One Nation, a public policy organization dedicated to promoting commonsense legislative solutions, today announced the second installment of its new nationwide, multi-million dollar advertising campaign to prevent the collapse of America’s health care system. The commercial, entitled ‘Cost You,’ exposes the costly consequences of forcing every American into a single, government-run plan – which could range from the doubling of federal income taxes to the elimination of employer insurance. ‘Cost You’ follows the release of One Nation’s recent ad on patient horror-stories from Canada’s single-payer system and will begin airing this week on television, radio, and digital platforms.
“The cost of Medicare for All’s $32 trillion price tag is eclipsed only by the cost of its impact on families’ quality of care,” said One Nation President and CEO Steven Law. “We’re going to keep informing Americans of the huge threat posed to them by Medicare for All—both much higher costs and much lower quality care.”
The new ad can be viewed here, or by clicking below:
VO: Look how much of your paycheck goes to taxes. Now triple that number.
VO: That’s how much so-called “free” Medicare for All could cost you.
VO: Federal income taxes on every American could double. Your employer insurance? Eliminated.
VO: Every American forced into a single, government-run plan. You could lose your doctor, your health care choices. And most importantly: the quality of your care.
VO: Middle-class families can’t afford Medicare for All.
Medicare For All Would Cost The Federal Government More Than $32 Trillion. “A ‘Medicare for all’ proposal would cost the federal government more than $32 trillion over the course of ten years. That’s according to a new study by Charles Blahous, Mercatus Center senior research strategist and former public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.” (Chad Reese, “‘Medicare for All’ Plan Would Cost Federal Government $32 Trillion,” Mercatus Center, 7/30/18)
“…Financing A $30 Trillion Program Would Require The Equivalent Of Tripling Payroll Taxes Or More Than Doubling All Other Taxes.” “The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders’s campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All. While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.” (“How Much Will Medicare for All Cost?” Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2/27/19)
- “In This Case, The Federal Government Would Have To Nearly Triple Payroll Taxes To Fill The Gap. Economic Evidence Consistently Shows That Employees Effectively Pay These Taxes In The Form Of Reduced Wages And Salaries.” (Robert Graboyes, “Medicare For All: Explaining The Math,” Mercatus Center, 8/23/18)
The New York Times Headline: “Medicare for All Would Abolish Private Insurance. ‘There’s No Precedent in American History.’” “At the heart of the ‘Medicare for all’ proposals championed by Senator Bernie Sanders and many Democrats is a revolutionary idea: Abolish private health insurance. Proponents want to sweep away our complex, confusing, profit-driven mess of a health care system and start fresh with a single government-run insurer that would cover everyone.” (Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz, “Medicare for All Would Abolish Private Insurance. ‘There’s No Precedent in American History.’” The New York Times, 3/23/19)
Medicare-For-All Would Significantly Disrupt The Current Health Care System And Upend Employer-Provided Insurance For Over 150 Million Americans. “Nearly any single-payer plan would require substantial disruptions in the current health care system, upending the insurance arrangements of the 156 million Americans who get their coverage from work, changing the way doctors, hospitals and drug companies are paid, and shifting more health care spending onto the government ledger.” (Margot Sanger-Katz, “How Single-Payer Health Care Could Trip Up Democrats,” The New York Times, 9/11/17
In Order To Pay For Medicare For All, The “Government Would Have To Cut Doctor Reimbursements To 40 Percent Of Private Insurance Payments,” Which Will Lead To Doctors Retiring Early Or Leaving The Profession Entirely. “To achieve the cost of ‘only’ $32.6 trillion, Blahous calculated that the federal government would have to cut doctor reimbursements to 40 percent of private insurance payments, which are already negotiated down below usual and customary prices. Put simply, this means physicians would be paid a salary they simply will not and frankly cannot afford to accept, not with medical student loans averaging more than $183,000 at graduation and 60-70 percent overhead costs for a primary care doctor’s office. Doctors will simply retire or find more remunerative, non-clinical work in research or administration.” (Dr. Deane Waldman, Op-Ed, “Medicare-For-All: Too Costly And For Too Little Care,” The Hill, 9/6/18)
“The Truth Is That The UK, Canada And Other European Countries For Decades Have Used Wait Lists For Surgery, Diagnostic Procedures And Doctor Appointments Specifically As A Means Of Rationing Care.” “And long waits for needed care are not simply inconvenient. Research (for example, here) has consistently shown that waiting for medical care has serious consequences, including pain and suffering, worse medical outcomes and significant costs to individuals in foregone wages and to the overall economy. In contrast to countries with single-payer health systems, it is broadly acknowledged that ‘waiting lists are not a feature in the United States’ for medical care, as stated by Dr. Sharon Wilcox in her study comparing strategies to measure and reduce this important failure of centralized health systems.” (Scott W. Atlas, Op-Ed, “Why Single Payer Health Care Is A Terrible Option,” CNN, 9/25/17)
- “We Probably Don’t Have Enough Caregivers, Either, For A System That Would Have Millions Of Additional Patients, Which Means Wait Times Could Skyrocket And Face Time With Doctors Could Become Scarce.” (Rick Newman, Op-Ed, “Medicare for all is not going to happen,” Yahoo News, 1/31/19)
Patients In Canada, Which Has A Single-Payer System, Are Forced To Wait Nearly 20 Weeks To See A Specialist. “Specifically, the Fraser Institute’s 2018 report on wait times in Canada showed that wait times for medically necessary treatment actually decreased since last year, but specialist physicians surveyed still reported that patients wait nearly 20 weeks between seeing a primary care provider and receiving treatment from a specialist. The median wait time of 19.8 weeks was shorter than the wait of 21.2 weeks reported in 2017, but the wait time was still 113% longer than it was in 1993.” (Joanne Finnegan, “Study Highlights Long Wait Times In Canada Under Single-Payer System. Does That Make It A Bad Idea For U.S.?” Fierce Healthcare, 12/11/18