Category Archives: Ocasio-Cortez

What the New Democratic House majority might actually pass on health care; and It Looks Like VA Healthcare Maybe Improving!

 

 

18670832_1206383419491315_6469395384583311089_nI had prepared two posts for tonight and wanted to hold off on the recent shootings until next week as we digest what the effect really is in our country and the future strategies. Now let’s discuss the effect of the election and in looking at the House Democrats, who have a lot to figure out on their signature issue.

Healthcare carried House Democrats to victory on Election Day. But what now?

Remember my past post reminding the Republicans the importance of healthcare in the midterm elections? We, it looks like it was an important factor in the outcomes of the “wave”. Dylan Scott spent some time looking at his prediction of what the new majority will bring to our health care system. In interviews this fall with half a dozen senior House Democratic aides, health care lobbyists, and progressive wonks, it became clear the party is only in the nascent stages of figuring out its next steps on health care.

The new House Democratic majority knows what it opposes. They want to stop any further efforts by Republicans or the Trump administration to roll back and undermine the Affordable Care Act or overhaul Medicaid and Medicare.

But Democrats are less certain about an affirmative health care agenda. Most Democrats campaigned on protecting preexisting conditions, but the ACA has already done that. Medicare-for-all is energizing the party’s left wing, but nobody expects a single-payer bill to start moving through the House. Drug prices offer the rare opportunity for bipartisan work with Senate Republicans and the Trump White House, but it is also a difficult problem with few easy policy solutions — certainly not any silver bullet that Democrats could pull out of the box and pass on day one, or even month one, of the next Congress.

Winning a House majority to ensure Obamacare’s safety is an important turning point after so many years in which health care hurt Democrats much more than it helped.

But the path forward for the party on their signature issue is surprisingly undefined.

The likely first item on the Democratic agenda: Obamacare stabilization

Democrats do have some ideas, of course. Democratic aides emphasized the various investigations they could launch into Trump’s health department, not only looking into any efforts by the White House to sabotage Obamacare but also focusing on more obscure issues like Medicare payment rates.

But wonky oversight inquiries probably aren’t the big-ticket item that new Democratic members and their voters are looking for, especially heading into the 2020 presidential election.

After campaigning in defense of Obamacare, warning about Republicans rolling back preexisting conditions protections and the Trump administration’s sabotage of the health care law, a bill to stabilize the Obamacare insurance markets would be the obvious first item for the new Democratic majority’s agenda.

Several sources pointed to a bill by Democratic Reps. Richard Neal (MA), Frank Pallone (NJ), and Bobby Scott (VA) — who have been serving as the top Democrats on leading health care-related committees — as the likely starting point. The plan is designed to build off Obamacare’s infrastructure to expand federal assistance while reversing the recent Republican efforts to undermine the law.

That bill would expand Obamacare’s premium subsidies, both by extending federal assistance to more people in lifting the current eligibility cutoff and by increasing the size of the tax credits people receive. It would also bolster the cost-sharing reduction subsidies that people with lower incomes receive to reduce their out-of-pocket costs while extending eligibility for those subsidies to people with higher incomes.

The Pallone-Neal-Scott bill would reverse the Trump administration’s recent regulations intended to funnel more people to insurance plans that are not required to meet all of Obamacare’s rules for preexisting conditions. It would also pump more money back into enrollment outreach, cut by the Trump administration, and establish a new program to compensate insurers for high-cost patients, with the hope of keeping premiums down.

Two things stick out about this bill: It would be the most robust expansion of Obamacare since the law first passed, and it is just narrow enough that, with a few sweeteners for Senate Republicans, it could conceivably have a chance to pass. Democrats are waiting to see how the GOP majority in the upper chamber reacts to losing the House.

“Undoing sabotage and bringing stabilization to the ACA markets, that’s something we should really be thinking about,” one House Democratic aide told me. “It depends on what kind of mood the Republicans are in. Maybe they’ll say that actually now that the tables are turned, we should probably sit down.”

Senate Republicans and Democrats did come very close to a narrow, bipartisan deal — it wasn’t even as robust as the Pallone-Neal-Scott bill — to stabilize Obamacare in 2017. It fell apart, ostensibly after a tiff over abortion-related provisions, but that near miss would be the reason for any optimism about a bipartisan deal on the divisive health care law.

Then again Senate Republicans might have no interest in an Obamacare compromise after gaining some seats. Democrats would still likely work on stabilization to send a message to voters on health care ahead of the 2020 campaign.

Shoring up Obamacare is a good start, but what next?

In the case, the Pallone-Neal-Scott bill might be a nice starting point — no Democrat really disagrees about whether they should help the law work better in the short term — but it still lacks any truly ambitious provisions. It is just about as narrowly tailored as an Obamacare stabilization bill offered by Democrats could be, a fact that aides and activists will privately concede.

Missing are any of the bolder policy proposals animating the left. Not even a hint of Medicare-for-all single-payer health care, which is or isn’t a surprise, depending on how you look at it.

Medicare-for-all is quickly becoming orthodoxy among many in the party’s progressive grassroots, and a single-payer bill proposed this Congress in the House (similar to the one offered by Bernie Sanders over in the Senate) has 123 sponsors.

But House Democratic leaders probably don’t want to take up such a potentially explosive issue too soon after finally clawing back a modicum of power in Trump’s Washington.

Still, the current stabilization bill doesn’t even include a Medicare or Medicaid buy-in, the rebranded public option that never made it into Obamacare but would allow Americans to voluntarily join one of the major government insurance programs. It is an idea that even the more moderate Democratic members tend to support, and polls have found three-fourths of Americans think a Medicare buy-in is a good idea.

