WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Americans Urge Elected Officials To Build On What Is Working, Reject One-Size-Fits-All Health Care
WASHINGTON – After the higher taxes and harmful consequences of new government-controlled health insurance systems were highlighted for Americans during last week’s presidential debate, voters throughout the nation are encouraging elected officials to oppose a one-size-fits-all system that will force American families to pay more to wait longer for worse care.
… While the promise of Medicare for All or a public option may sound alluring, these kinds of government-controlled health care insurance systems would likely only make it that much harder for patients in need to access and afford the vital care they need. According to a recent study released by FTI Consulting, introducing a public option to “compete” on the ACA’s health care exchanges would eventually crowd out the individual insurance marketplace and force millions of Americans off their private insurance. In fact, the study found that after the introduction of the public option “20 percent of state marketplaces would no longer offer a single private insurance option by 2028.” By 2050, that figure would grow to nearly 70%,“representing nearly a quarter of marketplace enrollees.”
The study also found that within the first year following the introduction of a public option, “over 130,000 Americans enrolled in ACA coverage would be forced off of their existing health care plan.” Over a decade, that figure would swell to up to 2 million, and by the end of that decade, over 7 million Americans would no longer have access to private health insurance. Instead of giving patients more options, the study found that the public option would reduce choices and force Americans into a one-size-fits-all government health insurance system.
… [A] public option or Medicare for All system would only lead to higher costs for hardworking American families, less access for and a lower quality of care, and less control over the doctors and treatments that would be covered for patients in need.Patients would end up spending more for poorer health care outcomes as private and employer-sponsored premiums rise because the public option or Medicare for All system would slash payments to doctors, forcing providers to shift those costs to those in the private market. This is no way to solve America’s health care woes.
During this election season, we continue to hear Democratic candidates and others talk about how “Medicare for All” will provide the best health care for everyone in America … Our representatives in Washington allude to supporting public options plans, such as Pete Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It.” Yet no one talks about the staggering costs associated with free medical coverage for millions of Americans at the expense of individuals and businesses. A recent study showed that these plans would force one-third of Americans off their current employer-backed health care coverage, replacing it with an unknown and unproven system run entirely by the federal government.“Medicare for All” plans will bankrupt the country, raise taxes and put quality care …in total jeopardy.
… Unfortunately, these achievements are threatened by a push to replace the current system with a one-size-fits-all government-run program, often referred to as Medicare for All … This may sound appealing, but it would have negative consequences that proponents downplay.
First, the cost to taxpayers would be astronomical … Given the current Medicaid deficit, New Yorkers should not feel comfortable with the costs of a single-payer system. Another problem: Wait times to see doctors would increase dramatically … A Fraser Institute survey of the Canadian health care system — similar to what the act suggests — found a median wait time of 19.8 weeks from when a patient receives a general practitioner referral to the moment medical treatment is received.
… While more can be done to improve our health care system, the solution is not to throw out all the progress we have already made.