Medicare for All

Bernie Sanders' New Favorite Medicare for All Study Has Major Problems

Medicare for All would cost far, far more than he says.


Has any question taken up more airtime at the Democratic debates than how to pay for Medicare for All? The question keeps being asked partly because multiple estimates have found that the single-payer plan, which would eliminate virtually all private health insurance, would require more than $30 trillion in additional government spending over a decade, a historically unprecedented sum. But it has also been a fixture because of the way it has caused candidates to stumble in revealing ways. 

No primary candidate is more closely associated with Medicare for All than the current front-runner and likely nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). At last night's debate, Sanders was once again asked how he would pay for the plan. He responded by citing a study "that just came out of Yale University, published in Lancet magazine, one of the prestigious medical journals in the world." The study, co-written by a former unpaid Sanders adviser, purports to show that Sanders' Medicare for All plan would save $450 billion a year, and 68,000 lives. 

A detailed article produced by Kaiser Health News and Politifact, however, rates Sanders' claim "mostly false." The true part is that such a study exists. The false rating comes from the story's conclusion that the Lancet study's major findings are wildly disingenuous because they ignore or discount much of the evidence about what effects such a program would have on the health care system.

The Lancet study assumes, for example, that the Sanders plan could pay Medicare rates across the board. Medicare rates are far lower than private insurance rates, and the hospital lobby is a powerful political force that has successfully fought off payment reductions in multiple venues. When Washington state set up a government-run health insurance plan, state lawmakers ended up boosting rates to about 170 percent of what Medicare pays. 

The Lancet study Sanders cites also lowballs the likely increase in utilization that would come from eliminating copayments and other cost-sharing mechanisms, as Sanders' Medicare for All plan calls for. Although it allows that the newly insured would use more care, it assumes that the currently insured would not seek to use more health services. As Harvard health policy researcher Adrianna McIntyre points out, that's deeply unrealistic. 

Beyond the clear evidence from health policy research, it is worth thinking about this claim if it were in reverse: Supporters of Sanders' Medicare for All plan sometimes portray copayments, premiums, and other forms of cost-sharing as obstacles to accessing health care services, which is presumably why the Sanders plan eliminates them. If adding cost-sharing to a health care system would reduce access, and thus reduce utilization, then  removing cost-sharing would produce the opposite effect in the form of increased utilization, and thus increased spending. 

There are other problems as well, most notably that the study simply doesn't account for about $4 trillion in expected long-term care spending that would be part of the bill under Sanders' Medicare for All plan. 

And as McIntyre also points out, the study handwaves away research suggesting that its headline "lives saved" figure is substantially overstated. The authors pull a favorable number from a single 2009 study, note the existence of some other research that would result in a much lower number of saved lives, and then call their own number "highly conservative."

One might argue that this is only one study. And Sanders made the case last night that there's a large body of evidence to support his contention that his plan would save money—indeed, he claimed that there is no dispute whatsoever about this conclusion. "What every study out thereconservative or progressivesays, Medicare for All will save money," he said. 

In this case, Sanders' claim is not mostly false. It is flatly untrue. 

A study by the left-leaning Urban Institute, for example, found that total health care spending in the U.S. would increase by $7 trillion over a decade under a Medicare for All-like single-payer plan, even making allowances for savings from lower prices and administrative costs. Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner points to several other studies undercutting Sanders' claim as well. 

The question of how to pay for Medicare for All has come up quite frequently in the debates, and the repetition may even be having a substantial impact on the race. 

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), who initially endorsed "Medicaid for All" (getting the name wrong) in 2017, struggled with the question throughout 2019, appearing to flip-flop several times in response to pushback. Her stumbles probably contributed to her declining position in the race, and she eventually left the field. 

After being repeatedly pressed about why she had plans for everything except how to pay for Medicare for All, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) released a complex financing scheme. This generated substantial criticism and helped demonstrate how she relies on a veneer of wonkiness to avoid tough questions. Eventually, Warren released a second plan that called for a delayed implementation of full-fledged Medicare for All, which many (understandably) read as a sign that she wasn't serious about the idea, and had only backed it in hopes of improving her appeal to Sanders voters. In the following weeks, Warren's poll numbers plunged, and she has trailed in the race ever since. 

In both cases, we learned something essential about the candidates and how they respond to pressure: Harris didn't have a firm initial grasp of the policy mechanics, and she flailed and flip-flopped in search of a politically palatable answer. Warren bandwagoned with the most progressive candidate, eventually releasing a dubious (but detailed) plan that suggested she wasn't serious, then followed it with another one that undercut the first, all while pretending it didn't. 

