New Democratic Rep Refutes Ocasio-Cortez: Country Not Ready for ‘Expensive’ Single-Payer Health Care

While appearing on CNN on Monday, Rep.-elect Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.) seemed to highlight the trouble the Democratic caucus might have in finding unity with its newfound House majority.

Wexton discounted the ability to implement single-payer health care, a centralized form of health care in European countries and proposed as Medicare for All by politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

CNN host Poppy Harlow specifically asked Wexton what she thought of newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) and others’ call for a single-payer system.

“Are you concerned that your fellow incoming Democrats — like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or others who support it — do not have a good enough answer when it comes to how will you pay for it without raising taxes?” Harlow asked.

Watch the video below:

Wexton responded by calling Medicare for All an “expensive proposition” that the country wasn’t ready to implement.

“At this time, I don’t see a way to do it,” she added when Harlow asked about implementing the policy without raising taxes.

The policy proposal caught attention during the midterm election cycle when the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning organization, released a study showing that it would ultimately save money but require higher taxation.

IJR previously outlined the details:

The Mercatus Center study indicates that the implementation of such a plan should be expected to increase federal spending by $32.6 trillion in its first 10 years. Funding this plan, which would increase federal health care costs by 10.7 percent of GDP, requires more than doubling all federal individual and corporate income tax receipts.

For reference, current total federal spending is $4.4 trillion per year, or 21 percent of GDP.

The study also assumes, given all factors, that providers would be required to accept Medicare reimbursement rates for all services. That rate presently affords those providers — hospitals and physicians alike — only about 60 percent of what they receive from private insurance.

The Mercatus study points out that at current reimbursement rates, 80 percent of hospitals will be losing money by 2019 paying Medicare reimbursement rates on existing patients. So, the rates would either have to increase substantially or timely access to care would be subjected to “significant disruptions,” a.k.a. much longer wait times.

Conservatives have long maintained that a single-payer system would both cost an enormous amount and likely result in rationed care.

According to Roll Call, congressional Democrats weren’t too keen on the idea, either. Most Democrats reportedly didn’t think the proposal was ready to face floor consideration and contained politically problematic provisions like the massive tax increases.

What do you think?

8 pledges
Upvote Downvote
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rocky Drummond
Member

I don’t fully agree with fully publically funded Medicare For All. I favor a single-payer, universal health care system that all working people and/or employers contribute proportionate to our income. How much governments also contribute is open for discussion. That way we all participate and support one system that covers every single person. That releaves the government from fully funding this scheme.

We definitely need a different system, but we need to work out what will work here.

Kenneth Waggoner
Member

Therein lies a problem with the whole medical establishment, should a service that is necessary for the health and well being of a person be subject to capitalism? A pill that treats cancer costs $100, but costs the pharmaceutical companies $5, is this right? No but that’s capitalism. A man has migraine headaches but can’t afford the $1000 MRI, (cost to hospital, $200) and dies due to brain cancer that could have been prevented. Is this right? No, but that’s capitalism.

I. Chin
Member

I’m curious. How do you obtain healthcare?

Kevin Mahoney
Member

Anyone, Democrats included, who think Medicare for all is expensive clearly doesn’t understand what it does and what it replaces. It replaces our current healthcare system with a single payer one which will be cheaper. Yes, your taxes will go up, but you will no longer be making any other substantial payment to pay for healthcare, including premiums. It will also be more expansive, give the government bargaining power to lower costs of drugs, and substantially lower overhead costs.

I. Chin
Member

So you’ve lived under “single payer”? Or are you theorizing? Please share.

Phyllis Softa
Member

I am 67 yrs old and have been on Medicare for 2 yrs. A Medicare premium is deducted from my SS payments. In addition, I have a Highmark Blue Shield plan for the 20% Medicare does not pay, prescription coverage, vision and dental coverage. When you folks are speaking of “Medicare for all” are you referring to Medicare part A (hospital)? Medicare Part B (medical and outpatient) Part D (Px.)?

I. Chin
Member

For decades doctors and other healthcare providers have either refused or limited Medicaid/Medicare recipients. It adds to the overhead and at a discount to their usual rates. Bottomline: it’s NOT good business for them. I know at least four physicians who’ve retired as a result of Obozocare.

It’s nice that Rep. Wexton is adult about this and did some math. As did CA.

I’d like to see those supporting “single payer” provide some hard, real #s that make this possible.