The plain truth is House Democrats haven’t reached a consensus yet about what they want to do to cover more Americans. They agree Obamacare was an important first step, and they agree the status quo is unacceptable. But the exact mechanism for achieving those goals — single-payer, a robust public option, or simply a buffed-up version of Obamacare — is still very much up for debate.

“People will want to do something, but any further action is going to be a consensus-building process,” a senior House Democratic aide told me. “Democrats have lots of different ideas on how to continue working to reduce the uninsured.”

That is all well and good, but few issues are exciting the Democratic grassroots right now like Medicare-for-all. During the midterm campaigns, Democratic candidates and even grassroots leaders were happy to let those words mean whatever voters wanted them to mean. For some people, it meant single-payer; for others; it might mean a Medicare buy-in or something more limited.

The unreservedly progressive members who were just elected to Congress will only wait so long before they start pressing Democratic leaders to take more aggressive steps to pick up one of their top campaign issues. That pressure will only intensify as the 2020 presidential campaign heats up and Democrats debate what kind of platform they should run on as they seek to take back the White House.

For now, Democrats have tried to put off a difficult debate and focus on what unites them. But the debate is still coming.

The riddle of high drug prices still needs to be solved too

Even with Obamacare and preexisting conditions mobilizing Democratic voters this year, prescription drug prices remain a top concern for many Americans. That’s another area where Democrats know they want to act but don’t know yet exactly what they can or should do.

The issue could be an opening for serious dealmaking: Trump himself has attacked big pharma since his presidential campaign. His administration has actually launched some interesting initiatives to rein in drug costs — approving a record number of generic drugs, trying to even the playing field between America and foreign countries — that have some policy wonks intrigued, even if the impact is still to be determined.

Democrats have mostly stuck to slamming Trump for feigning to act on drug prices while cozying up to the drug industry. But it’s a top priority for both parties, and there could be some room for compromise. One progressive policy wonk thought a drug prices bill might actually be the first Democratic priority. It helps that drug prices are a populist issue that the new House majority might really be able to pass a bill on.

But first, Democrats have to figure out what exactly they are for — and what would actually make a difference.

The rallying cry for Democrats on drug prices has been letting Medicare directly negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, a proposal that Trump also embraced as a candidate, though he has since softened as president. The problem is the Congressional Budget Office doesn’t think Medicare negotiations would save any money unless the government is willing to deny seniors coverage for certain medications. But adding such a provision would surely invite attacks that Democrats are depriving people’s grandparents of the medications they need.

There are a lot of levers to pull to try to reduce drug prices: the patent protections that pharma companies receive for new drugs, the mandated discounts when the government buys drugs for Medicare and Medicaid, existing hurdles to getting generic drugs approved, the tax treatment of drug research and development. Lawmakers and the public view pharmacy benefits managers, the mysterious middlemen between health insurers and drugmakers, skeptically.

But none of those are silver bullets to lower prices, and they will certainly invite pushback from the politically potent pharmaceutical lobby, focused on the concerns about how much cracking down on drug companies to discourage them from developing new drugs. Democrats also don’t know yet what specific policies could win support from Senate Republicans or the Trump White House.

“How do you take this gargantuan Chinese menu of things and figure out how things fit together in a way that stem some of the abuses?” is how one Democratic aide summarized the dilemma.

It is a problem bedeviling Democrats on more than just drug prices. Health care was a winner on election night this year, and it has always been a priority for Democrats. Now they just need to figure out what to do.

Because tomorrow is Veterans Day I thought that I would include this article.             After A Year Of Turmoil, New VA Secretary Says ‘Waters Are Calmer’ 

Quil Lawrence in his Twitter post reported on a wide-ranging interview with NPR, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie said his department is on the mend after a tumultuous 2018.”I do think it is better because the turmoil of the first half of this year is behind us, the waters are calmer. We’re not where we need to be, but we’re heading in that direction,” he said.

Early in Donald Trump’s presidency, the VA was considered an island of stability in an unpredictable administration.

Secretary David Shulkin was a hold-over from the Obama administration, already familiar with the VA’s massive bureaucracy. Bipartisan reforms moved through Congress with relative speed, and Trump could point to a list of legislative accomplishments.

But the president fired Shulkin last March after weeks of intrigue during which VA political appointees plotted openly to oust him. Trump’s first nominee to replace Shulkin, Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson, sank under accusations of misconduct (which are still being investigated by the Pentagon).

Numerous high-ranking officials left the department, and records showed that friends of the president outside of government – who weren’t even veterans – had been lobbying Trump at Mar-a-Lago on how to run the VA.

After a stint as acting VA secretary, Robert Wilkie was confirmed by the Senate last July. Since then, Wilkie says he’s been “walking the post,” visiting as many VA facilities as he can. And he’s reached the same conclusion as many of his predecessors.

“I have been incredibly impressed by the caliber of VA employee I’ve encountered everywhere, from Alaska to Massachusetts to Florida,” Wilkie told NPR’s, Steve Inskeep.

“I have no quarrel with the quality of medical care our veterans receive. My biggest problem is actually getting them into the system so that they can receive that care, which means the problems are primarily administrative and bureaucratic,” said Wilkie, himself a veteran of the Navy and a current Air Force reservist, who counts generations of veterans in his family.

“I am the son of a Vietnam soldier. I know what happened when those men and women came home,” Wilkie said. “So that is incredibly important to me.”

Wilkie is navigating an important moment for the VA – while Congress has already passed major reforms, he’s the one who has to implement them. And plenty of political controversy hides in the details.

