If Tuesday night’s debate felt like a scene out of “Groundhog Day” to you, you’re not alone. Democratic moderates Buttigieg and Biden tried to— for what must be the 100th time— differentiate themselves from the socialist wing of their party with the same old talking points about "Medicare for All" and the much more moderate
"Medicare for Some." We were indulged with the same old reassurances: this new and improved proposal would give Americans a “choice” between a private and public option.
However, as the Iowa Caucus draws near, voters would do well to realize that this “choice" is a deception. In reality, Medicare for Some is a Trojan horse for single-payer healthcare.
Private insurers are in the business to make a profit, whereas our government seems most apt at running up trillions of dollars in debt. Medicare for Some would be no different: perpetually in the red, and heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. It would provide exorbitant benefits at a price lower than any private insurer could afford.
There would be no way for an insurance company to profitably compete with a government option. As Lewis Carroll put it in the Red Queen’s race: it would take “all the running you can do just to keep in the same place.”
Insurance is, above all, a numbers game. With its generous subsidies, Medicare for Some would siphon customers away from private insurers, driving up the prices for those left in the private market, and also driving up the bill for taxpayers. If funded as the Democrats propose, Medicare for Some would soon enough become Medicare for All.
Recommended
Moreover, public hospitals in the U.S. (the vast majority of hospitals) legally cannot refuse patients with public insurance (like Medicare and Medicaid). The Obamacare expansion more than doubled the number of people on Medicaid, which has already sent many hospitals into financial turmoil because the program reimburses doctors and hospitals much less than other insurers do. Government insurance is a monopoly bleeding hospitals dry.
If the much more ambitious Medicare for Some similarly took American healthcare hostage with coercive, subpar reimbursements, it could spell disaster. We’d not only be running up our debt, but also exacerbating our projected 122,000 physician shortage.
Medicare for Some may seem the more palatable, consensual proposal for healthcare reform from Democrats. It’s not. Medicare for Some is just Medicare for All with a few extra steps.
For the 71 percent of Americans who appreciate their current private insurer, Medicare for Some would, in due time, deprive them of that option.
America is a nation founded on choice and competition, and government insurance would inherently stifle competition and deprive patients, doctors and hospitals of choice. Nobody will end up with better healthcare if their insurer is forced out of the market and their doctor is forced to see patients.
Voters in Iowa and across the country should keep in mind that our upcoming vote may be the last choice in healthcare we ever get to make.
Adam Barsouk is a medical student, cancer researcher, and health policy graduate. His writing has appeared in Forbes, Fox News, Newsweek and more.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member