Medicare for All isn’t Medicare at All! Medicare for All is Medicare for None! These slogans just scratch at the surface of the truth behind the deception title of the healthcare system being promoted by socialist politicians. Medicare for All is simply socialized medicine. But what does that mean you ask? I’ve tried to explain it in previous posts but I was very impressed with a new article published in The Wall Street Journal recently.

Author Joel Zinberg gives us some alarming information about this socialized medicine system first promoted by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed communist. While Sanders’ ideas were ignored or derided for many years, they are now on the front lines of the political debate.

Zinberg tells us two-thirds of Americans favor Medicare for All, according to a new KFF poll—a substantial increase from 2020, when roughly half of respondents were in favor. But most Americans don’t understand the proposal or its likely effects. Medicare for All would eliminate competition and choice in medical care, limit access, and inevitably lead to tax increases.

Medicare for All isn’t an expansion of the current Medicare program. Medicare as we know it combines public and private insurance options, allowing competition and choice. Eligible beneficiaries can choose from a traditional Medicare plan run by the federal government, privately-run Medicare Advantage plans, and privately-run Medicare Part D drug plans.

Medicare for All would replace the existing public-private system for financing healthcare with a single, universal insurance program operated by the federal government. It would ban private insurance, including the employer-sponsored group insurance that half of Americans have, if the insurance duplicates any Medicare for All benefits.It would eliminate Medicaid for low-income households, Medicare as it now exists for the elderly and disabled, and the Affordable Care Act exchange-based individual insurance market. The proposal includes systemwide decreases of reimbursement levels below private insurance rates. Patients who don’t like the quality of care provided by the government monopoly would have no other insurance options.

Studies of Mr. Sanders’s original proposal estimated it would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over 10 years. The projected 10-year cost is now $47 trillion, according to a recent White House Council of Economic Advisers estimate. That increased spending could be financed through a combination of deficit spending, program cuts and taxes—most likely heavy on the last.

Like all socialized medicine systems in the world, this would lead to limited access to healthcare providers. Zinberg explains, “Because Medicare for All’s reimbursement rates would be substantially below private insurance rates, providers would respond by offering less service. This would lead to longer waiting times and less access to care. By eliminating the cost-sharing that private plans and Medicare currently impose to limit overconsumption of “free” healthcare, Medicare for All would also increase demand for care, further impairing access and possibly diverting care away from patients with urgent need.”

Socialized medicine systems also ration care by selecting who is approved and who is not for expensive treatments that the government deems “not necessary” depending upon one’s age, disability status, and other factors. Medicare for All will do the same.

Education about Medicare for All changes people’s opinions. When respondents in the KFF poll were told the effects of Medicare for All, support plunged. Only 52% were in favor when told that private insurance would be eliminated, 38% when learning Medicare for All could threaten the current Medicare program, 35% once they considered that Medicare for All could require most Americans to pay higher taxes, and 24% after learning it could lead to delays for medical tests and treatments.

Don’t be fooled by deceptive advertising and false promises of politicians. Medicare for All isn’t for Americans.

If you’re on Medicare, like I am, you know this is the time of year when you have to choose if you’re going to change Medicare plans or keep the one you have. The period of enrollment in new plans is from October 15 thru December 7.

If you like your plan, you may or may not be able to keep your plan. Some Medicare Advantage plans are being terminated, while Traditional Medicare will always be available. But assuming you’ll be happy with your plan next year just because you were happy last year may be a big mistake.

Anna Wilde Mathews, writing for The Wall Street Journal, tells us to beware of making assumptions. “It is going to be a tough year for seniors shopping for Medicare coverage. If you don’t choose wisely, you might get hit with surprise bills for your medications, or learn too late that your doctors are out of network. For the third year in a row, major Medicare insurers are pruning some benefits while adding bigger out-of-pocket charges such as deductibles. “Medicare Advantage plans are leaning toward focusing on margin repair,” said Michael Ha, an analyst with Baird. “And what does that mean exactly for seniors? It means their benefits are going to get cut again.” “

Medicare Advantage

This year, a lot of seniors will be looking for new coverage. Around 3.2 million people are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans that are closing or withdrawing from their markets, according to Chapter, a national Medicare brokerage.