The VA Mission Act of 2018 was signed into law in June. It’s intended to consolidate about a half-dozen programs The VA uses to buy veterans private healthcare at a cost of billions of dollars, into one streamlined system.

Critics fear that leaning too much on private care will bleed the VA’s own medical centers, and lead to a drop in quality there – and amounts to a starve-the-beast strategy of privatization.

Wilkie says that won’t happen and is not President Trump’s goal, but he has yet to present a budget for expanded private care to the White House and to Congress.

“You’re not going to privatize this institution. I certainly have never talked about that with anyone in this administration,” Wilkie said.

Wilkie also maintains that he has had little contact with the group of outside advisers who meet with the president at Mar-a-Lago, including CEO of Marvel Comics Ike Perlmutter and Florida doctor Bruce Moscowitz. Records show they had extensive communication with the previous VA secretary, sometimes influencing policy decisions.

“I met with them when I was visiting the West Palm Beach VA – my first week as acting (secretary), and have not had any meetings with them ever since that day,” Wilkie said. “I’ll be clear. I make the decisions here at the department, in support of the vision of the president.”

Despite rumors that Wilkie would clear out many of the Trump political appointees who clashed with former secretary Shulkin, he said he didn’t expect more staffing changes.

The one notable departure is Peter O’Rourke, who was acting secretary for two months while Wilkie went through the confirmation process. O’Rourke clashed repeatedly with Congress and the VA’s inspector general. Wilkie himself cited a Wall Street Journal reports that O’Rourke is poised to go and said he’s “on leave.”

“I think there will be an announcement soon about a move to another department in the federal government – I know that he’s looking for something new,” said Wilkie, “He’s on leave.”

Another major new plan that Wilkie must implement is a $10 billion, 10-year plan to make the VA’s medical records compatible with the Pentagon’s.

He once again mentioned his father’s experience as a wounded combat vet.

“He had an 800-page record, and it was the only copy, that he had to carry with him for the rest of his life. He passed away last year,” said Wilkie.

“One of the first decisions I made as the acting secretary was to begin the process of creating a complete electronic healthcare record that begins when that young American enters the military entrance processing station to the time that that soldier, sailor, airman, Marine walks into the VA.”

But that process has actually been underway for a decade – with little to show and about a billion dollars already spent on the effort. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office says it’s in part because neither the Pentagon nor the VA was put in charge of the effort — which is still the case. Wilkie says he has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to jointly run it with clear lines of authority.

“I think we’ll have more announcements later in the year when it comes to one belly-button to push for that office,” he said.

As for staff shortages, another perennial complaint at the VA, Wilkie acknowledged there are 35- to 40,000 vacancies at the agency.

“We suffer from the same shortages that the private sector and other public health services suffer from, particularly in the area of mental health,” he said.

New legislation passed this year gives Wilkie the authority to offer higher pay to medical professionals.

“I’m using it to attract as many people as we can into the system,” said Wilkie

But Wilkie also added that he was shocked, upon taking the post, that it’s not clear how many additional people are needed – because it’s not even clear how many people are working at VA.

“I had two briefings on the same day and two different numbers as to how many people this agency employs.”

Wilkie says he’s in the process of finding out the answer to that question, and many others, as he starts his second 100 days in office.

And to end this post I must include this note. I was raised in the Bronx, New York and are truly embarrassed to acknowledge that the new Congresswoman Cortes-Ortes who was elected, and not sure how when you look at her qualifications and knowledge. But more, she is a socialist and expects everything to be given to all and the government will foot the bill and now listen to this.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, new youngest Congresswoman, says she can’t afford D.C. apartment

Ashley May, a reporter for the USA TODAY noted that the upset primary win in New York by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a huge moment for the Democratic Party because it shows the left-wing base is energized heading into the midterms, according to AP National Politics Reporter Steve Peoples. (June 27) AP

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman elected to Congress in the midterm elections, is struggling to pay rent, according to a recent interview.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, told The New York Times she’s not sure how she will be able to afford an apartment in Washington, D.C., without a salary for three months in an interview published online Wednesday.

She told the Times she has some savings from her job earlier this year as a bartender at a Union Square restaurant, and she’s hoping that will hold her over. Living without a paycheck is something she said her and her partner tried to plan for, but it’s a hardship that’s still “very real.”

“We’re kind of just dealing with the logistics of it day by day, but I’ve really been just kind of squirreling away and then hoping that gets me to January,” she told the Times.

Ocasio-Cortez is a New York activist and Democrat who will represent the 14th Congressional district, which covers the Bronx and Queens.

Thursday, she pointed to her lack of income as a reason why some people are not able to work in politics.

“There are many little ways in which our electoral system isn’t even designed (nor prepared) for working-class people to lead,” she said.

She said she hopes she can change that.

Yes, and now if she plays her cards right she has a job, paying better than any job that she is really qualified for life.

Buck it up Ocasio-Cortez, live outside of DC and take public transportation like most people do!

How did you fund your campaign? I don’t want to hear your sob story and yes I am ashamed that the borough of the Bronx has you for their representative. What a joke! You said that when you got to DC you were going to sign a whole lot of bills and laws to make things better. Do you even know anything about the process and have you ever taken a Civics course. You are in for some big surprises… called reality!

On a better note-Happy Veterans Day and thank you all who have served in our military and those who are still out there helping to make this world a better place to live and protecting our freedoms.

 

The Effects of Socialism on Healthcare and Healthcare Reform

39975971_1685066984956287_3032019853234929664_nIn the current discussions, a single word — “socialism” — seems to have triggered the most emotional responses, needlessly so.

