A new study Monday from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center estimates “Medicare for All” would cost $32.6 trillion in federal spending in its first decade, with costs increasing year after year.

The study parallels similar analysis last year by the liberal Urban Institute that also said “Medicare for All” would cost $32 trillion for the first decade.

“Medicare for All” is a health scheme of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who may run again in 2020.

Last year 16 Democrat senators, including three presidential hopefuls Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Corey Booker of New Jersey co-sponsored Mr. Sander’s “Medicare for All” bill. In the House, 117 Democrats, a Democratic Caucus majority, signed on.

“Support for the bill is now something of a litmus test for Democratic hopefuls,” says Investor’s Business Daily.

Saying his incredibly radical and impractical plan might be implemented in four years, Mr. Sanders said he would propose separate legislation to pay for it. If implemented, it would force government to take complete control of health, which would become single payer, require a huge tax increase and end the private medical insurance industry.

Writing about this last year, we said California and New York dabbled with single payer health insurance until they discovered abolishing private health insurance and enrolling their residents in such a system would cost $400 billion and $226 billion, respectively, more than double both states’ budgets.

In 2014, Mr. Sanders’ home state of Vermont dropped plans for a statewide single payer system because it would have required a new payroll tax of 11½%. And in 2016, Colorado voters rejected single payer that would have required a 10% payroll tax.

We quoted David Mordo, legislative council chairman of the National Association of Health Underwriters, in July 2017 saying supporters of single payer health insurance claim it would eliminate wasteful spending and improve the quality of care. However, the reality is single payer systems ration healthcare, slow the development of life saving drugs and medical devices and restrict economic growth.

At The New York Times, health policy guru Margot Sanger-Katz said: “Nearly any single payer plan would require substantial disruptions in the current health care system, upending the insurance arrangement 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.”

Last year, an IBD editorial said, “There is no industrialized country in the world that has a government-run health care system as vast on the one Sanders proposes.”

While plenty of other countries “guarantee” health care to citizens and pay most of the costs with tax dollars, it said “none promises first dollar coverage for all health without limits. Even Sanders’ beloved Canadian single payer system doesn’t cover prescription drugs, home care or long term care, vision or dental.”

Every one of the countries Mr. Sanders points to as models for the U.S., said IBD, relies on out-of-pocket spending to cover a significant portion of their health costs, ranging from 27.7% in Switzerland, 15% in the United Kingdom and Canada, 13.7% in Denmark to 12.2% in the Netherlands.

Noting Mr. Sanders’ plan would eliminate prices entirely from health care, IBD said last month that “the only way to control health spending would be to slap stiff price controls on doctors, hospitals and drugs, or ration care.”

Which would cause “chronic shortages of doctors nationwide. Hospital overcrowding would be epidemic. Waits for everything from hip replacements to cataract surgery to cancer treatments would be extensive. Drug innovation would come to a virtual standstill. And there would be endless fights over the size of the government’s health budget, along with massive amounts of waste, fraud and abuse.

“Because this is precisely what’s happened in countries that have already gone down the ‘Medicare for All’ road.”

Single payer systems don’t just cap spending on drugs. They also insist on artificially low reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors, and in many cases this doesn’t cover the cost of providing certain treatments and procedures. Were single payer implemented in the U.S., it would drive healthcare providers into bankruptcy and cost jobs.

Because single payer systems control costs by limiting access to healthcare, forcing patients to wait indefinitely for lifesaving medicines and, in many cases, treatment. Health care abroad doesn’t come close to U.S. health care.

But the biggest problem says IBD is socialized medicine and the underlying assumption “government central planners can manage trillions of dollars’ worth of resources better than hundreds of millions of people making trillions of decisions every day in the free market.”

Central planning doesn’t work, says IBD. It failed miserably where tried: in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and now Venezuela.

It adds Mr. Sander’s plan is “a dangerous delusion and Republicans, independents and any remaining sensible Democrats should fight against it with every ounce of energy.”

(48) comments


I think the term is 'ECONOMIC DISASTER' .

That's what describes this fallacy of consequences that would befall the entire Country, WERE THIS TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED. [wink]


Blue Cross just applied to the state insurance commission for permission to lower their health insurance rates under ObamaCare.

Regardless, why shouldn't everyone have good healthcare available? Sick people are a drain on the economy if they can't work.


The fastest way to lower 'HEALTHPAY' , is to let the markets compete, and it would by far out pace availability of need to pay.

Sorry, yes some people are going to be done in regardless of their ability to re pay medical debt, however, if their in this country , and citizens, they are not refused in an emergency.

Do not confuse maintenance , or upkeep with emergency. This is a whole other wagon to jump on.

Look back at the past 60 years of our nation, just where medical is concerned, you people today have it far better than then, by a long shot, now, if you expect a percentage of workers , which is what America is, a nation of capitalism , and workers, and bosses, etc, etc, to agree, or rather be forced to pay for a strangers health upkeep, i think its selfish of you.

Not every American works, not the kids, nor house parents, or the disabled, this is a drastic measure to assume that the workers , of which i'm not even sure how many there are , pay for everything for everyone, its also STUPID.

ps. by workers, i mean bosses, ceo's , janitors, etc, etc, every one of them,

Very quick way to go broke.


Milton Friedman - Socialized Medicine


This is 40 years old, your now seeing what Government has done to your HEALTHPAY system that was alot less expensive back then.

Now, someone show me a 'socialized' way to decrease it by continuing to let any government run anything.

Crickets chirping................

ps. the government is you, and your money, so, it really makes no difference who's running the boat in the big picture. (which can easily change every 4 years).


Ben Shapiro Dismantles Universal Healthcare



Universal Health Care? United States vs. Canada


2015 actual story, and there are thousands of these online.


Didn't they raise some as well? Why the switch to UHC?


No system will work without price controls. No one should get rich off the sick, injured, or diseased. Nor should anyone get rick from the legal system. Both negatively affect the basic idea of access and fairness to all.

Price controls are mandatory.

David Collins

Medicare for all would take every penny collected in Federal Taxes every year and that is just an estimate. Think we all have realized in which direction federal estimates go. Nothing left for anything and seeing how we already are running a deficit, tax rates would have to double, at least. Of course this is just fine for those that feel the burn and pay no taxes. Double zero taxes still equals Zero. The evil rich must be made to pay.

Wish Walter would write one on guaranteed, entitled basic income for all. That would promise to be a lively piece.

David Collins

Drugs, the legal sort, and legal aid are commodities. The marketplace determines the price. Sure there are bad actors, always have and always will be some of them in the mix. Cost too much, don’t buy into it.



I hardly think fairness to all is a tangible goal.

The closest we can currently come to this is 'free market' competition.

Now, sorry if this disrupts the argument, however, noone ever promised anyone a rose garden.

This is the largest fallacy of any argument.

I wish there was a utopia, however, knowing it will never exist seems to be hard for some people to swallow. (despite any sensible formula you apply to it).

Healthcare is a commodity, not a RIGHT.

HealthPay is determined bu where you happen to be at the time of its use.

Best case is here in America, if you actually know how the real world operates.

Core Sounder

Has anyone heard anything about the fine people of Australia dying early from lack of good medical care? The wife and I have met many Canadians while spending the winters in Florida and none of them seem to lack good medical care. I do know that one of them from Ontario claims that Canada will send a private jet down to Florida to pick him up if or when he needs anything major since its so expensive here to have anything done in a hospital. My neighbor here in downeast Carteret County is from England and he once told me that the main difference in medical treatment other than price is if you are requesting elective surgery in England then you can depend on it taking a while longer than for someone that really needs attention.


Yes core sounder, there are many videos of both sides of a story, but, once again, you and i are in fact on the very same page, none of your friends mention 'maintenance ', or lifelong care, or give you their entire rap sheet where their medical care from birth to now is concerned.

We are speaking of what is called 'triage' treatment.

As i mentioned, noone is refused service in America for an emergency, and, our response time is THE BEST IN THE WORLD. (regardless of the payment).

You want to live and play here in America, then set your bar a bit higher on the scale, or not, its your INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, but, next time, when your friends are having a tot with you, in wherever you have one, ask them, how much they pay here for maintenance check up's????????????

This is the crux of your allegation, see i have lived in 4 states, for short periods, and the simple facts are that prices do vary, which is immoral to me, but, none the less its true, of prescriptions and Dr visits.

My entire theory is to get government out of this game, and let the market dictate , only then will you see the value of a 10 minute conversation with a Doctor. (or an x-ray, etc, etc).

ps. you ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 'ELECTIVE' OPERATIONS , for the love of god, why should taxpayers pay for your vanity?????????????


Guess those stories of cancer and other patients waiting extended times for necessary surgery and/or other treatment under socialized medicine are just fairy tales.

David Collins

DeadBolt. You were doing just fine, just fine until “ drum roll please “ you broached the subject of elective surgery. To be sure, you realize that in today’s world it is all about feelings, folks have to feel good about themselves in order to effectively function. Am quite sure the rest of us would be thrilled to see someone achieve just that and willing to pay for it as well. Wouldn’t we?

David Collins

No, dc, not fairy tales at all. The NHS “national health service” will postpone surgeries based on a multitude of reasons. Some are facility availability. “Had a party last night and the room is still trashed”, medical team availability “ they went too, still a bit drunk”, OMT decisions “other medical treatment” you gonna die dude so time to fess up and the dreaded “ we have overextended our funding for this procedure. Will try to get you in the next cycle”. Not verbatim but the picture should be quite clear. Not the rule but stranger things have happened when Govt. is involved. Is nurse ratchet still on shift?


European countries are able to provide health services to their citizens, and some countries to non-citizens, with some sort of single payer system. And they do it more or less for a few dollars when going to their doctor.

Trumpies are claiming that taxes are higher in the U.S. compared to other countries. How are those other countries able to pay for the health treatment if that is true? It is not. The health service industry is ripping us off. Just take the big five; their CEO’s are making $20,000,000 in a slow year.

Government administration is terrible, according to trumpies and republicans. The health care industry is spending trillions of dollars every year, to not giving their customers what they need.

Try speaking with those who are unfortunate to receive care out of network…

David Collins

Core Sounder, that is a great question and I responded to it in detail based on my personal experiences and of others. Sadly, the blurb has disappeared. Scanned it thrice for abusive and inappropriate language. Just as clean as a newborn’s hind-parts. Bad thing about using my I-Pad, No cut and paste functionality, at least for me, so all is lost. Was hoping that the goddess could perhaps resurrect but if it was a failure on my part, even the all powerful Goddess has limits.


Yuppers, i expect the few bits of 'truth' i posted in those links from a very few select best economics EXPERTS in modern history are simply wrong to some folks?

As is the entire system our Country has operated under for a vast majority of its inception?

Also, they have a quarrel with our Legal system, that has been used for that same period, apparently?

Consequently, they take issue with the way Mother Nature operates, and think they are going to change the World Climate'?

Oh, the list of things we have been doing wrong far exceeds the FACTS!

So, i suggest we manufacture some more sweeping changes to the country, because of feelings!

ps..... most of this started on a certain day if i remember correctly? Jan 20 2017! (give or take a month,lol) [wink]


Could be lost router connection. Otherwise, seems they'd just edit.

