Editors at the Washington Examiner contend that leading Democratic presidential contenders want to spend $7 trillion more on health care with no improvement in care.
From the 2020 Democratic candidates’ discussion of healthcare in their Oct. 15 debate, one receives the impression that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All, as it is inaptly named, is not only practical but in fact the best and most cost-effective way to finance healthcare. Not only will it insure more people, but it will reduce costs, making it vastly superior to the system we have now.
Unfortunately, none of this is true. A new analysis from a liberal think tank demonstrates that Medicare for All would stick taxpayers not only with a higher tax burden but also with higher overall medical costs.
Last year, a study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University pegged the price of Medicare for All at $33 trillion over 10 years. Even that eye-popping total required the generous assumption that providers would simply accept a gigantic pay cut without resistance. …
… This week, the left-leaning Urban Institute released its own analysis, in conjunction with a massive healthcare study funded by the Commonwealth Fund. It turns out that the critics who complained that Mercatus got the number wrong were correct. The problem for the critics, however, is that Mercatus slightly underestimated the cost. Medicare for All would actually cause federal government spending to increase by $34 trillion over 10 years, not $33 trillion.
More importantly, the analysis suggests that it will cost the federal government under Medicare for All an extra $7 trillion to provide the same level of care as today’s system would provide at the lower price. Under Medicare for All, overall national healthcare spending would increase from $52 trillion to $59 trillion.