As more and more of the Democrats campaigning for the Mid-Term elections tout Socialism I wonder if they have any idea of what socialism means and more importantly how it would impact health care. David Nash and Richard Jacoby, both physicians wrote in MedPage Today back in 2009 that the health care reform debate is, all too often, confusing. The subject is multifaceted and is generally not presented in a logical, orderly fashion.

One reason is that, when we approach an issue as large as health care reform, we tend to focus on the segments about which we have strong personal feelings. Emotions come into play, often vigorously, making objective discussion difficult or impossible.

Often, the basis for these strongly held beliefs is rooted in the misunderstanding of a principle, a definition, or how things work in the real world. Such understanding is fundamental to a logical debate.

In the current health care reform discussions, a single word — “socialism” — seems to have triggered the most emotional responses. It is used almost pejoratively as if it is the worst thing that could possibly happen in America.

Socialism is most commonly invoked when the healthcare reform discussion turns to whether or not we should have a government-funded public insurance option.

Simple definitions can help here. In capitalism, individuals own the means of production of goods and services. In socialism, the government owns them. Let’s look a bit more at what socialism really is. Look at Venezuela and their currency, the Bolivar, which has been devalued to 0.0000040 of the U.S, dollar! Wow!

Kimberly Amadeo stated at the beginning of the month that Socialism is an economic system where everyone in the society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or a public corporation where everyone owns shares. The four factors of production are labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources.

Socialism’s mantra is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.” Everyone in society receives a share of the production based on how much each has contributed.

That motivates them to work long hours if they want to receive more.

Workers receive their share after a percentage has been deducted for the common good. Examples are transportation, defense, and education. Some also define the common good as caring for those who can’t directly contribute to production. Examples include the elderly, children, and their caretakers.

Socialism assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. That nature hasn’t yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be competitive. Therefore, a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must support this basic human nature for these qualities to emerge.

These factors are valued for their usefulness to people. This includes individual needs and greater social needs. That might include preservation of natural resources, education, or health care. That requires most economic decisions to be made by central planning, as in a command economy.

Advantages:

Workers are no longer exploited since they own the means of production. All profits are spread equitably among all workers, according to his or her contribution. The cooperative system realizes that even those who can’t work must have their basic needs met, for the good of the whole.

The system eliminates poverty. Everyone has equal access to health care and education. No one is discriminated against.  Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers higher compensation to make it worthwhile.

Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

Disadvantages:

The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. It negates those within society who are competitive, not cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for their own gain.

A secondly related criticism is that it doesn’t reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. As such, it won’t be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

A third possibility is that the government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and claim power for itself.

Difference Between Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and Fascism

Untitled.Differences between Socialism,Some say socialism’s advantages mean it is the next obvious step for any capitalistic society. They see income inequality as a sign of late-stage capitalism. They argue that capitalism’s flaws mean it has evolved past its usefulness to society. They don’t realize that capitalism’s flaws are endemic to the system, regardless of the phase it is in.

America’s Founding Fathers included promotion of the general welfare in the Constitution to balance these flaws. It instructed the government to protect the rights of all to pursue their idea of happiness as outlined in the American Dream. It’s the government’s role to create a level playing field to allow that to happen. That can happen without throwing out capitalism in favor of another system.

Examples of Socialist Countries:

There are no countries that are 100 percent socialist, according to the Socialist Party of the United Kingdom. Most have mixed economies that incorporate socialism with capitalism, communism, or both.

The following countries have a strong socialist system.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: The state provides health care, education, and pensions. But these countries also have successful capitalists. The top 10 percent of each nation’s people hold more than 65 percent of the wealth. That’s because most people don’t feel the need to accumulate wealth since the government provides a great quality of life.

Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea: These countries incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Mozambique, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania: These countries all expressly state they are socialist in their constitutions. Their governments run their economies. All have democratically elected governments.

Belarus, Laos, Syria, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Zambia: These countries all have very strong aspects of governance, ranging from healthcare, the media, or social programs run by the government.

Many other countries, such as Ireland, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Belgium, have strong socialist parties and a high level of social support provided by the government. But most businesses are privately owned. This makes them essentially capitalist.

Many traditional economies use socialism, although many still use private ownership. There are eight types of socialism. They differ on how capitalism can best be turned into socialism. They also emphasize different aspects of socialism. Here are a few of the major branches, according to “Socialism by Branch,” in The Basics of Philosophy.

Democratic Socialism: a democratically elected government manages the factors of production. Central planning distributes common goods, such as mass transit, housing, and energy, while the free market is allowed to distribute consumer goods.

Curiously, socialism is rarely used to describe Medicare, Medicaid, and the various other government-sponsored plans that account for roughly half of the healthcare dollars spent in this country and that are bona fide examples of socialist services.

It should be clear to any objective observer that the U.S. is not a purely capitalist country. We have many government-run services — the military, highways, public education, the Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare to name a few.

Thus, the U.S. exhibits elements of both capitalism and socialism — a so-called mixed economy.

As has become abundantly clear through the recent financial crisis and subsequent government-sponsored rescue of the financial system, government spending shortened what otherwise would have been an extended economic downturn — when the private sector could not or would not do so.

So, a little government (read “socialism”) mixed in with our capitalism can be a good thing. Students of economics embrace “capitalism” because it has proven unparalleled in raising living standards for vast numbers of people and for fostering innovation. But, the conventional wisdom about capitalism is rooted in flawed logic that assumes free markets are inherently self-correcting. They are not. A capitalist system does not guarantee a good outcome.

What are the prospects for “market forces” to reshape our current health care system in a fashion that decreases cost and increases quality? For a market to work its magic, transparency about costs (which allows comparison shopping by patients) and information about quality (public reporting of quality measures in a standardized format) need to be widely available so that value can be assessed and delivered.

