The Latest Hoax Called Medicare-for-All

Medicare-for-All is the lastest Hoax It seems that former President Barack Obama has joined the chorus and endorsed the “Medicare-for-all” dogma being bandied about by the current crop of Democrats contending for the 2020 presidential nomination, and many Dems vying for Congressional seats this fall. This scheme is just a power grab and does not have your best interests at heart. Here is why.

What they are actually pulling is a bait-and-switch. The phrase “Medicare-for-all” even sounds as American as apple pie. A new Reuters poll even shows that 70 percent of Americans respond to it favorably. That is because the public isn’t getting the truth about what it really means. The real plan the Democrats are pushing doesn’t even come close to working like Medicare. They’re using the Medicare label on what would be dangerously inadequate health care.

It begins by ripping away private health coverage from half of all Americans, including the 157 million who get their insurance the old-fashioned way — earning it through a job. Of course, Democrats are forgetting to tell you that private insurance would be banned under their scheme; that employers would be barred from covering workers or their families. Union members and executives who bargained for gold-plated private plans would lose them and have to settle for the same one-size-fits-all public coverage as people who refuse to work at all. Even illegal immigrants would get the same benefits. So why bother working?

“Medicare-for-all” is no longer a fringe proposal favored by the extreme left. It’s gaining steam. Republicans who failed miserably to communicate a case for repealing and replacing Obamacare cannot make that mistake again. They need to warn voters about the dangers of single-payer health care.

The “Medicare-for-all” the legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders would force Americans to be automatically enrolled in the public program. Kids would be enrolled at birth.

This scheme would guarantee hospital care, doctors’ visits, even dental, vision and long-term care, all provided by Uncle Sam. Doesn’t that sound great! At least, until the money runs out. Sanders’ bill imposes hard-and-fast dollar caps on how much health care the country can consume yearly. That means limiting mammograms, hip replacements and other procedures. Sanders’ bill creates new regional health authorities to curb “over-utilization” of care. Hmmm…can you say death panels?

Seniors and baby boomers are the really big losers under “Medicare-for-all.” When boomers have to vie with younger people for health resources, they get pushed to the back of the line. Just look at the United Kingdom’s single-payer system if you want proof. Boomers are being turned away for hip replacements. They are being told they have fewer years of life ahead to benefit from costly medical procedures. British women are livid because many are being refused breast reconstruction after lumpectomies and mastectomies.

At least in Britain, people are free to buy private insurance and go outside the government system for care. But you will not have that option under “Medicare-for-all.” The government would control EVERYTHING.

The Democrats backing Sanders’ bill point to Medicare’s cost efficiencies and say they can be expanded to the whole population, which is more lies. Medicare pays only about 88 cents for every dollar of care, shortchanging hospitals and doctors. These providers take these reduced payments because they shift the unmet costs on their patients with private insurance. When everyone is on “Medicare-for-all,” no cost-shifting is possible. So the only way they can stay in business is to lower the quality of care, which means longer waits and limited access to technology.

What is amazing is that single-payer advocates don’t deny this is going to happen (which the news media forgets to report). Stanford economist Victor Fuchs wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that curbing the use of mammograms, new drugs and diagnostic technologies would make single-payer affordable. In short, go low-tech. But millions of American women have survived breast cancer thanks to high-tech screening and new gene-based therapies. Low-tech medicine would be a death sentence to thousands.

The United Kingdom’s horrible survival rates for breast, lung, ovarian and pancreatic cancer are the result of that low-tech approach. British newspapers are declaring, “Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world.”

Is that what we Really want in United States? To destroy the best medical care in the world? I, for one, do not.


Twitter icon
Facebook icon
Google icon
Del.icio.us icon
Digg icon
LinkedIn icon
Newsvine icon
Pinterest icon
Reddit icon
Yahoo! icon
e-mail icon

InMotion Hosting SSD Servers

TedsWoodworking Plans and Projects