There’s a lot not being revealed in a recent oped in The Hill touting new “evidence” that “Medicare for All” would be a financial boon.
PLOS Survey Is A Selective Review Of Prior Studies From Single Payer Proponents
- The authors of the PLOS survey used a flawed and incomplete review process that only included studies supporting implementation of Medicare for All, rather than comprehensively and objectively examining the significant economic impact and other negative tradeoffs of single-payer proposals.
- The PLOS survey included 22 studies, more than half of which were written by the same four authors, some of which dated back to 1991.
- The PLOS survey excluded 35 studies of single payer proposals.
The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Found Medicare For All Would Reduce Access To Care And Eliminate Choice For Consumers, While Dramatically Increasing Federal Spending At A Time Of Record Deficits And Debt
The oped also flat out ignores history.
Looking at NHS spending in the UK over time puts to rest any claim that government run medicine is economical.
And here is spending per capita adjusted for inflation:
Not to mention, the author disproves her own point by concluding, “The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs.”
We already largely have a single payer system and it hasn’t achieved lower costs. Will pushing the remaining third under government control make things better or exacerbate the existing problems.
The expectation that spending will drop when patients do not pay deductibles or coinsurance flies in the face of basic economic theory.