In those countries with the longest experience of single-payer government insurance, published data demonstrates massive waiting lists and unconscionable delays that are unheard of in the United States. In England alone, approximately 3.9 million patients are on NHS waiting lists; over 362,000 patients waited longer than 18 weeks for hospital treatment in March 2017, an increase of almost 64,000 on the previous year; and 95,252 have been waiting more than six months for treatment — all after already waiting for and receiving initial diagnosis and referral.
. . .
In 47 of 50 cities surveyed, the lowest-priced plan would be officially unaffordable under Obamacare affordability standards for families earning 401% of the federal poverty level (about $82,000 per year in the contiguous US, making them ineligible for Obamacare subsidies).
Among these, the average three-person household would need to earn an additional $28,939 per year before the lowest-cost plan becomes affordable according to Obamacare rules.
. . .
Republicans in the U.S. Senate have just over a week, until Sept. 30, to pass an Obamacare repeal bill with a bare majority (instead of 60 votes). But in the rush of whip counts and CBO scores, don’t forget: This is an incredibly dangerous debate for Republicans. The public, through a variety of poll results, has made plain that it doesn’t like what the GOP is doing.
The latest YouGov poll, for example, found that 38 percent of respondents picked Democrats as the party that would do “a better job handling the problem of health care”; 24 percent picked Republicans. The Affordable Care Act, meanwhile, has a positive net favorable rating, and the various GOP repeal-and-replace bills have generally polled terribly.
. . .
Medicare currently has over 58 million beneficiaries. That means there are about 250 million Americans who are not Medicare beneficiaries. If they were all enrolled in Medicare, and Medicare’s administrative costs remained constant, that would result in an increase in total administrative costs of at least $12.5 billion per year – not a savings of $500 billion, as Sanders claimed.
. . .
Only in government does modestly slowing spending growth mean severe “cuts.” Opponents of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (GCHJ) proposal to change ObamaCare falsely claim that it will result in massive spending cuts, especially in Medicaid. That simply is not true.
The bill does not spend fewer dollars. In fact, under this bill, taxpayers will spend more over the next 10 years than they are spending right now. The “severe” change being referenced in almost every news story is a reduction in the rate of growth. Some ObamaCare supporters have even claimed that Congress will be unable to afford the GCHJ block grants.
. . .