WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Americans Urge Elected Officials To Build On What Is Working, Reject One-Size-Fits-All Health Care
WASHINGTON – As voters are made aware of the unaffordable costs and tax hikes associated with new government-controlled health insurance systems, voices throughout the nation are encouraging elected officials to oppose a one-size-fits-all system that will force Americans to pay more to wait longer for worse care.
… The left-leaning Urban Institute and the right-leaning Mercatus Center both estimate [Medicare for All] would cost $32 trillion over the next ten years which would be borne by American taxpayers … Furthermore, the various proposals fail to address the very real issue of rising health costs whether the people or the government (the taxpayers really) foot the bill … With a one-size-fits-all government insurance plan, the level of government payments to health care providers might force some – especially small community hospitals and medical offices out of business. After all, providers already complain that Medicare and Medicaid payments are inadequate. Furthermore, we often read media reports that the Medicare Trust Fund could be running out of money, and that’s only covering our seniors and younger people with disabilities at this point … Before we all sign on to the new, untried “Medicare for All” proposal, why not work to improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that currently governs our health care?We should encourage our Congressional representatives make the ACA work better for all of us before they scrap a plan that has expanded access to affordable care. Neither our family’s health nor our country’s economic security should be sacrificed for some catchy, but unproven, political gambit!
… [A] government-run health care insurance system – whether it is formed immediately through a Medicare for All or single-payer approach or gradually through a Medicare “buy-in” or public option proposal – would threaten the viability of both private and employer-based plans … Gradually, a government-backed insurance option would crowd out the marketplaceuntil it is the only option left available. That means hundreds of millions of Americans will lose their current coverage for something that is simply unknown.
The only thing we can truly be sure of is that it will come at a high price for taxpayers. How could it not? With an estimated price tag of more than $30 trillion over the first decade, a government-run health care system will necessitate steep tax increases. In exchange, Americans will not see improved health care outcomes, but instead only longer waiting times for patients, uneven quality of care, and diminished access in rural areas. As a matter of fact, a study by Navigant Consulting illustrates just how bad things could get under a government-run health care system … It found that such a public option “could place as many as 55 percent of rural hospitals … at high risk of closure.” To put that in context, that’s more than 1,000 rural hospitals across 46 states nationwide. These facilities employ roughly 420,000 workers.
… Rather than risking everything on an uncertain future, both policymakers and presidential candidates should be examining more realistic proposals, including expanding tax incentives for low-income families, expanding Medicaid in the state, and increasing education around enrollment. We all want to live in a country where all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health care, but we will never reach that goal by eliminating private and employer-sponsored coverage. Unfortunately, that is precisely what Medicare for All, single payer, and even a public option would eventually do. Michiganders – and all Americans – deserve a better approach.
All this talk about doing away with our entire health care system as we know it and replacing it with a government-controlled system has many people me, including me, rightfully concerned. For those of us living in agricultural communities, these “discussions” seem to always gloss over the impact of government-run programs like Medicare for All or a public option on rural health care.
… According to a study by Navigant released this summer, introducing a public option to compete with private and employer-sponsored health care insurance plans would put 55 percent of America’s rural hospitals at a high risk of closure … That will just limit access and choice, increase waiting times, and drive up prices for hardworking, rural families like mine … We should focus on fixing what’s broken with the ACA and work on building upon what’s working well.