Core Sounder

deadbolt, interesting that you mentioned different prices from area to area for medical attention. Was looking at the NC Blue cross Blue shield website regarding their cost estimates for various medical precedures in NC within 250 miles of Beaufort and discovered that a hip replacement can cost anywhere from 18,000 dollars to almost 40,000 depending on which hospital. Of course Carteret General is at the high end at around 36,000 dollars while Elizabeth City's Sentara/Albemarle will run you around 18,000 for the same procedure. Reckon the folks in Carteret county have to pay extra for the view of El's drive in.


Check out the broken arms section, or broken leg, as well as transportation fees and schedule's.

This is exactly why the Government regulations need to be OUT of the medical practice. (basically their idiots , IMO) Furthermore only a few of them have any medical training, at all , or practical knowledge of what a Dr has to pay to operate a small family practice.

David Collins

CoreSounder, did they happen to mention the failure rates, survival rates and remedial rates for the cheap hospitals. Estimates are just that, estimates.

OO; European NHS Drs work for the NHS. You do not pay them. Also most European countries do not have to fill, supply and deploy much of a standing army to protect the free world. That task falls to us. The uber expensive military weapons research and development costs fall on us as well. Costs add up.


"'Socialism or death' gets creepily literal in Canada" by Monica Showalter.

David Collins

Just a thought, CoreSounder. Carteret General harvests customers from quite an ares. Pretty good number of them are indigent. People that can not , will not or for any number of excuses do not pay. Period. Medicaid pays little but the hospital accepts it and does not hound the patient. Medicare pays little but allows the hospital to hound the patient. Yeah, I had co-pays. Guy sitting next to me in the radiation room was told not to worry about any bill. Medicaid will cover it all. He was half my age and twice as fit. I pay for Medicare every month along with my private insurance policy. He gets it all for free, actually on my dime. Who is the winner here? Sadly, the hospital has to survive so yes you charged for $6.00 aspirin and all that. Just like taxation, those that can pay, will pay. Pay, and pay and pay. ABSOLUTLY have to punish the evil rich.


OO, just curious which basis are you using to state US taxes are higher than European countries? GDP, personal income, or other? The ones I found where the US was higher than most used New York as the baseline. Laughable. Most all others, regardless of basis had the US roughly 8-23 points below most Euro nations. For example (max national + max subnational): US: 37%, Sweden: 60%, Denmark: 59%, Spain :54%, Netherlands: 52%, Ireland: 52%, Italy:47%, Germany: 47%, France and Greece: 45%. Just a short list on one basis, but a long way from your claim.

Providing your source might help clear things up. And most Trump supporters likely don't believe the hype of single payer or your tax rate claim. Your statement otherwise is nothing more than your opinion... far different than facts. Single payer is not a viable solution if you care to look into the downsides, of which there are many. Goes right back to the "If you like your..." false statements made that got us into the Obamacare mess.

David Collins

attempting to find and analyze solid, unbiased, skewed, undistorted info on the Web is becoming next to impossible. Way too many countries and officials trying to make things palatable, especially when it comes to “ hey there, this is how we are doing”.

The last time this subject was hashed out it came down to single payer was easier for small rich Nordic countries without a bunch of layabouts, foreign and domestic. Taxes were high, really high after all the social add on fees. Of course, the result was a reasonably well oiled cradle to grave scheme. Since then things have changed a bit due being goaded into accepting loads of refugees that only want to change things into something they fled from. Taxes will get higher.

Single payer will never work here. Way to many that love to talk the talk, darn few that are willing to walk the walk. Then there are the politicians.


The Nordic 'scheme' was hatched many many years ago as an experiment.

Aside from healthpay, there were other aspects the 'self professed' leaders tried, and absolutely ALL of their theories have failed miserably, this is scientific data.

Mistake number 2 , in order to compare apples and apples you need at the very least the same amount of them, and same variety. (otherwise, simply stop the experiment, and throw them in the trash, because, your not comparing anything except possibly your own stupidity).