The same is now true of Sanders. And his response, it appears, is to point to an obviously unsound study conducted by a sympathetic voice, and then lie about the rest of the existing research. The Medicare for All financing question is not just a policy question. It is a test of character—and Sanders failed it.  

NEXT: While Trump Was Praising Modi for Religious Freedom, Modi-Supporting Hindus Slaughtered Muslims in the Streets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When Bernie screws up like this, it makes it easier for Peter to pull the lever for Bloomberg instead.

    1. If only there were some Libertarian candidates they could talk about or consider voting for. Too bad Democrats are their only option, it must really keep them up at night.

  2. “It is a test of character—and Sanders failed it. ” I am SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED!!

  3. Libertarian writer Megan McArdle has made a convincing argument that libertarians should support Sanders over Drumpf. Although she doesn’t directly reference immigration, McArdle notes that Drumpf wastes time on Twitter when he should be preparing the country to survive this terrifying pandemic.


    1. And don’t forget that if M4A passes, it will motivate even more immigrants to come to the US — which is the primary objective of Koch / Reason libertarianism.


    2. You’re right, Trump should just begin the holocaust now to save lives.
      #Orange Hitler is a humanitarian.

      1. Yours is the commentary of the terminally stupid. If there is a Hitler wannabe, it is this spit spraying Marxist nut. Torture, beating and murder of dissidents is fine with Bernie because they had 96% literacy, allowing the average Cuban to read the Castro propaganda posters. Before the great literacy campaign, the literacy rate was estimated to be somewhere in the 60-76% range, on par with Democrat controlled cities like Detroit that have a 40% functional illiteracy rate.

        When ignorant people have nothing to say, the spew the Hitler tag thinking it makes them smart. It doesn’t!

        1. “Black is white. Up is down. Left is right. Marxists are Nazis.”
          – An unknown scholar and sage, circa 2020

          1. Nazis were/are explicitly Marxist

            1. Hard to be a Marxist when you vociferously reject the central tenets of Marx’s views.

              1. State control of the means of production?

                State deciding what everyone needs?

                State slaughter of inconvenient people?

                No, I think the Nazis were right in line.

                1. ^ Don’t forget the part where Hitler literally plagiarized that whole “Jewish Question” thing straight from Marx.

                2. Yeah, so turns out there are more economic/political structures than just statism and anarchy.

        2. Sarcasm dude. I making fun of their post.

    3. “when he should be preparing the country to survive this terrifying pandemic.”

      Doing what? Screaming in terror and running around with his hair on fire? Opening the White House to flu patients?

      1. Ironically, stopping flu patients at the border.

      2. Getting the carts ready to collect the dead.

          I know I’ve made the same joke three days in a row, but I truly believe this is the level of concern we should have until evidence shows otherwise.


            Some day a people will look back upon this time and wonder, when one among them will discover the answer: too much soy in the diet

  4. “that just came out of Yale University, published in Lancet magazine, one of the prestigious medical journals in the world.”

    I, for one, always look to prestigious medical journals for financial and economic analysis

    1. I’m confused as to how the Lancet is still considered prestigious personally.

  5. The basic problem with all government-run or -controlled programs is government itself, a notoriously inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy. One has only to look at the DMV and post office for examples of extremely simple functions which government turns into the butt of all government jokes.

    The reason is well-known: businesses are just as capable of bungling even the simplest of projects — but then they go out of business and free up all those resources (people, money, assets) for other uses. Government never fails, never shuts down incompetent bunglers, never frees up bungled resources for other uses.

    And these clowns just can’t get that through their thick skulls.

    Only slightly OT: Just once, I wish someone would ask these clowns why they think raising business taxes is a good idea. They’d sputter out businesses paying their fair share, and you’d ask back who they think pays business taxes? It sure ain’t businesses: they pass ALL their costs on through to consumers: labor, assets, inputs, all are reflected in the retail price, including taxes!

    Bunch of fucking morons, the lot.

    1. You’re only looking at phase 1, comrade.

      Obviously those businesses passing their increased expenses along to the consumer can’t be tolerated, their greed continues to cause problems. If the kulaks and wreckers insist on this behavior, well the government would have no choice but to directly control prices so that fairness is achieved.

      1. A pound or several of flesh!

    2. People who think government programs can be better and more efficient than the private sector have either never worked for the government or they currently work for the government and want to preserve their cushy jobs.

