Momentum is growing to enact a Bernie Sanders-style program of mandatory government-controlled medical care for all. This is strongly supported by Democratic Socialists of America.
Proponents claim that this will save money while improving the nation’s health. It is estimated to increase federal government spending by nearly $40 trillion over 10 years. Apparently, the idea is to decrease private spending by a greater amount and divert all the resources to the government program.
Proposals may vary on whether Americans will be allowed to buy life-saving services outside the system. In a true single payer such as in Canada, they would have to go off shore. But remember that in England, parents were not allowed to take Charlie Gard or Alfie Evans to the U.S. or Italy at their own expense for experimental treatment. They had no right to try to extend their precious baby’s life. National Health Service authorities and the courts decreed that the baby would die in an NHS hospital.
The Medicare program is already spending more each year than it takes in. The government has promised future enrollees more than $40 trillion in care with no source of revenue to pay for it. What will happen to life-saving care for ailing seniors if the program is also covering free eyeglasses and gym memberships for healthy young workers?
If you support Medicare for all or some form of single payer, how should it treat a Charlie Gard or a senior who is disabled for want of a joint replacement?
All Americans, especially candidates for public office, should have an answer to the eight questions in the Single Payer IQ Test Study Guide of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), available at https://aapsonline.org/studyguide/.