Mistake number 3, the basic theory that there are 'FREE SERVICES AND GOOD'S' and a willing mass of workers for you to get them from for no money, (which is the hugest fallacy of the entire argument , and quite frankly the dumbest idea i have truly ever heard). When you go into a store , you typically exchange currency for good's , or services, or you may try to 'STEAL' from the store, which is a crime, even in 3rd world countries.

Mistake number 4 , as i mentioned in a prior post, if you are in need of medical treatment, you can go to a local hospital, and you will not be refused for 'triage' , meaning severe , truly life threatening illness. Where alot of lefties are splitting hare's on this is 'elective' / maintenance issues that they think others should pay for on their behalf. (as mentioned, services are not free, not even small ones, and BTW, we have local clinics, that handle alot of clients who cannot afford a personal Dr , or monthly visits. )

Mistake number 5, arguing with liberal lunatics about all their fallacy's , showing them time after time why it 'WILL NOT WORK', is a waste of time, as i am sure the majority of you have figured out, i can show a monkey how to shoot a rifle, but, good luck on the 'control' of said monkey after that. (in layman's terms, run away fast,lol). [wink]


Jordan Peterson - Studies in Scandinavian Men & Women


Here is a major failed experiment, there are several others out there that are Empirical Data now.

Another good reason NOT TO MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE. (especially for all the special interest groups who want to do you no harm, etc, etc, etc)


Johan Norberg: The Truth about Swedish Socialism


Yup, here is Sweden taking a 'free ride' off of America........

Really nice of them isn't it? [wink]

Core Sounder

The reason Medical care is so expensive in the USA is because our gov makes sure that they have no competition from other Countries especially regarding pharmaceuticals. We all know that a prescription for a well known drug in this Country is many times higher than the same drug in our neighboring Countries. Much like the reason Carteret General is much higher for the same medical procedure than Duke charges. We should encourage folks to shop around for the best prices or best value. Think we ought to ban the constant advertising of drugs on TV and other media since our Doctors pretty much know what types of medicines are available and do not need patients coming in to their offices demanding the latest drugs that the saw on TV when in fact a much cheaper generic brand will probably work just as well.


Any form of Government regulation down to janitors paycheck , in an industry they have no business getting involved in , (other then to 'tax' you and me for the gains), is going to stifle the entire theory of free market.

ie: this means that by adding and stacking regulations , like our gov did on this industry tends to drive away business period.

There are hundreds of these that are easily FACTUAL DATA on the books , not just pharma.


"Think we ought to ban the constant advertising of drugs on TV and other media since our Doctors pretty much know what types of medicines are available and do not need patients coming in to their offices demanding the latest drugs that the saw on TV when in fact a much cheaper generic brand will probably work just as well."

Exactly right, Core Sounder! The part that annoys me are the disclaimers at the end on side effects. Sometimes worse than the original ailment.

David Collins

I do not like all the drug adds on TV either. Banning them outright would be banning free speech, would it not? Do not want that to happen. Everyone is entitled to put in their 2 cents, even companies. In addition a lot of add revenue is generated for the carriers. By the way, remember when pay TV first came about? It was advertised as uninterrupted TV with no adverts. Just like Politicians , the promises are soon forgotten after the selection is made. Life is good!


Very valid point David. My only concern is when the amount of funds being spent on ads comes from the bottom line. I'm sort of ok on R&D funds being a large expense. When it comes to ads, I'm just curious what part of those expenses result in much higher drug costs.

David Collins

Believe all expenses are lumped in there, plus a profit fudge factor. If a particular drug offering does not sell, expenses are cut, r&d steps in as well as marketing and soon a new star will be born. Or relegated to the dust bin.


@gridlock........ if they are a publicly traded company, you can access their financial records in their end of year financial reports, um, simply google GSK , short for glaxosmithcline, , etc, and it pulls their filed records, from there narrow the search in their website to their financial expenses, it should be broken down.