      1. Or they expect to work for the government. Got to do something with that master’s in art degree.

        1. Or “[Something] Studies”

      2. I think most of them are just too damned naive, from being young and immature, to understand that the DMV and post office are the best that government can do. Plus — how much do most people deal with the DMV — once to get the student license, once to get the real one, and hardly ever after again. The post office — they pick up mail some, but don’t depend on it, and the expense and waste and cumbersome bureaucracy are invisible.

        Whereas roads are visible signs of government prowess, and they don’t think of traffic jams as anything unusual and avoidable.

        They just have no contact or experience with government bureaucracy.

        1. “Whereas roads are visible signs of government prowess, and they don’t think of traffic jams as anything unusual and avoidable.”

          They actually go further, blaming traffic jams on automakers and oil companies, and positing government-run trains as the solution.

    3. The reason is well-known: businesses are just as capable of bungling even the simplest of projects — but then they go out of business and free up all those resources (people, money, assets) for other uses. Government never fails, never shuts down incompetent bunglers, never frees up bungled resources for other uses.

      This has become dangerously fatalistic virtue signaling among self-proclaimed libertarians. R’s too but their motives are more corrupt. The notion that the market drives bunglers out of business by magic – but that govt bungling can’t be affected at all because of ‘reasons’.

      We are simply a very different people now than the ones de Toqueville described:
      The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there… Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate…
      In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.

      We no longer do any of that. We watch TV and surf via smartphone but not to actually connect in any real association. We have created a mindset where only commercial/industrial associations and political associations exist. With lazy delusions about how either of those can expand to fill the vacuum left by the absence now of all the neither-of-the-above associations in which we used to engage.

      1. I too read Putnam, though I suspect a great amount of it boils down to generational wangsting.

        1. That’s certainly what he says. I disagree and find it unfortunate that he used a triviality (bowling) to make his point.

          I think the change that truly killed CIVIC association was the elimination of individual school boards and consolidation into school districts over the 20th century.

          Schools were always the major focus for those associations. An individually managed school was managed by a board of 10 or so volunteer parents/neighbors. They would hire the teacher, set tax rates, oversee construction, etc. At its height, that required about 1.5-2 million board volunteers every year (at a time when there were about 100 million peeps) – and there was never a shortage because serving on school board was one of those activities that defined who was ‘respectable’ in the community.

          By 1932, the first wave of consolidation (consolidating one-room schoolhouses into individual elementary/middle/high) had pretty much happened. But even then, there were still 120,000 individually managed ‘school governance entities’ – requiring about a million adult volunteers (again though no shortage). After WW2, we eliminated about 90% of those entities so by 1965 we had about 15,000 ‘school districts’ (about the same today). Which were now too complex for volunteers/parents to manage. So it all became ‘professionalized’. Eliminating ALL of that volunteer requirement and reducing everyone’s role to ‘vote for someone else to do it’. And no accident IMO that’s also when education costs started skyrocketing and quality deteriorated.

      2. You are an idiot. You don’t have a clue how markets or governments work.

        Markets aren’t instantaneous, but as slow as they are, they are infinitely faster than a government which never discards failed agencies. What government agencies do you know of which have been discarded?

        You are comparing an ideal government against a real and crony-filled market, which still manages to reward competency better than government.

        You are a damned fool.

        1. I repeat. Markets don’t hold bunglers accountable because – magic. They work because people DECIDE TO ACT to hold bunglers accountable. Likewise, we choose to FAIL TO ACT when we, basically, invest a max of 30 minutes every 2-4 years to hold the govt bunglers accountable. In both cases, that accountability rests completely on our decisions to act or not act. It’s not someone/something else’s fault. It’s the fault of the guy you look at in the mirror.

          The reason the neither-of-the-above associations worked from deToqueville’s day – and maybe up to the 1929 crash – is because individuals-in-voluntary-association zealously guarded that freedom to act in voluntary association. They guarded that freedom from both commercial/industrial intrusion (anti-monopoly stuff) as well as government intrusion. Even AJ Nock understood that when he used the term ‘social power’ to describe what he himself was far too antisocial (for Groucho Marxist reasons) to ever join.

          You market fundamentalists however actually do believe that only commercial/industrial associations need exist. Everyone else without the power to guide (or receive the profit from) those associations can just watch ads on TV/Internet. And somehow that will make them powerful enough to act. And you pretend that everyone who opposes that BS is just some commie who wants only govt to exist.

          1. “They work because people DECIDE TO ACT”.

            Right. So what would you call someone who knows damn well how wasteful and inefficient government is, yet still spends time bemoaning tax cuts and whining about his/her perception of what someone else’s “fair share” should be?

            A useful idiot? An enabler?


          2. You just pile on the ignorance. Markets work like they do because that is what markets do. No magic necessary. Markets are crowds of people acting spontaneously to trade with each other, and that is markets. Who the heck said anything about magic?

            May as well claim that I said gravity works because MAGIC.

            Markets are created by people, but not designed by people. You damned statists can’t comprehend spontaneous anything — you act as if government designs society, then get all freaked out when someone says “market” and act like tehy don’t exist because government didn’t create them.

            Blow off.

          3. “Markets don’t hold bunglers accountable because – magic.”

            I see you missed this earlier comment:
            “You are an idiot. You don’t have a clue how markets or governments work.”
            Read it and internalize it; it’s true.

      3. No one ever said it was magic that drove business bunglers out of business – it’s competition, plain and simple.

        And where competition doesn’t work to eliminate bunglers, you can be certain government is involved, tilting the scales to keep those bunglers collecting rent.

      4. We no longer do any of that

        We don’t?

        What is it you think you’re doing right now?

        Because the structure of the associations has evolved, it doesn’t mean that they no longer exist.

        I, personally, am a member of numerous associations, political, business related, civic minded, recreational. We just helped throw a parade and celebration for Mardi Gras.

        Another group helps provide basic packs for schools–pencils, pens, notebooks.

        Another engages in medieval and fantasy re-enactment.

        Still another engages in sculpting.

        And then there are the various political and social talking groups.

        You are, as the saying goes, talking out your ass.

  6. 4 more is looking better every day, no?

    Even if you loathe the orange haired son of a bitch.

    1. Excuse me, orange haired pussy grabbing son of a bitch.

      1. Just an FYI–

        Trump neither has orange hair (it’s his skin they’re referring to) nor ever said that he’d grabbed a pussy (he said that if you’re rich, they’ll let you grab them by the pussy. He later went on to say that he could kiss his co-star’s cheek because he’d gotten permission from his wife)


        orange skinned pussy whipped son of a bitch.

        works just a touch more accurately.

    2. Just watching people freak out again would be worth 4 more years.

      1. The only thing better than watching people freak out over 4 more years of Trump would be if Warren or Klobuchar managed to win, and Hillary Clinton attended the inauguralation as a former First Lady and had witness another woman taking the oath of office that she, for her entire life, thought she’d be taking. So sweet.

        1. As much as I revile and LOATHE that broom bound creature, it would not be worth having either of those other hags around the kettle being in charge.

        2. That’s like finding out you got an STD, but it’s only Hep C and not HIV. I want neither and finding out I got the other doesn’t make me feel better.

          1. Of all of them Klobuchar is probably the most tolerable, from a policy point of view. Not great but barely worse than Bill Clinton.

      2. It will definitely be must see tv

    3. i’ll take another Trump term just for 2 or 3 more SCOTUS appointments.

      1. Hell yes, and a dozen or more appellate and hundred district court appointments; constitutional republic?

  7. the study simply doesn’t account for about $4 trillion in expected long-term care spending

    OK, Boomer.

    Am I doing this right?

    1. Math is racist and sexist. You forgot to add that.

      1. Yep. Western cultural hegemony. Learned about it in my cultural studies class.

  8. “Bernie Sanders’ New Favorite Medicare for All Study Has Major Problems”

    And of course Reasons does not even touch on the libertarian rationale for opposing the program – it is an authoritarian program based upon stater-mandated associations as opposed to freedom of association.

    Not that Reason gives a damn about actual principles.

    1. Don’t forget about all the funding obtained at gunpoint, but I guess that’s only a problem when it’s used to build a wall instead of a hospital.

      1. Look, when your hung up on fighting for the rights of people who don’t believe in rights you can’t be bothered with the violation of the rights of people who do. Distractions like that are self-defeating and make you unpopular.

    2. Welcome to Reason! Since this is your first time here I suggest you use the search function to look up other articles they’ve posted on the subject of Medicare and Medicare for All. You’ll see that they’ve made many arguments against it, including the one you stated. This particular article is probably focused only on the study in question because it just came out and Sanders just started citing it. Obviously they can’t make every argument against Medicare 4 All in every article about it. That’s would require a book.

