A decade ago, as the legislation that would become Obamacare was making its way through Congress, Republicans frequently blasted the Democrats' health plan as a "Government takeover of health care." That phrase, introduced into circulation by GOP messaging guru Frank Luntz, was eventually awarded Politifact's Lie of the Year.
Although the Affordable Care Act increased regulation on individual health insurance to the point where it became something resembling a public utility, it left the bulk of the market for private health coverage intact, and even provided subsidies so that people could obtain private coverage.
As Rep. Pramila Jayapal said this week when announcing House Democrats' new Medicare for All bill, the plan would "Mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core comprehensive benefits that will be covered through the government." Unlike Obamacare Medicare for All can legitimately be described as a government takeover of health care.
While the federal government would neither own hospitals nor employ doctors directly, it would be in charge of the vast majority of the nation's health care financing.
So while doctors and hospitals would not technically be state owned under Medicare for All, the federal government would determine how the vast majority of the nation's health care dollars would be spent, making providers even more reliant on federal funds-and more susceptible to the influence and incentives of federal payment schemes-than they are today.
Medicare for All, as envisioned by single-payer proponents like Jayapal and Sen. Bernie Sanders, would thus bring about an explicit nationalization of health care financing and a tacit nationalization of health care delivery.
This is not an incidental byproduct of single-payer health care, but the defining feature: Medicare for All is designed to give politicians and federal bureaucrats dramatically increased control over the nation's health care system.
http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/28/medicare-for-all-government-takeover
Although the Affordable Care Act increased regulation on individual health insurance to the point where it became something resembling a public utility, it left the bulk of the market for private health coverage intact, and even provided subsidies so that people could obtain private coverage.
As Rep. Pramila Jayapal said this week when announcing House Democrats' new Medicare for All bill, the plan would "Mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core comprehensive benefits that will be covered through the government." Unlike Obamacare Medicare for All can legitimately be described as a government takeover of health care.
While the federal government would neither own hospitals nor employ doctors directly, it would be in charge of the vast majority of the nation's health care financing.
So while doctors and hospitals would not technically be state owned under Medicare for All, the federal government would determine how the vast majority of the nation's health care dollars would be spent, making providers even more reliant on federal funds-and more susceptible to the influence and incentives of federal payment schemes-than they are today.
Medicare for All, as envisioned by single-payer proponents like Jayapal and Sen. Bernie Sanders, would thus bring about an explicit nationalization of health care financing and a tacit nationalization of health care delivery.
This is not an incidental byproduct of single-payer health care, but the defining feature: Medicare for All is designed to give politicians and federal bureaucrats dramatically increased control over the nation's health care system.
http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/28/medicare-for-all-government-takeover
No comments:
Post a Comment