September 22, 2020 | Updates

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Americans Urge Elected Officials To Build On What Is Working, Reject One-Size-Fits-All Government Health Insurance Systems

WASHINGTON – As health care remains at the top of voters’ minds, Americans throughout the nation are encouraging elected officials to oppose a one-size-fits-all government health insurance system that will force American families to pay more for worse care.

Isaac Serna, Arizona:

I simply cannot support government-controlled health care schemes like the public option or Medicare for all.  Either of these plans would have a debilitating impact on America’s health care system, leaving it less capable of ensuring access to care for all those who need it … According to a recent study, a public option could increase operating losses at hospitals serving rural and underserved communities by up to 40 percent.  With so many of these facilities already operating on razor-thin margins, this could result in vital services being cut or hospitals going out of business permanently.

Either way, vulnerable Arizonans are hurt. We don’t need to overturn our entire health care system to improve it; we just need to fix the parts that are broken while expanding upon what is working well. 

Evan Nelson, Businessman, New Hampshire

Government-controlled health insurance proposals like the public option or Medicare for all would increase costs, reduce options for small businesses and employees, and undermine healthcare access and delivery … If implemented, the public option would be placed alongside private and employer-sponsored healthcare plans to “compete” in the individual marketplace … Eventually, private insurers like the ones we count on to provide our employees with flexible coverage options would begin to exit the marketplace.  For the private plans that remain, premiums would be pushed increasingly higher as options continue to dwindle.  

… Furthermore, a government-controlled healthcare insurance system would be fiscally irresponsible.  The sheer magnitude of such a program is overwhelming; some projections suggest it could grow into the third-largest government program, just after Medicare and Social Security.  What’s more, it could require a massive payroll tax increase on hardworking Americans at a time when so many are still struggling to recover from the economic downturn we are still very much in.

David Young, Businessman and Former North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, North Carolina

… During these perilous and unprecedented times, we ought to be building on the ACA’s strength, not undermining it with risky new government insurance systems that some have proposed and supported, like Medicare for All … But even under the best of economic circumstances, the consequences of Medicare for All or other option are concerning.  Medicare for All would cost an additional $32 trillion in federal spending over the first 10 years alone. The only way to obtain the revenue needed to implement these government-run systems is to raise taxes, and experts agree that the middle class would get hit hard … it’s clear – especially given the mounting uncertainty families and small businesses face today – that we cannot afford a new government-run health care program.

Dick Harris, Pennsylvania

We can all agree there is more work to do to make health care more affordable and accessible in Pennsylvania and across the country.  However, that need for reform doesn’t give lawmakers license to upend our entire health care system and attempt to force through a government-controlled health care insurance system that would increase taxes and threaten hospitals, emergency rooms and other providers serving our hard-hit-and hard-to-reach-rural communities.  Rural health care was on shaky ground long before the current health care crisis.  According to a new study, a public option could make things much worse, leading to a 40% increase in operating losses for hospitals serving rural and underserved communities.  This would only serve to increase the rate of rural hospital closures, undercutting access to particularly vulnerable patients who often contend with higher incidences of chronic health conditions.


Privacy Policy