MEDICARE-FOR-ALL: STILL A BAD IDEA

I’m continually amazed by the inability of “progressive” health care reformers to learn from experience. The latest example of this phenomenon can be found at the Health Affairs Blog:

Medicare-for-All is the most practical reform option. It would greatly reduce non-benefit outlays …

What BS! Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) the myth of Medicare’s lower admin costs, the program loses all those alleged savings by paying out stupendous sums in fraudulent claims. Per the WSJ:

Medicare may have paid $2.8 billion in improper or fake claims for medical equipment in 2006. That’s an error rate of 31.5%, in a single corner of this colossal entitlement.

And yet Merton Bernstein and Theodore Marmor still have the crust to make the following claim in their Health Affairs post:

We must move to a system that reduces per capita costs and pays for expanding coverage from those savings. That’s where Medicare for All shines. Much of its savings derive from simplifying medical care insurance …

When I read this passage I was momentarily deprived of speech. The current “Medicare-for-Some” program is so “simple” that its rules and regulations fill 120,000 pages of undecipherable bureaucratic gibberish.

Bernstein, Marmor, and the other ”progressives” who continue to push Medicare-for-All are so blinded by their ideology that they are unable to absorb and process objective data.

It isn’t too much to say that they have a learning disability.

Comments 2

  1. Marc Brown wrote:

    And which administration has been undermining Medicare for the last eight years? As Rep. Pete Stark says, after being misquoted in the WSJ:

    ‘The Bush administration would prefer to eliminate Medicare as an entitlement. It would turn Medicare over to for-profit health insurance plans, which, to say the least, have done a lackluster job at insuring anyone under age 65.

    ‘Every bureaucracy has its faults, but Medicare provides an incredible benefit to Americans: ensuring that everyone over 65 has access to quality health care. Even if we doubled spending on administrative costs to ensure greater efficiency, no private plan would come close in choice, quality or cost.’

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 9:31 am
  2. Catron wrote:

    “Even if we doubled spending on administrative costs to ensure greater efficiency, no private plan would come close in choice, quality or cost.”

    Pure hogwash, Marc. As I have pointed out here and here. the notion that Medicare has lower admin costs is a myth.

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 11:57 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *