I heard Bernie talking his plan up on NPR. The claims he makes are just absurd. He claimed that half of the expenditure all of American health care is because of having multiple options, and that by eliminating that he’d cut the cost in half.

Well, 50% is bullshit. But he’s directionally correct, in that eliminating freedom tends to lead to efficiency. A former (I think…?) communist like Crazy Uncle Bernie knows that.

The larger question, which the communists and socialists do not like to answer, is why they think that freedom of choice is something that one should put a price tag on.

But when the host turned to adding the private expenditrues to the government budget he then also claimed that two-thirds of all U.S. healthcare spending was already through the government so it was no big deal. These two claims are in direct opposition.

If the government is paying 2/3rds of the cost today, then half of the total cost can not come from the remaining 1/3rd. Now realistically he is either ignorant of the facts, or is playing hide the sausage with the numbers to even try to make a claim like that. Yet in either case, what does that indicate about his plan? To me it says it is fatally flawed, at best.

Sure. There’s a video trending of Bernie from back in the late 80’s I believe, stating that single payer was impossible financially. THEN. If it was impossible financially THEN, its MORE financially now, because the delta between the current cost of goods and services is far more overinflated than it was then.

This leads me to my view that Bernie, and the sycophants that are lining up behind this bill, don’t really give a shit about implementing it; to them, the proposal is a Route to Power, and once in power, they’ll just do a Trump vis a vis “the Wall” and just start dragging their feet and hope that their voters don’t punish them.

Regarding the 2/3…….by my math this is more like 50%, but that was pre-ACA ….. yes, some majority percentage of health care today is paid for by a government check, and the goods and services that are paid for by the government are being vended outside of market price controls (and private market fraud controls, it should be said.) Hence, hyperinflation, which has continued at a 2*COLA average rate since Medicare was fully deployed. Ironic, that Medicare is both the savior of the elderly and the cause of medical hyperinflation.

(At this point, Medicare premiums are pegged at around 13%-ish of what the actuarial premium of the policy. Because the Medicare premiums are pegged to CPI-U (IIRC), and health care services inflation runs at 2 X CPI-U, Medicare keeps getting to be a better and better deal for its recipients, but more and more costly for the Trust Fund, until around 2030 when Medicare benefits get cut in half and retirees like me (at that time) will have to either move abroad or watch our savings erode in the face of sharply rising out of pocket costs. Eventually, the hangman will come to the end of that rope.

(I find it darkly amusing that the program that we are hanging ourselves with slowly is now to be expanded more broadly, accelerating the rate at which we hang ourselves. No hangman required. :-( )

I keep saying this: If medical inflation is not brought under control, it doesn’t matter what universal care scheme you come up with; all you’re doing is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks. Single payer, dual payer, HSA-based, private medical accounts……all will fail, eventually.

We need to implement Singapore’s system, and fast. Otherwise, I’d rather be in India, where I can get (because I can pay for them there) equivalent services at the best hospitals with US and UK trained doctors at 1/10th to 1/100th of the US cost.

Now that you have me ranting…..you know what really fries me? Who is at the top of this list?

The CC has a medical home model (so does Mayo, Kaiser, Kelsey-Seybold, etc) that eliminates redundant testing (just what Uncle Bernie was talking about in your quote) and streamlines the entire health care process through one administrative agency. By doing so, it markedly reduces the cost of care and controls health care services inflation.

We have the right model RIGHT IN OUR OWN EFFING BACKYARD, one that does not violate our committment to capitalism and free markets, and to make matters worse, the ACA ALREADY CONTAINS PROVISIONS TO CREATE MORE OF THEM, by providing financial incentives for independent doctors and providers to federate into Medical Homes. We could vastly improve our situation overnight by simply beefing up the incentives for those providers to join integrated providers.

(BTW, after the ACA, UTMB and UTSW took some baby steps to become Medical Homes. As we speak, the entire UT system is looking at how they might integrate their six hospitals (UTSW, UTMB, MDAnderson, UT Tyler, and the branches in San Antonio and Houston, I forget their names) to become one huge Medical Home.)

But, at the federal level, common sense steps towards health care sanity are blocked by either (a) the Freedom Caucus, who seem to want the government out of health care entirely, and (b) the Bernie crew, for whom common sense measures are insufficiently socialist. (Can’t have the rubes making their own decisions, after all.)

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.