It is more important than ever to verify that your doctors and other healthcare providers are included in your plan, because hospital systems are increasingly breaking off their Medicare Advantage ties. The online network lists for Medicare Advantage plans may not be up-to-date. It is best to call your doctor’s office, and the insurer.

Seniors will still have access to lots of Medicare Advantage plans with no premium.

The bite will come elsewhere: Insurers are increasing what you will pay when you get care. According to analysts at Leerink Partners, Medicare Advantage plans are increasing maximum out-of-pocket costs, including copays and other charges, by 10% on average for 2027. Primary-care doctor visits are mostly still free. But some Medicare Advantage plans are increasing copays for specialists or switching to coinsurance, which means you pay a share of the total cost, rather than a flat amount.

If you want the least restrictive option, you can choose traditional Medicare, but you will need a special supplemental policy, known as a Medigap plan, to protect you from big out-of-pocket charges. But traditional Medicare still offers the greatest freedom to choose your own doctor and to avoid needing referrals to see specialists.

Drug Plans

Some of the trickiest issues this year are coming in the drug benefits.

The number of stand-alone drug plans continues to shrink—to 316 next year, a 12% drop from this year and a 55% falloff since 2024. The Medicare agency says overall, the average premium for Part D plans—which cover prescription medications—is barely rising. Still, consulting firm Avalere Health found that many people will face a substantial increase in their monthly bill if they choose to hang onto the same Part D plan next year.

It’s a good idea to review your plans on Medicare.gov. There you can compare plans and estimate your annual spending depending on your prescription drugs. I recommend you take the time to do that to avoid any surprises in the new year.

Socialism is on the ballot in the midterm elections. Socialism candidates are running on the Democratic party ballot in Maine, Michigan, Texas, California, Florida and Washington to name just a few. Students of world history know that socialism has never worked in any country in the world, but the younger generations may be uninformed. The lies about socialism can be particularly deceiving when it comes to healthcare.

Take for example, Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed. He actually has a medical degree though he’s never practiced medicine. He wants you to believe his medical degree makes him qualified to judge healthcare systems. “Once you train in the sciences, you don’t leave that scientific approach to thinking and that rigor of thinking. And I try to bring that to policy problems,” El-Sayed told Scientific American. “You construct a hypothesis of the world and you test it . . . and then you’ll study the outcome of the intervention to see if it works.”

Allysia Finley, writing for The Wall Street Journal, says, “A drug maker would scrap an experimental medicine that fails to help patients and causes severe adverse effects. Mr. El-Sayed and his fellow Democrats want to rerun failed policy experiments at a higher dosage.”

Mr. El-Sayed and his socialist compatriots present “Medicare for all”—a euphemism for a single-payer system—as a healthcare nirvana. The Democratic candidate’s idealized system has no copays, deductibles, premiums or provider network. It promises free healthcare on demand from any doctor. Such a system doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.

Medicare requires premiums, co-pays and deductibles, and as Mr. El-Sayed acknowledged, “as it operates right now, there is some subcontracting to private companies.” About half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in privately administered Advantage plans, which are less expensive than traditional fee-for-service because insurers do a better job than the government of controlling waste and fraud. Democrats want to eliminate the Advantage program and move entirely to a fee-for-service system. If you like your Medicare plan, don’t expect to keep it.

Medicare for All is being promoted by all the socialist candidates. When first proposed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders it was rapidly dismissed as socialized medicine in disguise. But now it is being promoted as the solution to our current problems in the healthcare system created by the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). This comes as no surprise since it was the long-term goal of the authors of ObamaCare to have a socialized medicine system eventually. ObamaCare was just a step in that direction.

But all socialized medicine systems in the world including Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, and others have two things in common; limited access to healthcare providers and rationed care. This means you wait longer to see a doctor and when you do you may be denied the care you need due to your age, disability, or other factors.

Finley confirms this is happening now. She says, “Most countries fund their government-run systems with payroll and value-added taxes, so that people pay for healthcare by having less disposable income. And by enduring delays. Government-run health systems are inefficient and stingy. Result: longer waits for appointments with procedures, if rationing bodies will even approve them.

About 17% of patients in the U.S. wait more than two months for an appointment with a specialist, which is significantly less than in socialized-medicine utopias like Canada (48%), France (45%) and the U.K. (43%). Government-run healthcare means less access, not more.”

The solution is not more government control of healthcare, it is less. As President Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”