A couple of articles today outlining how far apart from reality are the pro and con arguments for different possible reforms. This is going to matter at some point soon, if not now.
The first article, by Sarah Jaffe published in The New Republic, suggests that “socialized” healthcare has won the policy debate. Citing opinion polls (for which all questions display a certain bias), the author claims that the American public favors government-run socialized medicine. (Here’s a good example of survey bias: “Do you favor free healthcare for all?” – How many No’s do you think that question elicits?)
Ms. Jaffe explains away Obamacare’s unpopularity with this, “What people don’t like are the inequities that still prevail in our health care system, not the fact that “government is too involved. …The law didn’t go too far for Americans to get behind. It didn’t go far enough. And while single-payer opponents continue to evoke rationed care, long lines and wait times, and other problems that supposedly plague England or Canada, the public seems well aware that the reality for many Americans is far worse.”
What’s more, what makes her think that government control removes inequalities rather than make them worse according to different selection criteria?
Finally, she proclaims, “This is now an American consensus. And if socialism is the medicine our system needs, the country is ready to embrace it—even by name.”
At no point does Ms. Jaffe discuss the associated costs, who is going to pay them, and what kind of trade-offs this will impose on citizens and taxpayers. This is an argument motivated by political ideology, not reality.
This brings us to the second article, by Sally Pipes in Investor’s Business Daily (this should give us a clue that Pipes actually plans to address money issues).
Ms. Pipes first gives us an indication of polling bias: “The idea is … enchanting ordinary Americans. Fifty-three percent support single payer, according to a June 2017 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. But this supposed support is a mirage. According to the same Kaiser poll, 62% would oppose single-payer if it gave the government too much power over health care. Sixty percent would reject it if it increased taxes.”
Sen. Sanders estimates that “Medicare for all” would cost an extra $14 trillion over 10 years, while the Urban Institute’s analysis of the plan puts the figure at $32 trillion. Our current annual health spending is $3.2 trillion, so Medicare at minimum would double that spending level, with no viable way to pay for it, with taxes or otherwise.
Medicare for the 65+ crowd is already a deficit buster, so the nation will not be affording such care for the entire population and promises to do so are a dangerous fantasy. We do know what will happen – the “free” care we expect will never be delivered and the politicians who sell such snake oil will be long gone.
The real problem with our health care debates is that they focus solely on distribution and not on the real problem, which is adequate supply. If no one is producing health care goods, what is there to distribute?