Tulsi Gabbard’s Iconoclasm Is Exactly Why We Need Her
Oh, Canada…Stop Murdering People
Canada Plays Hardball With Trump. Will It Work?
Why Trump 2.0 Is Going To Be So Much Better Than Trump 1.0
Les Miserables
The End of the 'Free' Rides
The Last Gasp of the Legacy Media
Donuts
Should Ozempic be Covered by Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid for Weight Loss?
Irving Kristol: The Godfather of Neoconservatism
Kamala Harris for CA Governor? Here's What Her Close Aides Think
DC Server Fired After Saying She Will Refuse to Serve Trump Officials, Republicans
In a Power Move, Trump Invites Chinese President to Inauguration
Harvard President Has a Message for Faculty After Trump Win
Piecing Together the Final Withheld JFK Records – From New Orleans to Dallas
Tipsheet

WaPo: Single-Payer Health Care Would Be 'Astonishingly' Expensive

 On the state level, single-payer is a disaster. Guy and Christine both wrote how California’s single-payer initiative is insanely expensive, costing around $400 billion a year. It recently passed the State Senate, but without any clear mechanism on how the Golden State will pay for it. PolicyEd, a project of the Hoover Institute, had this good video on single-payer, noting that government will have to reduce access to care, medicines, and certain procedures to control costs. They also cited nations that have single-payer, like the United Kingdom and Sweden, citing the long wait times for patients, along with lower health outcomes for stroke, heart disease and cancer. It’s so bad that some residents from these countries are seeking private care outside of the country. So, we know that single-payer is a socialist’s dream that will increase the tax burden of everyone for reduced access to care. It’s so bad that even The Washington Post acknowledged the high price tag:

Advertisement



 The single-payer model has some strong advantages. It is much simpler for most people — no more insurance forms or related hassles. Employers would no longer be mixed up in providing health-care benefits, and taxpayers would no longer subsidize that form of private compensation. Government experts could conduct research on treatments and use that information to directly cut costs across the system.

 But the government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32?trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

 […]

 A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.

 Well, let’s just say that liberals did not take this admission too kindly.

Advertisement

Bonus: That time Nancy Pelosi said she wasn't worried about California's single-payer price tag, among other things, like how Obamacare is pretty much a stepping stone to this abysmal system.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement