Opinion: Medicare for All would be disastrous

For decades, the left has advocated for nationalizing the country's health care system under a Medicare for All-type plan. Despite their rhetoric, however, this scheme would do much more harm than good.

As of this writing, dozens of Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate have co-sponsored or voiced their support for one of the many iterations of Medicare for All (M4A). While M4A activists promise it would reduce health care costs and increase access, the opposite is likely to occur. In fact, there are several reasons the United States should avoid implementing Medicare for All.

First, M4A is completely unaffordable and would push the United States even further into the debt abyss. According to a study by the Mercatus Center, Medicare for All "would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031)." The United States is already more than $23 trillion in debt; adding an extra $30 trillion in federal spending over the next decade would cause economic Armageddon.

To put this in perspective, The Atlantic notes, "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what (Senator Elizabeth) Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That's more than the federal government's total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections."

Put another way, Medicare for All would blow up the federal budget, which would cause all sorts of negative consequences. Huge deficits, massive tax hikes, high inflation and major cuts to domestic and foreign programs are all but inevitable if Medicare for All becomes law.

Second, M4A would reduce access to health care services and medications. Why? Because the above cost estimate from the Mercatus Center is on the low end of the spectrum and "assume(s) the legislation achieves its sponsors' goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs."

In other words, M4A would wreak havoc on supply and demand within the health care industry, which encompasses about one-seventh of U.S. gross domestic product. Arbitrarily slashing reimbursement rates for medical professionals would reduce health care services dramatically. The same principle applies to the availability of existing drugs and those in the developmental stages.

Third, M4A (with its inherent price controls) almost assuredly would lead to health care rationing. Basic economics (and common sense) suggest if the government provides 330 million Americans with "free" health care without increasing health care supply, shortages and rationing would be inevitable. Don't believe this can happen in America? Well, just take a peek at what has happened to our neighbor to the north, which implemented a single-payer health care system in 1984.

Almost four decades after it enacted universal health care, Canada's health care system is rife with excruciatingly long wait times, along with several other problems. In fact, medical wait times in Canada are so appalling that "1,040,791 patients who waited for medically necessary treatment last year each lost $1,822 (on average) due to work time lost," according to the Canada-based Fraser Institute.

In far too many cases, Canadians are forced to wait months to receive care. The Fraser Institute notes the average wait time for patients who require "medically necessary elective orthopedic surgery" is an astounding 41.7 weeks.

Similar horror stories are common in countries with M4A-esque programs. For example, Great Britain's National Health Service, created in 1948, is in shambles. As Forbes recently reported, "Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more."

Fourth, M4A means major tax increases for all Americans. According to a recent report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, M4A "needs to be financed through higher taxes, lower spending, more borrowing, or some combination of the three."

The report's authors "estimate the cost could be covered with a 32% payroll tax, a 25% income surtax, a 42% value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita."

While M4A advocates tout it would reduce costs for lower- and middle-income Americans, the opposite appears to be true.

Most Americans agree the U.S. health care system needs major reforms. Increasing the government's role in health care, via M4A, however, is not the answer. Just think, if the U.S. government can't competently run the Postal Service, VA hospital system, DMVs or Amtrak, why would we task it with overseeing the extremely complicated and deeply personal health care system?

Chris Talgo is an editor at The Heartland Institute.

___

(c)2019 The Repository, Canton, Ohio

Visit The Repository, Canton, Ohio at www.cantonrep.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.