  9. Peter, your analyses of health care policy are without peer and keep me coming back here. Well, that and Nick G. But what would really be great would be if you started a youtube channel with cocktail recipes, and your cocktail experiments. Love the gems you share on twitter. But we need more. Searched youtube today hoping for something along those lines, and nothing. Once the health care rationing starts we’re all going to need some good cocktails. Help us out.

  10. The cost savings and funding are easy to see and implement.
    A) take all assets from all people with a net worth greater than Sanders’ net worth
    B) since all medical care will be single payer, the nurses, tecs, doctors, etc don’t need to be paid. They will be given food, shelter, and everything else they will ever own on a per need basis to be determined by a new ministry of health
    3) care will be rationed in order of support for Sanders. The people that donated money will get medical treatment. The ones that voted for him will be next. The clingers that voted against him will be given poison the next time they go to the hospital, and those that didn’t vote will be denied medical service, because not participating in the revolution is a sign that you are a clinging dissenter.

    As always the clingers on this sight will complain, but that’s because you are all racist and are afraid of having your work betters cram what’s best for you down your neck

    1. You joke but some in England already are proposing that their healthcare system be further rationed based on a social score. They want to further punish people for wrong think.

      1. It all progresses toward a logical outcome. Step or two at a time, until all pretense is lost and then you get slammed in the head with a rifle butt, or have a bag put over your head.

        1. And all the while ”””””libertarians””””” telling you how wonderful the glorious future will be after the revolution.

          1. The glory is that everyone will be equal and share and share alike, except for some other animals who have to do all the thinking, and purging.

    2. Why base it off Sanders, he’s a fucking hypocrite. 3 houses, millionaire, his wife use to run a college. Ya Bernie is just like the common man, scraping by. At least if you’re gonna steal from people go full retard and take everything from everybody. That’s what com feminists are good at.

      1. Because Bernie is a man of the people, and as the only person who care about the prolitariate he is the maximum of what acceptable wealth is

        1. Well you know with communism some people have to be rich when everyone else is destitute..someone has to direct those breadlines.

        2. Ever read “Interesting Times” by Sir Terry Pratchett? I think it is a perfect analogy for the current Democratic field. Of course they are doing it for the workers but the workers aren’t educated enough so they can’t be in charge, but the elite of the revolution will have to be. And what do the workers want… A longer buffalo harness so they don’t step in so much bullshit when working their fields.

          1. I loved Rincewind’s observation about Oriental cooking in that book. Basically, broke starving people have to get really creative.

            A ton of jokes taking the piss at Communism there too.

  11. God, I am so sick of hearing about people’s obsessions with their medical bills. It’s so boring. Get another hobby.

    1. Get another hobby.


      Go identify as trans or something and shut up about being poor and sick already!

  12. And yet we all have to reluctantly accept this plan just we did Obamacare because whatever Republicans propose is infinitely worse.

    Hey, at least Bernie isn’t going to get us into a war in Syria like Trump! And can you believe that Trump didn’t commit troops to Syria and abandoned our precious Kurdish allies?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    1. Turkish Delight.

    2. Infinitely worse? So you are saying the current system is infinitely worse since I don’t see a Republican plan. Hummm

    3. OK, an OBL sock?

  13. No primary candidate is more closely associated with Medicare for All than the current front-runner and likely nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.).

    Can you please lay off the backhanded prognostication and narrative driving? It’s still very early in the game.

    1. Are we talking about the Trump regime now?

  14. And I’m just sitting here wondering how we got to the place wjere our only choices on fixing the incredibly screwed up healthcare system is sticking with the same screwed up system or a total government takeover.

    Seriously? There is no other option?

    1. There is, but it doesn’t involve free shit so it isn’t considered viable.

    2. Not for the people making the decisions. They WANT it this way.

    3. Agreed, I wondered why everyone got so so hung up on repeal and replace, just repeal. Most states will figure it out. I’ll admit, MN had a decent program addressing low income and hard to insure people.

  15. Sudermen, sigh, you aren’t given Bernie enough credit. Biden said that since 2009 150 million American’s have died because of guns. Bernie will make that true so that his costs are kept down.


  16. Well, do any of the studies take into account the number of ex-employees in the health insurance, energy, finance, and state government sectors?
    I mean after Bernie’s first day in office, there will be millions starving because they no longer have an industry, let alone a job.

  17. Has anyone even considered all the job losses and investment losses and resulting reduction of tax revenue from the then unemployed insurance industry employees?

    1. Has anyone even considered all the job losses and investment losses and resulting reduction of tax revenue from the then unemployed insurance industry employees?

