In a crowded field of Democrats vying for the presidency in 2020, one thing stands out. “Medicare-for-all” tops their campaign promises. Sunday the latest to announce, former Obama cabinet official Julian Castro, pledged to make Medicare-for-all a reality.
But these candidates would rather walk on hot coals than tell you what Medicare-for-all costs. A whopping $32 trillion over ten years. To raise that, all taxpayers, not just the rich, would have to hand a gut-wrenching share of their paycheck to Uncle Sam, based on Congressional Budget Office revenue tables.
A single guy earning $82,500 a year, and currently paying a 24% marginal rate, would be hit with a 60% tax rate instead. A couple reporting $165,000 in income would also see their marginal rate soar from 24% to 60%. No more dinners out or family trips. Goodbye to your standard of living.
And to America’s standard of care. Liberals want to keep the name Medicare, but change everything else. The result will be stingy care for all. Here’s why:
Currently Medicare pays doctors and hospitals about 87 cents for every dollar’s worth of care, according to the American Hospital Association. Why do doctors and hospitals go along with the shortchanging? Because they can shift their unmet cost onto younger, privately insured patients. But Medicare-for-all outlaws private insurance. All patients will be underpaying, leaving hospitals with less money. “Many hospitals wouldn’t be able to keep their doors open,” says Chip Kahn of the Federation of American Hospitals. Those that do will be jamming more beds in a room, and making patients wait longer for a nurse.
That could be you. If you have insurance now, you won’t be allowed to keep it. Nationwide, 156 million who get coverage through a job will be forced to give it up. Employers and unions are barred from covering workers or their families. Public unions are already protesting. Everyone will get the same coverage, employed or not. What’s the incentive to work?
Instead of facts, Democrats are offering happy talk. Last week, Mayor Bill De Blasio boasted that in New York City “from this moment on in New York City, everyone is guaranteed the right to health care.” Not just emergency room visits, but a primary care physician. De Blasio put the cost of covering 600,000 uninsured at $100 million a year and said no tax hikes are needed. That miracle math works out to $170 per person. In truth, it won’t pay for one doctor’s visit, much less tests or medications.
But this urban Robin Hood knows he’ll need more. At his State of the City speech, he said “brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world; plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.” Meaning the hands of the people who earned it.
Bernie Sanders’ approach is only slightly less confiscatory. There’s no disputing the $32 trillion cost of Medicare-for-all, according to the left-leaning Urban Institute and right-leaning Mercatus Center. Sanders proposed hiking the capital gains tax rate as high as 64.2%. That will torpedo economic growth. He also proposed an unprecedented tax on wealth. Even these radical ploys would raise less than half the cost, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Democrats have to decide whether they’re the party of capitalism or confiscation. Some Dems are pledging to soak the rich and others are catering to them. Westchester, N.Y. Democrat Rep. Nita Lowey is pushing to restore full tax deductibility of state and local taxes, benefitting her well-heeled constituents. In the midterms, Democrats swept the ten richest congressional districts in the nation. It’s becoming the party of the ultra-rich and the very poor. Medicare-for-all offers nothing for the vast middle — working people.
That’s a huge opportunity for Republicans. They need to offer practical fixes for the unaffordable deductibles and suffocating paperwork that make people angry. And they need to remind voters that massive tax hikes to pay for single payer healthcare will destroy economic growth, robbing all of us, rich, poor, and middle class alike.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.