'Medicare for all' would not be Medicare

In a brilliant column, Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman explains why the far-left's fantasy of "Medicare for All" is in fact a cruel nightmare.

Bernie Sanders’ "Medical for All" proposal, which Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored and Joe Biden has endorsed, Chapman writes, "...is to Medicare what a tiger is to a house cat. They have obvious similarities, but it would be dangerous to confuse the two."

To begin with, their plan is extravagantly generous. In his vision, Sanders boasted in the debate: “Premiums are gone. Copayments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone.” Medicare, by contrast, has those features, which serve to restrain not only federal spending on health care but all spending on health care. Medicare for All would also cover things that Medicare doesn’t — vision care, dental care, hearing aids and long-term care....

The second consequence would be to stimulate consumption of medical care. If the cost of seeing a doctor, getting an X-ray or trying some mildly promising therapy is zero, the demand for such services will jump. That would lead to yet another effect: longer wait times for appointments — because the immediate supply of doctors and dentists would remain the same.

How well I know this. Just yesterday I was shopping for supplemental Medicare insurance that would cover some (non-preventative) dental work that needs to be done. Ha.

Chapman is required reading for anyone who thinks that simply expanding Medicare has a ghost of a chance of providing health care for all.

dennis@dennisbyrne.net

www.dennisbyrne.net 

My historical novel: Madness: The War of 1812

Want to subscribe to the Barbershop? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Speculation is fun, but Social Security was a bold idea at its inception. And like Medicare-for-all skeptics at the present moment, there were skeptics a-plenty when the original Medicare was proposed. Especially those who thought it was far too left, or too expensive, or too generous, or too whatever.

    BTW, wouldn't the money spent on endless military adventures and saved by proportionate taxation on the uber-wealthy be more than enough to pay for the health of all Americans? Or is that too much to ask?

  • Thanks for sharing this information with us.

  • Thanks for sharing this information with us. Wegmans Employee Login

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • A quick reading of the tentative Chicago Teachers Union contract with Chicago Public Schools reveals that teachers got, well, just…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.... Interestingly enough, that…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • If incompetence isn't an impeachable offense. The current administration is the most incompetent in this…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Trump's committee to re-elect the president is called the DNC. :)
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • The best definition of impeachable offenses was given by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 65 "The subjects…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: