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. My Medicare For All Question

 

Having watched the Democratic debates a few weeks ago, there is one thing I cannot understand. There was a lot of talk about Medicare For All, and most of the candidates want some version of this. Although I disagree with people who want MFA, I can understand the motivation for it. A low-income Democrat – or even Republican – might say, “If the plan necessitates an approximate doubling of federal income taxes and I’m currently only paying $2500 a year in said taxes, who cares if those taxes double? I’ll be paying an extra $2500 a year, but saving $5-12K per year by not having to buy health insurance. Yeah, it stinks for the people who are already paying $100K in income tax and will see that double, but that’s not my problem.” If they are a hardcore leftist, they may see that as a feature, not a bug.

I don’t condone this kind of selfishness, but I understand that a lot of people will be motivated by it. Here’s what I don’t understand. Why do politicians like Bernie Sanders and Bill DeBlasio insist that we also outlaw private insurance? What harm would be done to the public if a small percentage of Americans decided that they want to keep and pay for their current health insurance policies? Either way, they’re still paying the taxes for MFA. And if they are using private insurance they’re not costing the government any money at all, like those who are signed up for MFA would be. I should think that such people would be applauded.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Economic Trap of ‘Medicare For All’

 

January 19, 2019, San Francisco, CA – Participant in the Women’s March holds “Medicare for all” sign while marching on Market street. (Shutterstock.com)
When an untested program looks too good to be true, it is almost certainly far worse than anyone could imagine. Case in point: the Medicare for All program set out in Senate Bill 1129, introduced this past April by Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) and cosponsored by three fellow presidential candidates, Senators Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA), and Elizabeth Warren (MA). The legislation proposes a government takeover of the nation’s entire health care system—the same government that is notoriously unable to address the endless waste in its very own Veterans Administration health care program. The obvious explanation for the government’s abysmal performance in health care is its lack of ownership stake and the associated lack of accountability for costs and performance. This difficulty is inherent in all government-run enterprises, which explains why the United States Post Office is far less efficient than Federal Express and UPS.

A self-described democratic-socialist like Sanders finds these pesky details of business management and incentives irritating irrelevancies that can eventually be solved by clever government officials. After all, if you don’t believe that markets solve problems, why would you think that the market can untie the nation’s health care gridlock? Warren, who has described herself as “capitalist to my bones,” should know better than to trust the federal government to bring order to the national health care system. But the truth is, she deeply disdains markets. Just consider her outlandish proposal to make corporations stack corporate boards with outside stakeholders ultimately accountable to her.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Medicare for All Would be a Disaster for All

 

The Democrats running for president are at it again: they are submitting a completely unrealistic proposal for single-payer health insurance and they aren’t sharing the facts. We must get the word out to everyone that we have to stop this proposal that will take us in a catastrophic direction.

The media, of course, will tell everyone that the public loves the idea of single-payer insurance aka, Medicare for All. Although those running for President have several different plans, none of them would be good for this country. But according to one poll, the public supports the idea :

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Why “Medicare for All” Isn’t Really Medicare at All

 

It was only days ago that Democrats were lambasting the Trump administration for its perceived indifference to the plight of 800,000 federal workers temporarily going without pay. Yet there seems to be little concern about the long-term fate of the more than half-million Americans who work in the health insurance industry from Democrats who support “Medicare for All.”

During a CNN interview Monday, anchor Jake Tapper asked presidential candidate Kamala Harris whether people would be able to keep their private insurance, if they preferred, under her MfA plan. Harris breezily responded “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.” Now maybe some of these folks would end up working for the government helping to administer the expanded Medicare program. Others, seeing the writing on the wall, might start transitioning to other work before such a plan was ever implemented. The rest? Well, that’s the way the labor market churns, I guess. Millions of American gain and lose jobs every month, as it should be in a dynamic economy.

More

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Member Post

 

…in her call for “Medicare for All”. Ask her if “all” includes members of Congress. More

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Rich McFadden of Radio America break down Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s request that red-state Democrats remain neutral on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They also cannot believe that some Democrats are seriously considering the idea of almost doubling the federal budget to pay for Sen. Bernie […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Fatal Allure of Single Payer

 

This past week, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proclaimed in a New York Times op-ed that the time has come to create a program of “Medicare for all,” a government-run single-payer healthcare system that would over a four-year period displace all existing private healthcare plans. His new program, rightly denounced as delusional, purports to provide to over 325 million Americans coverage that would be more extensive and costly than the rich benefits supplied to the 55 million Americans on Medicare—which itself teeters on the edge of insolvency. Sanders proposes to fund his new plan with a variety of heavy taxes on productive labor and capital, without noting that his program will cut into the very tax revenues needed to support such a system. Incentives matter, even in la-la land.

None of this matters to Sanders, for whom noble aspirations cure all technical defects. He believes that the United States, like all other modern states, should “guarantee comprehensive healthcare to every person as a human right.” In his view, the simplification of administrative costs should remove frustration from a beleaguered citizenry constantly at war with its insurance carriers, while simultaneously slashing the expense of running a healthcare system. It is fortunate that the odds of getting this plan enacted soon are low, notwithstanding that his position is swiftly becoming mainstream in the Democratic Party. Of greater import is the catastrophic consequences that would follow its enactment.

More