Read the following excepts from a recent WSJ editorial.
The American left can’t seem to quit its desire for single-payer Medicare for All. So it’s worth noting that the United Kingdom, which already has a system resembling that socialist dream, is rethinking it amid another winter of healthcare misery…
The U.S. suffers a chronic problem of health-care financing but not of health-care delivery. Britain shows that with single-payer you end up with both. The U.K. also shows that single-payer’s biggest victims are low-income people who can’t afford to opt out. Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Medicare for All spinners will always be able to afford quality care. Will you?
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board January 15, 2023
The above is not only inaccurate, the WSJ editors know it. The British NHS is nothing like Medicare
The NHS runs hospitals and employs hundreds of thousand of doctors and other health care professionals. It’s budget determines to some extent the health care that can be provided.
Medicare does none of that and neither would M4A. Medicare is an insurance system, the NHS is a health care delivery system. To compare the two systems as equal is reprehensible. There is a big difference between single payer and single provider.
The claim of wait times for care in the NHS is true, but guess what, wait times are real in the US as well, Medicare or not.
The Sen Sanders version of Medicare for All is a pipe dream, unaffordable and unworkable. HOWEVER, applying the basic concept of Medicare as a universal insurance system fairly using deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance together with income based premiums and taxes to pay for it is just common sense. Oh yes, and fairly compensating all health care providers which means higher than current Medicare levels.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Great analysis!
LikeLike