Thank you for the detailed response. To answer your questions:
- Yes, conceivably M4A will result in less administrative burden than our current system. However, our current system isn’t a privatized system. It’s a weird, more than 50% socialized system already, with the remaining portion so hyper-regulated that it cannot be described as a “privatized system.” No other industry can compare. Not even banking. This hyper-regulation explicitly creates the administrative burden. So it’s a bit of a straw man to say that M4A reduces administrative burden versus privatization.
- What I said was that larger, more profitable, health systems will be able to shoulder the significantly reduced revenue better than smaller ones, and would probably necessitate another major round of consolidation. This shouldn’t surprise you. Heightened regulation that either increases fixed costs or narrows revenue sources usually does this to any industry. Just look at the automobile, pharmaceutical, banking, and existing healthcare provider industry.
- [quote=“baska, post:40, topic:66512”]
M4A will carry out its purpose of providing better care to all people for less money.
“Carry out its purpose” means nothing. I can carry out my intended purposes of flying to the moon. Doesn’t mean I’ll succeed. The only thing M4A does is reduce the number of payors to one. The unintended consequences are numerous. The government now implicitly decides what care will and will not be administered. The incentives for innovation and R&D are strictly limited once the revenue source controls everything. And the single revenue source results in either two directions: provide less care, or have more waiting lines. That’s why you see places like Venezuela that are decrepit. Even in Canada the waiting lines are far longer than in America.
- And lastly (and you tacitly noted this in one of your last sentences), socialist programs always end up with a much higher price tag than originally advertised. If the price tag rises to far higher than Sanders is originally purporting (which was my original argument), wiping out the so-called “savings,” are you still going to support it?
Do you want M4A because it’s socialist or because you irrationally think it will save money? That’s my question. Because no rational person can actually believe that Sanders’ current price tag of $30+ trillion will actually be the real number once administered.