I’ve only got one thing to say to the Washington Post right now –
For all you leftist hipsters still demanding FREEEEEEE health care, the Washington Post actually has a harsh reality check for you. And it’s something that conservatives (myself included) have been pointing out for YEARS. It’s why so many of us are opposed to government-run health care and why we’d rather have more free-market control of the health care industry, instead of politicians trying to run everything for us. And also why Obamacare sucks the big one.
Are you ready? Ahem – according to this op-ed, any single-payer healthcare system is going to be massively expensive. Meaning that “right to healthcare” that leftists all love to chant about so much is going to come with a ginormous price tag. One that taxpayers (including you, probably) are going to be on the hook for –
Opinion: Single-payer health care would have an astonishingly high price tag https://t.co/mEDJjuFxfH
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 19, 2017
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.
Lemme repeat that, friends – $32 TRILLION. As in MORE THAN what our current national debt is (what are we up to now? Almost $20 trillion? Chump change, I’m sure).
Single-payer advocates counter that government-run health systems in other developed countries spend much less than the United States does on its complex public-private arrangement. They say that if the United States adopted a European model, it could expand coverage to everyone by realizing a mountain of savings with no measureable decline in health outcomes, in part because excessive administrative costs and profit would be wrung from the system.
In fact, the savings would be less dramatic; the Urban Institute’s projections are closer to reality. The public piece of the American health-care system has not proven itself to be particularly cost-efficient. On a per capita basis, U.S. government health programs alone spend more than Canada, Australia, France and Britain each do on their entire health systems. That means the U.S. government spends more per American to cover a slice of the population than other governments spend per citizen to cover all of theirs. Simply expanding Medicare to all would not automatically result in a radically more efficient health-care system. Something else would have to change.
The op-ed goes on to point out that even if America was to implement single-payer, it would mean that medical professionals would get paid less and patients would have to accept lower standards of comfort and care – to the point where they’d risk being denied access. Basically, the health care system would be gutted and suck even more than it already does –
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.
Of course, WaPo still makes it clear that the failures of Obamacare are the Republicans’ fault (not that the failures weren’t already built-in to a law that was set up to be a disaster). So, they don’t completely look like they’ve come to their senses. But still, leftists are not pleased with the op-ed destroying their beautiful dreams of a magical unicorn coming down from a rainbow cloud to give them all their government freebies –
Go put a big jar of marmalade up your ass
— rob delaney (@robdelaney) June 19, 2017
Other countries manage it just fine and so can we. But then the 1% just might have to pay their fair share of taxes. Sad
— Doren Maner (@DodieManer) June 19, 2017
This is a reckless title and this article lacks nuance. Just taxing the rich would take care of so many problems here https://t.co/0TOJqlyaMB
— ɐılıs (@ShutupAilis) June 19, 2017
Yes, because all the rich people in America have $32 trillion dollars to fork over just so you don’t have to buy your own regular doctor visits or birth control.
I know that these idiots believe just taxing the rich even more is going to solve everything, but it’s still gets me every time I see someone propose it as a viable solution. Even if you took all of the money from everyone who’s “rich” in the United States (and good luck defining who qualifies as “the rich”), it still wouldn’t cover the cost of everyone’s health care.
Boy, it must suck to have to face reality when you’ve spent so much time convincing yourself that reality doesn’t actually exist.