One thing i would honestly say about all the hub bub here is a simple argument that their company is theirs, and their stockholders, not mine and yours, so, from an industry standpoint, its actually none of my business if they go broke on ads on Television.

Lastly, i would say that their list here, has probably helped more people then its hurt?

You may even take a few of these ?


From bacterial infections to heartburn, we have come a long way.


We banned cigarette ads on tv, but allow alcohol and drug ads. I wonder the wisdom in this. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Didn't hurt RJ Reynolds 1 single iota either, in fact it saved him billions probably.

ps. oh, and then the fact that since a population expands here in America, there are more smokers today then when they started the 'tv' bans on adds , so, you have that number to figure in.

Its very odd to me, and i cannot recollect the 'LAW' of theory, but, it does seem that , when a product, no matter the gadget , is 'banned' it does seem to flourish the best, strange? [wink]


“European NHS Drs work for the NHS.”
Nope, British NHS doctors work for the NHS.
There are no European NHS doctors.


I have not stated what you claim that I have stated, so I cannot answer a question about something I have not stated.

Your claims about taxes in European taxes are useless.
Living in Stockholm, Sweden, making $50,000 salary: 23.52%
Living in Copenhagen, Denmark, making $50,000 salary: 33.5%
Living in Madrid, Spain, making $50,000 salary: 27%
Living in Amsterdam, Netherlands, making $50,000 salary: 30%
Living in Dublin, Ireland, making $50,000 salary: 24.5%
Living in Rome, Italy, making $50,000 salary: 35.5%
Living in Berlin, Germany, making $50,000 salary: 38%
Living in Paris, France, making $50,000 salary: 25%

“Your statement otherwise is nothing more than your opinion... “
Actually not, it was all facts that you can easily check and verify.


“Single payer will never work here.”
That is the spirit of someone claiming to be in the greatest nation on earth...


“oh, and then the fact that since a population expands here in America, there are more smokers today then when they started the 'tv' bans on adds , so, you have that number to figure in.”

Once again when DeadBolt is claiming to present facts, he is dead wrong.
Since 1970 the sale of cigarettes has dropped more than 50%.
Since 1970 the population has increased about 60%.
Do tell how 60% more people smoking 50% less equals more smokers.


The 360 billion cigarettes smoked in the United States in 2007 translates to a total of 135,000,000 pounds of discarded butts in one year in the United States alone. The filters from 5.6 trillion cigarettes (approximate world production) would weigh more than 2.1 billion pounds (see table below).

Beat me ................[wink]


NHS failure is inevitable – and it will shock those responsible into action


Doctors and patients accuse government of failing to stop NHS crisis


Britain’s N.H.S. in Crisis: ‘We Might Break’


Trump is right: The UK's NHS is failing and more money won't save it


The NHS keeps failing. Social insurance systems keep succeeding



Oh, then to place a nice big fat CHERRY on the top of the 'smoking' debate, in all the hypocrisy , OBAMA IS A SMOKER...............

Go figure........

Love those 'emission regulations'. [wink]


Back in the 70’s they found a way to ban TV and radio advertising on cigarettes. It did not work out as planned so they passed some further laws and it has worked out, somehow. The number of cigarettes sold has dropped by more than 50% without banning cigarettes. The number of smokers has dropped more, in numbers and percentages.

The same approach can be used on alcohol and pharmaceuticals. Alcohol (and pharmaceuticals) is a threat to public health because those who are drinking often do something stupid, like driving home from the bar. It is very easy: If you have been drinking more than one beer or any alcohol unit; don’t drive.

For reasons unknown to me, there are people who think that driving after popping prescription pain killers are not interfering with their ability to drive a car. They are as dangerous to public safety as drunk drivers.

There are too many morons that don’t apply to this simple rule: Alcohol and pharmaceutical pain killers (or any other kind of pain killer) does not increase the ability to drive a car.


One simple question:
"Obama is a smoker"
How is that hypocrisy?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.