  18. “Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), who initially endorsed “Medicaid for All” (getting the name wrong) in 2017, struggled with the question throughout 2019, appearing to flip-flop several times in response to pushback.”

    Getting the name wrong, or accidentally using a more accurate name?

    1. Medicaide is a more accurate description of Sanders proposal.
      But since it for poor people he decided not to use it. It also has lower reimbursements than Medicare.

  19. Bernie is proposing Medicaid for All, not Medicare for All. Medicare allows for private supplemental plans that citizens enjoy. Medicaid isn’t well-liked and is much closer to what Bernie Sanders is proposing and into which everyone will be forced.

    1. Does anyone realize that Germany and the UK allow private insurance? Why is Bernie outlawing it? If the new gumment system is so much better most people will use it as they do in Germany and the UK. 75% of Canadians have some supplemental private insurance.

  20. How many Americans has given Bernie a Power of Attorney to handle their healthcare for them again???

    The arrogance of some of these politicians is just baffling. Bernie – you go do what you want with your healthcare but don’t “pretend” in you “I’m King” fairy-tale you have any say in mine..

    1. freak-en slavers to the max!!!

  21. Ah yes, the classic “I don’t care what the studies say and how much every other first world country on earth pays, it would bankrupt us if we did it here!” argument. Because obviously there’s no way we’d have any option besides pay as much or more for services despite every other system paying far far less.

    1. We have lots of options. We could eliminate the artificial doctor cap. We could repeal Certificate of Need laws. We could even work out some sort of doctor reciprocity deal where foreign doctors graduating from specific schools can skip residency.

      However, none of that aligns with the incentives of the people making the decisions, so we’ll be paying inflated prices for health care until the system collapses.

    2. Ya right psycho-path… In the early 1900’s it was Medicare that would save us all and be cheap. In 2009 it was the “AFFORDABLE”??? Care Act (Obamacare).. In 2020 now it’s Medicare for all..

      AND GUESS WHAT !!-REALITY-!! DENIER — Healthcare has just gotten MORE and MORE expensive over the years.

      You’ll be tooting your horn about “affordability” until absolutely NO-ONE can afford it.

    3. We already have an excellent example and prototype of Comrade Bernie’s plan: its called the Veterans Administration, and it is a disaster.

      If this is how the USG treats those that fought for the empire, imagine how it will treat the rest of us.

      If the goal is low-cost, excellent health care, get the government as far away from it as possible.

      You know, like back before LBJ’s “Great Society”, when the our healthcare was the envy of the world.

    4. fafalone
      February.26.2020 at 9:27 pm
      “Ah yes, the classic “I don’t care what the studies say and how much every other first world country on earth pays, it would bankrupt us if we did it here!” argument.”

      Yeah, don’t let actual numbers get in the way of lefty fantasies!
      Fuck off, slaver.

  22. Socialists slaughtered some 150 million souls in the last century, and impoverished and displaced countless more with their economic central planning and social engineering schemes.

    Anyone who self-identifies as a socialist explicitly endorses this legacy of genocide and economic and social catastrophe.

    Comrade Bernie is a depraved barbarian.

  23. Getting paid easily every month from home by doing very easy and simple job from home. I have received my 3rd paycheck of $19852 last month from this home based easy job in part time. Every person can get this job and start making real cash online by follow details here……Read MoRe 

  24. I thought Reason was chock-a-block full of Bernie bros and hos. How did this get posted?

  25. Any analysis around the number of doctors currently at or near retirement age who decide to hang it up rather than deal with .gov if M4A were to become a thing?

    maybe its nothing, maybe its something. i’d like to see them at least consider it.

    1. Doctors deal with the government all the’s called licensing. I bet no doctor wants to end this aspect of government control!

      1. I more meant the doctors who decide that getting reimbursed 60 cents on the dollar isn’t worthwhile just because they can save on two billers in their back office

        1. You are missing the point I was trying to make. The supply of medical services is tightly controlled with SEVERELY limits competition and inflates prices sometimes 10x over other INDUSTRIALIZED countries. While doctors have the luxuries of choosing the prices the work for, most patients meanwhile compete with 3rd world labor.

          In other words there is very little free market in us healthcare -it’s socialism for medical providers and capitalism for patients.

  26. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link……Read MoRe

  27. Bernie’s Medicare for all would largely eliminate the role of private health insurance companies and employers in providing health insurance and paying for healthcare It would be also expanded to cover everyone and would include much more robust that are not currently covered by Medicare right now

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.