Clearly, these elements are not present in our current system and are not likely to be present for some time. Further, our current payment structures give patients little incentive to engage in “comparison shopping” or for providers to be efficient in delivering services. Indeed, providers are rewarded on the basis of quantity rather than quality or value of the services they provide.

The U.S. occupies the 37th place in the World Health Organization’s ranking of health care quality in industrialized nations. This, coupled with the fact that we pay almost twice as much as other countries for that level of care, suggests that our “capitalistic” healthcare system could use some “socialistic” guidance.

Who will provide guidance toward better outcomes in healthcare?

Historically, the government (in the form of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has led the way to cost and quality reform through various demonstration projects and programs involving “Value-Based Purchasing.” Private insurers have followed the government’s lead.

The premise of health insurance is that a risk pool with a large number of people reduces the cost of protecting any one individual from the consequences of a serious health problem. The larger the pool, the broader the risk is spread, and the lower the cost.

A federally provided public insurance option covering all Americans would spread the risk as broadly as possible. In fact, many Medicare services are administered currently by Blue Shield and other private insurance companies.

Combining a single large insurance pool with the private administration is a nice mixed economic insurance solution. Certainly, this is not as crazy a scheme as the status quo.

Why is Socialized Health Care Is Unjust?

Hadley Heath Manning looked more critically and healthcare in a socialized system. As she states, when the government runs hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare institutions, people get worse care for more money. Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is exceeding expectations and drawing large support from young and blue-collar voters. At the center of his policy platform is a plan to completely socialize the U.S. healthcare system, turning it into a “single-payer” program, or a single government fund that pays for all citizens’ health costs.

The argument for this kind of system is simple. Supporters say it will enable everyone to access health care and cost less than our current mix of private and public health expenditures. Most of all, they argue this system would be morally superior to others.

All of those claims are dubious, but the last is the biggest whopper. In fact, socialized medicine is immoral. It relies on coercion and results in shortages and long wait times, which means worse care. It is rife with inequality and inefficiency, leading to serious harms.

This Would Ratchet Up the Doctor Squeeze!                                                                 Consider how a socialized system would cut costs. Single-payer advocates brag that having one, the national fund for health costs would allow the government to “negotiate” health-care prices down because it would essentially have prevented everyone else from bidding to pay for them. In other words, the government would have control of an entire industry and be able to dictate the terms of work and trade for everyone within it. How is this morally superior to allowing free people to negotiate arrangements on their own?

We already see the bullying of providers in the single-payer systems that exist in the United States.

Unfortunately, America hasn’t had a truly free, market-based health system for decades. Many people feel the outsized power of insurance companies has allowed them to dominate and unfairly control doctors and hospitals. This is true: Insurance companies, thanks in large part to regulations from the Affordable Care Act, are consolidating and using their growing market shares to bargain, and perhaps bully, health-care providers and dictate the terms for everyone.

We already see the bullying of providers in the single-payer systems that exist in the United States, including Medicare. Doctors consistently complain about the ways Medicare makes practicing medicine hard, from bureaucratic paperwork and compliance burdens to low pay.

Socialism Means Force and Force Are Wrong!

In fact, each year more and more physicians opt out of the Medicare program altogether. It’s become so bad in Hawaii that legislators have proposed a bill that would force providers to accept Medicare or else lose their medical licenses! This is always the end of government-controlled health care: coercion.

As Dr. Jim Geddes, a trauma surgeon near Denver, CO, recently told Medscape.com, “The only way physicians can afford to participate in Medicare is that they get higher payment from commercial insurers. Single-payer advocates talk about ‘Medicare for all,’ but if Medicare were standing alone, it would fall flat.”

But at least some choice remains: Doctors today can still choose not to participate in certain plans or programs.

But at least some choice remains: Doctors today can still choose not to participate in certain plans or programs. If single-payer were the law of the land, no health-care provider could engage in his profession without having to bill the government, as the government would be the only payer for these services in most cases.

Health-care providers would be forced to accept a government-set price for their services. This would inevitably harm the quality of care we receive by locking in current ways of doing things instead of allowing people to try new ones and discourage people from pursuing grueling expensively learned work in the medical field because of low pay and bad working conditions.

We’ve seen how a similar standardized compensation system has worked for public-school teachers. It effectively punishes excellent teachers and rewards mediocre ones. It’s helped create a bifurcated education system, with private schools delivering higher quality to families that can afford to pay tuition on top of taxes, while too many families are left to attend low-quality public schools.

The same phenomena would take place in medicine. Under a government-dominated system, excellent health-care providers wouldn’t be rewarded and would suffer new burdens, while mediocre and even poor providers would receive the same payments as those that provide high-quality care.

Socialized Style Health Care Means Rationing and Shortages.

Patients too would suffer at the hands of a single payer, due to the rationing and shortages that always result when a government sets prices. That is, of course, unless you are wealthy and can find a concierge medical practice to sell you some special service. Single-payer systems always unravel, giving the rich a chance to buy superior care, and thus creating tremendous economic inequities in the system.

Single-payer results in implicit rationing, which manifests in long waiting lists for the desired service or treatment.

In fact, it may shock some single-payer advocates to hear, but the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that health outcomes are more strongly tied to income in Canada (already a single-payer system) than in the United States.

Single-payer would also lead to waste and great inefficiency, which can have serious health consequences. If the government sets a price for a certain service that is too high, providers may over-prescribe it and patients may over-consume it. If the government sets a price for a certain service that is too low, then too few providers will offer it, and there will be a shortage.

