The so-called “Green New Deal” proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“Until you do it, I’m the boss! How about that?”) may cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over ten years, concludes American Action Forum. The USA has no clue how to pay off its present $22 trillion plus in debt, is making interest payments on that debt which are close to impossible to meet, and this newly-arrived New Yorker who just came to Congress last November thinks somehow we can manage $90 trillion over the next ten years to pay for her pet program for which she had no idea of actual cost when she dreamed it up. None. If she had known the projected cost and still wanted to bring the program to light, she is even dumber than most of us think she is. And we already think she is….well, never mind, you already know what most of America thinks about this idiot politician. (Sorry about the small redundancy there.)
She is from the same state, coincidentally or not, which is now telling us we ought to revise our abortion laws to make it even easier to kill babies. Easier as in kill them up to the point of birth or even beyond. New York is a state run by Democrats, as if we had to tell you.
As if the mere suggestion that we’re making it too hard to kill our babies already were not enough, the state of Virginia wanted to second the motion and join in the bloodbath. (Virginia’s governor is, you guessed it, a Democrat. The one who was caught acting out in blackface. That one.) When the Democrats in Washington, DC got around to thinking about the proposal (we use the term loosely), they decided it sounded like a good idea. And every single Democrat who wants to be your next president voted to block Republican opposition…meaning they were ALL in favor of this new and horrific version of infanticide! Every one of ’em!
As if all that were not enough, the idiot Democrats in Washington, DC (there’s that little redundancy again…sorry) are now getting behind the idea that health care is a right and the US government ought to be in the health care business in a much bigger way than it already is. Much bigger.
Democrats just unveiled the Medicare for All Act of 2019, a comprehensive bill to abolish virtually all private health plans—including employer-sponsored coverage—and impose total federal government control over Americans’ health care.
Despite its sweeping and detailed government control, as well as the imposition of huge but unknown costs, the 120-page bill has nonetheless initially attracted 106 Democrat co-sponsors, almost half of all Democrats in the House.
The legislation is profoundly authoritarian.
For example, Section 107 ensures that no American, regardless of their personal wants or medical needs, would be able to enroll in any alternative health plan that “duplicates” the government’s coverage.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the bill’s primary sponsor, is at least open about the bill’s intent: “The Medicare for All bill really makes it clear what we mean by ‘Medicare for All.’ We mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core comprehensive benefits.”
Under Section 201, Congress would decide the content of the health benefits package, what is and is not to be available in the new government health plan. The bill forbids cost sharing, a statutory prohibition guaranteed to induce demand and hike Americans’ overall health costs.
Americans would not be able simply to spend their own money for medical care from a doctor of their choice. Personal contracts between doctors and patients outside of the government plan would be tightly restricted. Under Section 301, “ … no charge will be made to any individual for any covered items or services than for payment authorized by this Act.”
Under Section 303, a provider “ …may not bill or enter into any private contract with any individual eligible for benefits under the Act for any item or service that is a benefit under this Act.”
Even private contracts for “non-covered” medical services require the doctor to report them to the health and human services secretary. Section 303 also stipulates that a private contract between a doctor and a patient for “covered” services would be permissible if and only if the doctor signs and files the affidavit with the secretary of HHS and refrains from submitting any claim for any person “enrolled under this Act” for two full years.
Altogether, these restrictions, layered atop the prohibition on private insurance coverage, would virtually eliminate private agreements between doctors and patients.
In practice, Americans could spend their own money on their own terms with just the very few doctors who could afford to see cash-paying patients entirely outside the system.
In most respects, the new House bill is broadly similar to Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., bill. Beyond creating a government monopoly of health insurance, it centralizes key health care decisions in the office of the secretary of HHS; establishes a national health budget; and it creates a temporary Medicare-style “public option” (along with subsidies for enrollees) in the moribund Obamacare exchanges.
Like Sanders’ bill, the House bill would also eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Obamacare exchange plans, and Tricare, the health program for military dependents. All of these beneficiaries would be absorbed into the new government plan; it would not be a matter of personal choice.
In striking contrast to the earlier version of the House “Medicare for All” bill, the new House bill contains no tax or funding provisions. This is a conspicuous omission. This is especially so because the House sponsors (under Section 204) also incorporate long-term care coverage, including nursing home and community-based care, into the basic benefit package. This coverage would likely be hugely expensive.
Recall that independent analysts from the Mercatus Center and the Urban Institute roughly agree that the true 10-year cost of Sanders’ similar plan would be approximately $32 trillion.
Ken Thorpe of Emory University, formerly an adviser to President Bill Clinton, estimates that the federal taxation needed to finance the Sanders’ plan would amount to an additional 20 percent tax on workers’ income, and more than 7 out of 10 working families would end up paying more for health care than they do today.
[From an article published by THE DAILY SIGNAL plus other sources]
NORM ‘n’ AL Note: Don’t you just love the way the Democrats want to care for us and look out for our well-being? We can’t afford the programs they want to saddle us with (which are usually poorly thought out if at all), and they insist on giving us no choice in any of these matters, but that makes no difference. As Hillary and Brack Obummer lost no opportunity to tell us, “government knows best,” “it takes a village,” and “you didn’t build that.”
As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by
NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis