Medicare for All Dead Already

 

Medicare for All has come and gone already. That’s the opinion of insurance analyst, Robert Laszewski. He knows what he’s talking about.

The proof is in the response by Democrats to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s rollout of her Medicare for All plan. Until she laid out the details of her plan she had the greatest momentum of any presidential candidate. But since the rollout her numbers are dropping fast and Mayor Pete Butigieg is the latest darling of the left. It seems that even Democrats can’t stomach Medicare for All.

According to the Real Clear Politics average of national Democratic primary polls, Warren has dropped from a high of 27% in October’s average to 16% at the end of November. In New Hampshire alone, her support fell by half, while she lost five points in Iowa during the same period.

The reason for this plummet in the polls is obvious – voters don’t believe her claims that Medicare for All will lower healthcare costs and not require huge tax increases on the middle class. Avik Roy, healthcare economist, states, “Elizabeth Warren’s health care plan could increase the deficit by more than $15 Trillion over decade. The Warren plan is overly optimistic in its effectiveness at raising tax revenue without harming economic growth. In addition, the plan will incentivize soaring demand for health care services, increasing health care spending.”

Laszewski says Warren is already backtracking from her Medicare for All plan by advocating the Public Option for ObamaCare. She now says she would first enact a voluntary public option, toward an eventual move to Medicare for All, over a period of three years, as she built public support for a single-payer system.

This is precisely the Biden plan, and the Obama plan, and the Pelosi plan, and the Harry Reid plan – exactly what they all stated before the passage of ObamaCare. They all want to get to a single-payer plan eventually – just as soon as they can convince enough voters to go along with them!

I wrote an earlier post called Democratic Healthcare Choices in which I described three different Democratic healthcare plans of presidential candidates that all arrive eventually at the same destination – single-payer healthcare. There was the immediate approach of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, called Medicare for All, which promised single-payer within 4 years. Then there was the middle of the road approach of Kamala Harris that promised single-payer in 10 years. Last, but not least, there was the Biden plan of single-payer healthcare sooner or later. Different roads to the same destination.

Now that it is clear, (just as in 2010) that the timing isn’t quite right, yet, for immediate elimination of all private health insurance – as Medicare for All demands – Warren will wait a little longer like Biden to eliminate your private health insurance when it is forced out by the Public Option. (To understand why that is inevitable, read my post Pubic Option Kills Private Insurance.)

That leaves only Sanders still advocating for immediate Medicare for All, but that’s not surprising since it was his idea in the first place. But don’t think for a minute any of the other candidates will spare your private health insurance. It’s only a matter of time until every Democratic presidential candidate will put us all on government-controlled healthcare.

 

Medicare for All Still Unpopular

 

Medicare for All has been unpopular for the last 40 years – and it’s still just as unpopular. That’s the message from healthcare industry analyst Robert Laszewski.

Laszewski, in his Healthcare Marketplace and Policy Review, reminds us that President Jimmy Carter ran on a Medicare for All platform in 1976. But despite having Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, a filibuster-proof 61 seats in the Senate and an overwhelming 292 seats in the House, Carter was unable to convince his own party to approve Medicare for All.

The same thing happened in 1993 during the Clinton presidency. The Democrats then controlled majorities in both houses of Congress, 57 seats in the Senate and 258 in the House, but only about half of these were in favor of a single-payer healthcare system.

Fast forward to 2009 during the Obama administration. Though President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid all favored single-payer healthcare, they couldn’t convince a majority of their own party to proceed forward with a complete government takeover of healthcare. Instead, they pushed through the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), without a single Republican vote, as a compromise to their own party.

Laszewski says not much has changed today. As of September, 2019, only about half of the Democratic caucus (118) supports Medicare for All. The other half supports strengthening ObamaCare. The Democratic presidential candidates all seemed to favor Medicare for All in the early campaign debates but some are modifying their position lately to favor stronger support of ObamaCare.

However, new front-runner Elizabeth Warren still strongly supports Medicare for All as does its founder, Bernie Sanders. Only Joe Biden favors strengthening ObamaCare among the leading candidates.

Laszewski explains, “Maybe most telling, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said, “God bless the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates putting forth Medicare for all proposals, but know what that entails. I believe the path to ‘health care for all’ is a path following the lead of the Affordable Care Act. Let’s use our energy to have health care for all Americans — and that involves over 150 million families that have it through the private sector.”

Pelosi is savvy enough to understand that eliminating private employer-provided healthcare for over 150 million Americans is a losing proposition.