In a market system, higher prices signal shortages and give providers an incentive to adapt to meet people’s actual needs. In a government-based system like single-payer, patients always face the same price—zero—so the government has to limit what services are available to whom based on data. This is straight-up rationing.

But single-payer also results in implicit rationing, which manifests in long waiting lists for the desired service or treatment. Long waits, common in other countries with government-controlled health-care systems, can lead to inferior health outcomes. To be blunt, this means more pain and suffering. In some cases, this even means more death.

That was the case for Laura Hiller, an 18-year-old Canadian with leukemia who died in January for lack of a hospital bed. Numerous bone marrow donors were ready and willing to assist her, but because her hospital could only perform about five transplants per month, Laura died while waiting for her turn. Stories like this are not uncommon in countries with single-payer health-care systems.

So, a Better Idea: A Medical Free Market!

Surely there is nothing moral about this. Americans shouldn’t accept that either insurers or government must dominate the health-care market or set the prices and payments for everyone. Rather, we should reform our health-care system to give individuals more power and choice. Market competition would drive prices down without the need for coercion.

Patients should pay providers directly for any services that are routine and not catastrophic, and patients could carry low-cost insurance policies to protect them in the event of catastrophic health-care costs. This is how it works for house and auto insurance, which almost everyone can afford even though cars and houses are frequently as expensive as many medical services.

A direct-pay model would create an incentive for providers to offer more pricing information, and to compete with one another on price. Market competition would drive prices down without the need for coercion. Quality would go up, prices would go down, and, just as importantly, this would be a morally superior system free of the coercion and domination implicit in a government-run socialized system.                                                The level of freedom in research and medical commercialization matters greatly. It is a very large determinant of the speed with which future medicine arrives – and especially medical technologies capable of reversing the age-related cellular damage that lies at the root of frailty, degeneration, and death. At the moment, right this instant, the system is broken. The very fact that we have “a system” is a breakage; that entrepreneurs are held back from investment by rules and political whims that are now held to be of greater importance than any number of lives. Those decisions about your health and ability to obtain medicine are made in a centralized manner, by people with neither the incentives nor the ability to do well.

As is always the case, the greatest cost of socialism in medicine lies in what we do not see. It lies in the many billions of dollars presently not invested in medical research and development, or invested wastefully, because regulations – and the people behind them, supporting and manipulating a political system for their own short-term gain – make it unprofitable to invest well. Investment is the fuel of progress, and it is driven away by self-interested political cartels.

The situation is grim; the greatest engines of progress in medicine – the research communities of the US and other Western-style countries – are moving forward very much despite the ball and chain of regulation that drags them down. In the fight against the age-related disease, and aging itself, how much further ahead would we be if we cut those chains and restored freedom to research, manufacture, review and quality assurance of medicine?

Sadly, I do not see this happening in the near future; a long, but a hard battle lies ahead for advocates of freedom and faster progress in any field. We live in an era of creeping socialism, economic ignorance, and blind acceptance thereof. It’s almost as though no lesson was learned from the megadeaths, poverty, and suffering of the Soviet experience, and now as I pointed out what is happening in other countries like Greece and now Venezuela as we step a little at a time in that direction once more.

Trump’s Top Medicare Official Slams ‘Medicare for All’ and Another Cost Estimation of the Plan!

37743878_1632665590196427_5036079386281902080_nI was away on vacation and arrived home from a long flight and long shuttle ride through the beautiful mountains of Colorado, but the delay allowed me to view an article updating the cost of the Medicare for All plan, with which I will end this post.          Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivarof the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration’s Medicare chief on Wednesday slammed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a national health plan, saying “Medicare for All” would undermine care for seniors and become “Medicare for None.”

The broadside from Medicare and Medicaid administrator Seema Verma came in a San Francisco speech that coincides with a focus on health care in contentious midterm congressional elections. Sanders, a Vermont independent, fired back at Trump’s Medicare chief in a statement that chastised her for trying to “throw” millions of people off their health insurance during the administration’s failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Verma’s made her comments toward the end of a lengthy speech before the Commonwealth Club of California, during which she delved into arcane details of Medicare payment policies.

Denouncing what she called the “drumbeat” for “government-run socialized health care,” Verma said “Medicare for All” would “only serve to hurt and divert focus from seniors.” “You are giving the government complete control over decisions pertaining to your care, or whether you receive care at all,” she added.

“In essence, Medicare for All would become Medicare for None,” she said. Verma also said she disapproved of efforts in California to set up a state-run health care system, which would require her agency’s blessing.

In his response, Sanders said, “Medicare is, by far, the most cost-effective, efficient and popular health care program in America. He added: “Medicare has worked extremely well for our nation’s seniors and will work equally well for all Americans.”

The Sanders proposal would add benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, coverage for eyeglasses, most dental care, and hearing aids. It would also eliminate deductibles and copayments that Medicare and private insurance plans currently require.

Independent analyses of the Sanders plan have focused on the enormous tax increases that would be needed to finance it, not on concern about any potential harm to seniors currently enrolled in Medicare. I will review another cost estimation at the end of this post.

But so-called “Mediscare” tactics have been an effective political tool for both parties in recent years, dating back to Republican Sarah Palin’s widely debunked “death panels” to an opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Democrats returned the favor after Republicans won control of the House in 2010 and tried to promote a Medicare privatization plan.

Democrats clearly believe supporting “Medicare for All” will give them an edge in this year’s midterm elections. More than 60 House Democrats recently launched a “Medicare for All” caucus, trying to tap activists’ fervor for universal health care that helped propel Sanders’ unexpectedly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Just a few years ago, Sanders could not find co-sponsors for his legislation.