Marco Spinelli
Member

Read & learn, although that seems implausible given your infantile way with words (‘Obozocare’|’Obamacare’). It’s neither clever nor smart; it makes any & all opinions you share, that you wish to be taken seriously, automatically dismissed. Shorter version: You come off as a FoxNews bot, an ignorant clown who should be in bed, not mature enough to be up with the grown-ups. https://www.quora.com/Is-a-single-payer-healthcare-system-economically-feasible-for-the-U-S-right-now

I. Chin
Member

Marco,
I normally wouldn’t dignify your rantings but here you’ll be an example.
1. The real name is the Affordable Care Act. It’s hypocritical of you to criticize my use of a nickname then do exactly the same.
2. No real discussion comes by attacking the person and not the arguments.
3. You have NO idea of my wishes nor whether I care what you think (clue: I don’t.) Asshole presume much? What am I thinking now?

I. Chin
Member

4. Throwing links is neither an argument nor a defense of one’s beliefs. It’s okay if one is citing sources, but using it AS your argument is lazy and says ONLY that you’re as smart enough to cut & paste.

Read & learn yourself. You present ZERO counter-arguments of your own. Shorter version: (in the vein you opened) your arguments are feeble as is your intellect. You are neither impressive nor smart.

Thanks for playing. Now fuck off.

Kevin Mahoney
Member

Lol you ask for proof and then when someone provides it you ignore it. You are the definition of a wilfully ignorant and incredibly stupid individual. Not to mention childish.

You dish it out but can’t take it in. Pathetic weasle.

I. Chin
Member

I’m asking for someone to actually hold a discussion like a rational adult AND in their own words.
Since you resort to name-calling instead of reason, a TRULY childish AND stupid tactic I’ll treat you as such.
FYI, it’s “weasel” and “willfuly”, you pinhead.
Thanks for playing.

Phyllis Softa
Member

Kevin, when providing info to substantiate your assertions, keep in mind that a long & short form BC, authenticated by a Republican governor, was not enough proof to convince the Trumpsters that Obama was born in Hawaii. Actual facts threaten to derail their ignorance , therefore they are compelled to ignore the info they request. If they were not willfully ignorant, they would not return time & time again to the same sources that mislead them time and time again.

Kevin Mahoney
Member

Hard numbers have been provided, you just don’t want to read them. Look at HR 676 and Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. It’s all outlined there.

I. Chin
Member

Why don’t you regurgitate those. People with lives don’t have time to follow every link someone throws up because they are too lazy and stupid to actually say what they mean. Parroting.linking is niether smart NOR original. To paraphrase Marco, are you a CNN, Vox, Salon bot?

One more thing, are you the guy with your hand up Marco’s ass? Speaking for him makes him your sock puppet. Wash your hand before eating. Or not.

Kevin Mahoney
Member

Medicare does not add to overhead anymore than any other insurance provider. The fuck are you talking about.

All “Obozocare” does is give people money to pay for private insurance. It has absolutely no effect on doctors.

You don’t even understand the basic concepts of health insurance nor what the ACA does. Jesus Christ, go learn something instead of spewing bullshit.

I. Chin
Member

Ever been on Medicare? I doubt you’re old enough. You probably mean Medicaid. Do you even know what you’re talking about?

Are you a doctor? Do you do medical coding to recapture Medicaid expenses? Coders cost money, i.e. overhead, but I strongly suspect you’ve NEVER run a healthcare business or a profitable business period. These are ALL real-life factors.

Phyllis Softa
Member

LOL, When did you think medical coding of claims began? I entered the medical field in the 1970’s and ICD coding was on version #8. Computerized medical records was promoted in the ACA, but computerized billing has been around for decades, not a decade.

I. Chin
Member

If, as YOU say, Obozocare was intended to provide insurance for those too stupid, poor, unlucky to pay themselves then explain WHY it was applied to everyone, except the government/unions, etc.

Would it not have easier, cheaper, more effective to help those who actually needed it and leave everyone else alone.

Truth test: if the ACA was SOOOO damn WONDERFUL then why didn’t Obozo and the Dimocrats apply it to themselves?

Phyllis Softa
Member

What about the Grassley amendment? It assures govt employees are subject to the ACA regs. Senator Grassley does not remember it either. He incorrectly claimed no Republicans had input in the ACA, despite his membership on BOTH Senate Finance Com & the Gang of 6. If anyone earns greater than $65, 300 a year, they would not be eligible for a subsidy for the purchase of commercial ins. Obama purchased a commercial plan—LOL, was he subject to death panels? No only FOX viewers were.

Phyllis Softa
Member

How old were the “at least 4 ” retired physicians? I live in SW PA, where UPMC & Highmark BS are battling each other for control of healthcare. They bought hospitals & doctor practices. For 4 yrs they were in litigation against each other as BS refused to pay for services at UPMC facilities. They spent millions on TV & print ads attacking each other, while BC/S patients were refused the ability to see/use world renown MD’s or facilities That battle had ZERO to do with Obamacare

All Those Troops Aren’t on the Border for Show — Trump Just Gave Them Authority to Use Force on Caravan

‘Your Courage Truly Inspires Us’: Trump Wishes Our Military Members Overseas a Happy Thanksgiving