Moreover, that proposal flies in the face of a major Democratic constituency – labor unions. It is a major function of labor unions to negotiate healthcare insurance benefits for employees with their major corporate employers. Eliminating private health insurance will eliminate a major reason for the existence of labor unions. If there is one thing that labor unions care more about than anything it is their continued existence.

Lastly, even The Washington Post, a major supporter of liberal and Democratic causes, believes Medicare for All is a big mistake. Here is an excerpt from a recent editorial:

On the wildly unrealistic side is Mr. Sanders’s plan, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) also supports. Mr. Sanders would eliminate private insurance and enroll everyone in a government-run plan that is, in fact, far more generous than Medicare. Even if Americans wanted to give up their private insurance, Mr. Sanders’s plan to eliminate premiums, co-payments and other cost-sharing, while offering Americans a massive suite of free benefits, would either be unimaginably expensive or force unsustainably huge cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals. Mr. Sanders points to other countries with “single-payer” systems to prove that building one in the United States is possible. In fact, other nations are far less generous than what Mr. Sanders proposes.

With Joe Biden dropping rapidly in the polls and others like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders rising, Democrats should be nervous about a presidential campaign platform that includes Medicare for All.

ObamaCare Winners and Losers – 6 Years Later

 

Six years ago this October Americans began signing up for the Affordable Care Act, a new healthcare system passed by Democrats under President Obama and destined to be forever known by his name, ObamaCare. How well has it achieved its objectives?

ObamaCare was supposed to provide universal healthcare coverage. At the time of its passage, about 84% of Americans had healthcare coverage. Although Obama said often his bill would cover everybody, the White House later admitted that coverage of 95% of Americans was what they considered realistic.

The U.S. Census Bureau says 91.5% of Americans had health insurance in 2018, the latest data available. This is actually down from the 92.1% with coverage in 2017. The decline in coverage was 0.7% in those enrolled in Medicaid. Private coverage was unchanged.

Six years later there are about 12 million more Americans on Medicaid now than before ObamaCare. Many of these were previously covered by private health insurance but when they became eligible for Medicaid under the ObamaCare expansion guidelines, they dropped their private plans and enrolled in Medicaid. In other words, they stopped paying for their own health insurance and let the taxpayers pay for their coverage.

ObamaCare has been generally good for the poor, especially those who previously earned too much to qualify before the new eligibility rules. Those Americans now are either eligible for Medicaid or eligible for large government subsidies to purchase private health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges. For these people, ObamaCare has provided coverage, albeit in plans with poor access to healthcare like Medicaid and ObamaCare exchange plans.

But for those in the middle class who earn too much to qualify for government subsidies, ObamaCare has resulted in high premiums and high deductibles that many have considered unaffordable or not worth the expense. They’d rather go without insurance than pay high prices for healthcare coverage they don’t need. This has significant ramifications for the insurance market as a whole.

According to health insurance industry analyst, Robert Laszewski, only 40% of the individual market is insured because the costs are too prohibitive. Laszewksi explains how this impacts the market:

“Given the unattractiveness of the ObamaCare individual market policies, we never had more than 40% of the subsidy eligible sign-up for coverage (75% are needed for a balanced and efficient risk pool) leading to very expensive policy premiums and a cycle of ever higher premiums driving out even more of the unsubsidized who could no longer afford the premiums and deductibles – family plans costing $15,000 to $20,000 a year with $7,000 individual deductibles were not uncommon.”

On the winning side are the private insurance companies. Insurance companies have raised their rates since the subsidies insulate those people from the higher premiums and deductibles. The highly subsidized don’t feel the impact – the taxpayers do. In fact, the insurance industry will pay out $800 million in consumer rebates this year because they exceeded maximum profit limitsunder the law. Hospitals are also benefiting from the expansion of Medicaid and the increase in coverage of the poor under ObamaCare.

Insurance companies also profit from the Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare because two thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries (54 million) are now enrolled in private Medicaid contracts with $300 billion in Medicaid money paid through health insurers. This is an increase from only 60 billion ten years ago, before ObamaCare.

Losers are anyone who doesn’t qualify for government subsidies for their health insurance. Many of these cannot afford private insurance coverage if it is not provided by their employer. But even those who get their insurance through their employer are losers because the rising costs of these policies is hurting the profits of their employers and preventing them from wage increases they should be getting if not for these rising healthcare costs. For some, the increase in business expenses leads to failure of the business and the loss of their jobs.

In summary:

  • ObamaCare Winners
    • Very poor and poor Americans
    • Private insurance companies
    • Hospitals
  • ObamaCare Losers
    • Middle class Americans
    • Upper class Americans
    • All Taxpayers
    • Employers and employees