A survey earlier this year by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Washington Post found that 51 percent of Americans would support a national health plan, while 43 percent opposed it. Nearly 3 out of 4 Democrats backed the idea, as did 54 percent of independents. But only 16 percent of Republicans supported the Sanders approach.

Early in his career as a political figure, President Donald Trump spoke approvingly of Canada’s single-payer health care system, roughly analogous to Sanders’ approach. But by the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had long abandoned that view.                                                                                                                                             Bernie Sanders Medicare-for-all plan is all wrong for America          It would be senseless to replace employer-based coverage with an expensive one-size-fits-all system that couldn’t handle treatments of the future.

Sanders unveils ‘Medicare For All’ bill

Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing legislation that would let Americans get health coverage simply by showing a new government-issued card. And they’d no longer owe out-of-pocket expenses like deductibles. (Sept. 13)

My 93-year-old father recently came home from the hospital proudly harboring a life-saving $50,000 aortic valve paid for by Medicare, though he rode home in a wheelchair that Medicare didn’t pay for. This gap in services is growing, as Medicare struggles to cover emerging technologies that are not one-size-fits-all while at the same time continuing to provide basic care. If Medicare is converted to single-payer or Medicare for all, as Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposes, tens of millions more patients will be added to an already faltering system, and the gap between the promise of care and actual care delivered will widen.

Single-payer is the ultimate one-size-fits-all health care promise. Consider Canada, our single-payer neighbor to the north. One of my patients was visiting Toronto several years ago when he developed worsening angina requiring a cardiac stent. He was placed on a several-week waiting line before giving up and returning home for the procedure. The waiting-your-turn problem has only gotten worse since then. In 2016, the Fraser Institute found a median 20-week wait in Canada between a generalist’s referral and the time the patient actually received a definitive test or treatment/procedure from a specialist.

Americans already face a wasteful health care system with inadequate access to care. The Commonwealth Fund ranked us last among 11 wealthy nations this summer. But unlike Canada, we will never tolerate such long waiting lines, which is one of the reasons single-payer will never work here.

Despite growing problems in access and cost, most Americans don’t want change to jeopardize what works. A 2016 Gallup Poll revealed that 65% of Americans are happy with the way the healthcare system works for them. The backbone of our system is employer-based health insurance. Some 170 million Americans rely on coverage at their job, and employers receive an incentive to offer it in the form of a tax deduction.

More than 55 million Americans are covered by Medicare at a cost to the taxpayer of around $650 billion a year. Medicaid covers more than 70 million, at a cost of $532 billion.

Medicare-for-all would be far more expensive, especially given the rising cost of healthcare technologies. Last year the Urban Institute estimated that the Sanders plan would cost a whopping $32 trillion between 2017 and 2026, a completely unworkable number.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Both Medicare and Medicaid are already struggling to find doctors who still want to work with them. About 30% of doctors wouldn’t see new Medicaid patients, close to the same as the share of primary care doctors over the age of 55 who won’t see new Medicare patients. This inherent doctor shortage will only worsen if government-run health insurance is expanded.

Finally, the health insurance lobby, quite powerful in Congress, will never allow single-payer to pass, as it would significantly erode its client base. Major health insurers spend millions of dollars lobbying each year to ensure their survival. They were crucial players in the construction of the highly regulated policies of Obamacare, which provide millions of more clients paying high premiums. Single-payer represents a big threat, and insurers are far too entrenched in Congress to lose the battle.

Single-payer isn’t the answer to providing health care in an exciting future where cancer and other treatments are genetic-based and personalized. For instance, CAR-T involves removing a patient’s immune cells and genetically engineering and reinserting them to fight cancer. Single-payer will never be able to justify paying for a $500,000 technology on a patient-by-patient basis.

Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told me recently that the insurance model isn’t necessarily prepared to cover the latest treatments where “a one-time administration of a drug could potentially cure a disease.” He added, “I worry about access to therapies, particularly effective new therapies so it would be concerning if we had really impressive new treatments and patients couldn’t get access to them because the models weren’t right or patients were uninsured or underinsured for the medicines that they use.”

Bernie Sanders’ bloated Medicare-for-all insurance may be extensive, but it is not designed for the personalized cures of the near future. It is also definitely not the kind of national catastrophic national health insurance that Theodore Roosevelt had in mind during his 1912 “Bull Moose” presidential campaign or Richard Nixon’s comprehensive coverage plan that built on the existing employer-based system (proposed in 1974 but soon eclipsed by Watergate).

It makes a lot of sense for all patients and hospitals to be covered in the event of a sudden health catastrophe so that neither they nor the hospital that saves them goes bankrupt. But it makes little sense for single-payer to threaten an employer-based market that’s already working.

And now the newest Democrat contender joins Bernie Sanders in touting Medicare for All. In Thursday’s episode of “The Daily Show,” host Trevor Noah grilled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ― the democratic socialist candidate who recently toppled Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District ― on what she calls her “idealist” views.

While discussing major points of political contention like health care and education, Noah asked the 28-year-old Latina to explain democratic socialism and what that label means to her. “I don’t knock on a person’s door and is like, ‘Hey! Let me tell you about socialism!’ Like, that’s not how I campaign,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And I also think that I don’t knock on a person’s door and say, ‘Hey, let me tell you about being a Democrat.’”

“I don’t say that. I speak to people’s needs,” she went on. “And, you know, if Fox News and if media want to continue using this word, they’re gonna use the word. I think by me saying, ‘Oh, no, I’m not this, that and the other,’ it just becomes a distraction.”

Ocasio-Cortez told Noah that democratic socialists want to talk about “wages and education” as well as “saving our planet.”

“We’re here to talk about people paying their fair share, and we’re here to talk about saving the country, frankly,” she said.

Noah then pivoted, making the argument that while many would agree with the ideas she has in mind, it’s not clear how she plans to fund the causes she’s aiming to overhaul.

“Those ideas, I think most people would agree on, especially if they don’t know the label that they are attached to, you know?” Noah said. “But then, the pragmatic side of it comes in, as you said. How do you pay for these?”

“You know, you always see people coming in with economic arguments, and they say, look, these numbers don’t really add up,” he continued. “You know, in order to get health care for everybody, this is what it would cost. That’s going to be troubling. Even if you reverse the Republican tax deal, that’s only going to make up 5 percent of what we need to pay for Medicare for all. How do you pay for education for all ― how do you pay for all of these ideas?”

Ocasio-Cortez called that an “excellent, excellent question.” She told Noah she recently sat down with a “Nobel Prize economist” to talk policy ― “I can’t believe I can say that, it’s really weird” ― and noted that the extremely wealthy, like Warren Buffett, could be paying a 15 percent tax rate. With that and a corporate tax rate of 28 percent, plus some closed loopholes, she said, there would be “$2 trillion in 10 years” to put toward transitioning the U.S. to a fully renewable-energy economy. “One of the wide estimates is that it’s going to take $3 to $4 trillion” to do that, she said.

“A lot of what we need to do is reprioritize what we want to accomplish as a nation,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Really, what this is about is saying, health care is important enough for us to put first. Education is important enough for us to put first. And that is a decision that requires political and moral courage, from both parts of the aisle. Period.” This lady and I use this term carefully is a true idiot, but one can see how she might get a long list of followers.                                                                                                                                      And look what is happening in the state of Maryland.                                                            The question was what would we get if we moved to ‘Medicare for all’?                   Pete Marovich for The Post recently wrote an article for The Post Reporting that “Jealous, Hogan clash on health care” exposed the missing link in our state (and national) debate on health care: It is about cost, not care. It is about quantity, not quality. “Single-payer” is by its nature-socialized health care. Okay. But I know socialized medicine, as a common soldier in the Army and as a U.S. diplomat who used a “VIP” clinic in a socialist country. Socialized medicine? No, thank you. Would socialized medicine be different here? Is it worth taking into consideration when debating the pros and cons of a “single-payer” health system what you would get with government’s trickle-down health care? “Medicare for all” is wishful thinking. It would be “Medicaid for all.”

The article mentioned that a University of Massachusetts at Amherst study concluded that California’s single-payer proposal “could provide decent health care for all California residents while still reducing net overall costs. ” What does “decent” mean? Does England have decent health care? It certainly is not enviable. Does Canada contribute significantly to the discovery of new advances in medicine and lifesaving drugs? Or does its enviable health-care system depend upon American contributions in the field of medicine? Who would determine the value of health care in terms of it being “adequate” or “decent”? Why the government would make this judgment. Taking in cost savings, of course. By the way, how’s the Trump administration doing on health care? Cost, not care. Quantity, not quality.

And back to the latest cost estimation of Medicare for All. Brooke Singman reporting for Fox News wrote recently that The “Medicare for All” plan, which we all know was and still is being pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and endorsed by a host of Democratic congressional and presidential hopefuls would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a new study. So I was off by a few Trillion $$. What’s a few trillion between “friends” or taxpayers??

The Vermont senator has avoided conducting his own cost analysis, and those supporting the plan have at times struggled to explain how they could pay for it. The study, released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, showed the plan would require historic tax increases. The hikes would allow the government to replace what employers and consumers currently pay for healthcare — delivering significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care that would drive up spending, according to the report.

According to the report, the legislation’s federal health care commitments would reach approximately 10.7 of GDP by 2022, and rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP by 2031. But the study, conducted by senior research strategist Charles Blahous, said that those estimates were on the “conservative” side.

Sanders’ plan builds on Medicare, the insurance program for seniors. The proposal would require all U.S. residents to be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be regulated to play a minor role in the system.

Sanders is far from the only liberal lawmaker pushing the program. 2020 hopefuls like Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed a “Medicare for all” program last year.

Political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., in a recent upset primary and instantly became a prominent face of the democratic socialist movement, also is promoting a “Medicare for all” platform and now she is pounding the campaign trails with Bernie Sanders pushing Medicare for All as well as other liberal programs that are going to cost the taxpayers.

“Enacting something like ‘Medicare for all’ would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government,” Blahous, who was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration, said.

Blahous’ study also found that “a doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

But Sanders blasted the analysis as “grossly misleading and biased,” noting that the Mercatus Center receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers. Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch is on the center’s board.

“If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same,” Sanders said in a statement. “This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers’ response to the growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for all’ program.”

A spokesman for Sanders said that the senator’s office has not done a cost analysis on the new plan, however, the estimates in the latest report are within the range for other cost projections for Sanders’ 2016 plan.

Sanders’ staff found an error in an original version of the Mercatus report, which counted a long-term care program that was in the 2016 proposal but not the current one. Blahous corrected it, reducing his estimate by about $3 trillion over 10 years. Blahous says the report is his own work, not the Koch brothers’.

Also called “single-payer” over the years, “Medicare for all” reflects a long-time wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans.

The idea won broad rank-and-file support after Sanders ran on it in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a “litmus test” for national candidates.

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of “Medicare for all” from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders’ 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.

The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drug makers. Savings from the streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions of the plan are also expected to drive up spending, with coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured Americans, no copays and no deductibles and improved benefits on dental, vision and hearing.

The study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.

So where do we get all the additional money to pay for this program or are there other options such as what will the restrictions on coverage look like?

More to follow!!!