BernieCare for All Means Medicare for None

BernieCare for All Means Medicare for None
By Brian C. Joondeph
Senator Bernie Sanders, in keeping with his socialist proclivities, wants single-payer government run healthcare for everyone. As he describes it on his website,

Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America's health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.


It all sounds great. Everyone should also live in a nice house, drive a late model car with all of the recent safety features, and receive an Ivy League education.

Unfortunately, economics gets in the way through cost and the relentless operation of the law of supply and demand.

Since Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed that that healthcare would “define” next month’s midterms, it’s worth revisiting the Democrats’ plan.

Bernie’s plan is not new. It was first introduced into Congress in 2003 by former Democrat Congressman John Conyers, who resigned in disgrace last year over multiple sexual harassment allegations. Since then Medicare-for-all has been sitting in a desk drawer waiting for the optimal political opportunity to be resurrected.

It’s been proposed or threatened in the intervening years but never seriously on a national level. Several states have tried this type of plan, appropriately, under the concept of states being laboratories of democracy. Prove that it works at a state level before foisting it on an entire country -- but even that has proved to be a challenge.

Vermont passed a single-payer plan only to have the governor decline to implement it since it would cost more than the entire state budget and would drive businesses to neighboring states due to the new taxes necessary to fund the monstrosity.

Colorado tried its hand at a mile-high version of single-payer via ballot referendum in 2016. Voters noted the cost, doubling the state budget, and the taxes needed to fund the plan and rejected ColoradoCare by a four to one margin, despite Hillary Clinton winning the state on Election Day.

Theoretically, Democrats could have passed Conyers’ plan into law in 2009 when they had veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House. Go big or go home. The Democrats settled for Obamacare instead and are now in no position to legislate anything.

Starting with cost, BernieCare will bust the federal budget. According to the Mercatus Center, a George Mason University research institute, this scheme will cost $32.6 trillion over the first ten years. Or about $3.3 trillion per year. The entire federal budget is $4.1 trillion per year, meaning that this plan will consume over three quarters of the federal budget, leaving little money for anything else.

This also assumes that these projections will stand the test of time. Medicare, when created in 1965, was projected to cost $12 billion per year by 1990, but in actuality cost $90 billion that year. No doubt the projections about BernieCare similarly far underestimate the actual costs.

What happens if BernieCare underestimates cost by a factor of two or four? What happens then? Bernie has not addressed this likelihood.

Such a plan would eliminate private insurance, and premiums would be replaced by taxes. As Mercatus observed, “Even doubling all federal individual and corporate income tax collections would fall short of fully funding the plan.” Yes, a doubling of taxes and still not fully funded.

How will they make up the shortfall? Cut payments to providers. Physicians will be paid 40 percent less. With many specialty practices already running at over 50 percent or higher overhead, expect these practices to close. Working at a loss won’t appeal to many physicians or clinics.

Enter supply and demand. Give everyone in America access to unlimited free healthcare, including all of the illegal immigrants welcomed by open-borders Democrats, and expect demand to surge. Combine that with fewer physicians willing to work at half their previous payment rates, and supply dwindles.

The only solution when demand exceeds supply is, “An artificial control on the distribution of scarce resources”, which is the definition of rationing. Democrats consider this a dirty word and accuse Republicans of fear-mongering when using the dreaded R-word.

In healthcare, rationing translates to wait lists for elective surgery, imaging tests, and specialist appointments, just as is commonplace in countries with single-payer schemes such as Canada, New Zealand, and the UK.

In Canada, the average wait time from referral from a general practitioner to a specialist for treatment is 21 weeks or over 5 months. Great news for those waiting for a specialist to evaluate their failing kidneys, shortness of breath, or diminishing eyesight.

The latest and greatest medicines would not be covered under BernieCare. Medical innovation would grind to a halt. Why would companies research and develop new drugs if they aren’t on the BernieCare formulary and the company can’t recoup the billion dollar-plus investment in bringing a new drug to market?

Medicare patients will be hit particularly hard. Medicare is not an entitlement like Medicaid or food stamps. Seniors have been paying into Medicare their entire working lives, in the form of a Medicare tax, as have all working Americans, of any age. With BernieCare they will be in the same category as those who have paid nothing into Medicare. This is hardly fair to those forced to pay into a system via taxes with future expected benefits.

Democrats are welcome to run on Medicare for all, and Republicans will point out the consequences as President Trump did in a recent editorial. It won’t be Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff but instead Bernie and his fellow “democratic socialists” trying to turn America into Venezuela, one doctor visit at a time.

With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall.

Why didn’t you cite the blog from which you cut and pasted this drivel?

With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall.

Why didn’t you cite the blog from which you cut and pasted this drivel? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Funny, didn't the leftist filth rebrand Universal Healthcare Healthcare as Medicare-For-All????


Is there a rule here that requires me to post a link? I love rules and obey them all the time. Let me know, okay? Thanks

So if he feels health care's a right, and no matter your income you should get it.. HOW's about Bernie and all his other MILLIONAIRE congress-critters, CEASE USING THEIR cadillack insurance plans, and go on medicare like everyone else!

With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall.

Why didn’t you cite the blog from which you cut and pasted this drivel? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you have a reading comprehension problem.


universal healthcare is medicare. it an expansion of the current medicare system to include everyone.

you have a reading comprehension problem.


universal healthcare is medicare. it an expansion of the current medicare system to include everyone. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Right. That’s my point.

I have no problems with reading or writing.

Right. That’s my point.

I have no problems with reading or writing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If we had "Medicare for All", would I as a non retired senior citizen, still have to pay an exorbinate premium for it simply because I still choose to work and not "retire"?

With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall.

Why didn’t you cite the blog from which you cut and pasted this drivel? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you have a reading comprehension problem.

universal healthcare is medicare. it an expansion of the current medicare system to include everyone. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Right. That’s my point.

I have no problems with reading or writing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

that is not what you said which is "no need for medicare".



"With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall."

Right. That’s my point.

I have no problems with reading or writing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Originally Posted by WTF

are you lol-ing at his reading or writing?

that is not what you said which is "no need for medicare".



"With Universal healthcare for all, there is no need for Medicare, Marshall." Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Huh?? It seemed clear enough to me that he simply meant that the existence of "universal healthcare for ALL" would obviate the need for Medicare. Why are you reading more than that into his statement?

Huh?? It seemed clear enough to me that he simply meant that the existence of "universal healthcare for ALL" would obviate the need for Medicare. Why are you reading more than that into his statement? Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

his statement was misleading. Universal healthcare is medicare for all. Its medicare renamed.

his statement was misleading. Universal healthcare is medicare for all. Its medicare renamed. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

No, his statement was not misleading. All he said was that if there was universal healthcare "for all," there would be no need for Medicare, since the former would supplant it. (Pretty much the same thing that you said!)


So, why did you insult him by saying that he has a reading comprehension problem? Makes no sense at all. (SMH)

If we had "Medicare for All", would I as a non retired senior citizen, still have to pay an exorbinate premium for it simply because I still choose to work and not "retire"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

No. Why would you? Do you pay an "exorbinate" premium for Medicare now?