The cost of medical care is an issue that is essential for almost all Americans. Unfortunately, rather than concentrate on viable and realistic solutions, far too many politicians have offered proposals which are neither practical nor affordable.
The concept of free care provided by the government is childlike in its simplicity, an adult version of a fairy tale.
A RAND study notes that “Care would not be free in a single-payer system—it would be paid for differently. Instead of paying insurance premiums, people would pay taxes, which would be collected by a government agency and used to pay for health care on behalf of the population... Many single-payer proposals, including Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal, cover a comprehensive range of services with no or very low co-pays and deductibles. While common in many proposals , a single-payer system would not necessarily eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses. In fact, the current Medicare program, which some consider a form of single payer, has deductibles and co-pays.”
Betsy McCaughey Ross, who has intensively studied the issue, stressed in a New York Post editorial that “…politicians would rather walk on hot coals than tell you what Medicare for All costs: a whopping $32 trillion over 10 years. To raise that, all taxpayers, not just the rich, would have to hand a gut-wrenching share of their paychecks to Uncle Sam, based on Congressional Budget Office revenue tables. A single guy earning $82,500 a year, and currently paying a 24 percent marginal rate, would be hit with a 60 percent tax rate instead. A couple reporting $165,000 in income would also see their marginal rate soar to 60 percent from 24 percent. No more dinners out or family trips. Goodbye to your standard of living. And to America’s current medical standard of care. Liberals want to keep the name Medicare but change everything else. The result will be stingy care for all.”
, New York State is considering establishing a statewide system of single payer health care or Medicare for All. Entitled the New York Health Act. It would be a one-state experiment of the proposal many Progressives advocate for the nation as whole.
Supporters / describe it: “The NY Health Act (A4738 / l is a universal single-payer plan that would expand and improve our current healthcare system for every New York resident: those on Medicare, those on Medicaid, those that are uninsured, those on Obamacare, the middle class, and more. No deductibles, no copays, no premiums.”
The idea is not new. It was originally introduced in 1992 by Assembly Health Chairman Richard Gottfried. The legislation has passed the Assembly in each of the past four years and now has support in the Senate, which has a newly installed Democrat majority. The system would be financed through extensive additional taxes. That’s going to place a significant burden on a state which is already losing population and business due in significant part to high taxes.
A state think tank, the Empire Center, is critical of the concept, for reasons that would be applicable to the nation as a whole, It’s analysis notes: “…the costs and risks of single-payer would be much greater, and the benefits much smaller, than its proponents claim. Sweeping and coercive even by international standards.
“Consider just a few of the ramifications:
- A system that covers more people and gets rid of existing cost controls—without slashing provider fees—would unavoidably drive health-care spending up, not down.
- Given the exorbitant tax hikes required, a significant fraction of New Yorkers would pay more for coverage than they do now, and many if not most of those people would be low- or middle-income.
- Even if overall spending were kept stable, the switch to state-controlled prices would disrupt revenue flows for the entire health-care industry—representing almost one-fifth of the economy—with a destabilizing effect on access and quality.
“Meanwhile, single-payer would put vastly more power and money into the hands of a state government notoriously prone to corruption and inefficiency. Health care would dominate Albany’s time and money to the exclusion of other priorities, such as education and infrastructure. Ironically, the push for single-payer comes at a time when New York’s uninsured rate has dropped to a historic low of 6 percent. Many of the 1.1 million who still lack coverage would qualify for free or subsidized coverage under existing government programs. This means the vast majority of the money, effort and disruption required to implement single-payer would be devoted to people who already have insurance—and who would be forced to change it whether they want to or not. State lawmakers looking to improve the health-care system should focus on measured, practical solutions targeted at clear-cut needs—and not the costly and risky radical surgery of single-payer.
The Report Concludes Monday
Photo: Pixabay