Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Don’t fall for scare tactics, falsehoods on Medicare for All

Don’t fall for scare tactics, falsehoods on Medicare for All

opinion-WEB

In U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko’s June 5th, 2019, article, she stated “Medicare for All strips away health care freedom.”   However, just the opposite is true.  People will have freedom to choose their doctor with no networks to worry about, fear of bills they cannot pay, or going into bankruptcy.  Everyone benefits, seniors on Medicare, those with employer-based insurance, those with pre-existing conditions, young, old, and those in-between.  Everyone!

Under a well-researched and fiscally-sound universal healthcare bill introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal and 112 co-sponsors, HR1384, “The Medicare for All Act of 2019”, our present Medicare system would be expanded and improved and cover ALL Americans.  It includes primary and emergency care, dental, prescription drugs, vision, hearing, mental health, addiction treatment, long-term care, both home-based and institutionally and more.  It eliminates premiums, co-pays, deductibles and the need for supplemental insurance. And it will be implemented within a two-year time span with no one losing any benefits during that period, only gaining.

Linda Napier

Linda Napier

Sound too good to be true? It isn’t and here is the ‘rest of the story’.

Rep. Lesko is concerned about illegal immigrants receiving health care at the expense of taxpayers. She said that she asked this question of the House Rules Committee hearing in April and they said ‘yes’ the immigrants would receive health care, but it was a partial ‘yes’ and what she didn’t tell you is that it would not be all immigrants and it would not be at the expense of the taxpayers. Quite the opposite. According to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants actually contribute significantly to state and local taxes collectively paying an estimated $11.74 billion a year. $213,574,000 in Arizona alone. If they were granted full legal status, state and local taxes in Arizona would gain $39,384,000. In 2015, according to the IRS, undocumented Americans paid $23.6 billion in Federal income tax along with Medicare and social security that they can’t even use.

Rep. Lesko was also concerned about cost and that the health care plans that many have now would be eliminated. Yes, they will be eliminated. But, in their place, everyone will have an even more comprehensive plan that includes everything you have now and more. She also states that there’s no plan to pay for it, yet there are very detailed and exhaustive plans proposed on how to pay for it so that everyone is still enjoying the coverage they are used to under Medicare and employer-based plans, but with even more benefits, while actually saving money. Yes, taxes may go up, but not as much as your premiums, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance and out-of-pocket expenses will go down. It will also be paid for by redirecting funds that are already allocated for health care and reducing unnecessary and wasteful spending in the current system, eliminating non-patient costs that do not improve health: Insurance company administrative overhead and marketing, exorbitant executive salaries, shareholder’s dividends, billions lobbying congress and campaign contributions.

Carol Mattoon

Carol Mattoon

She was also concerned about employee’s losing their plans. Many studies now show that employees are unhappy with their rising deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and wage stagnation. Eliminating the expensive role insurance companies now play in the lives of employers and employees will result in employers being able to shift paying such high insurance premiums into product development, being able to compete internationally, higher pay for their employees, employees being able to take jobs better suited to them without fear of losing their insurance, thus positively affecting the lives of employees, their families and our economy!

Why does this plan face opposition? The health insurance and drug companies and for-profit hospitals are framing the discussion on TV, social media, and with legislators. With hundreds of billions of their profits at stake, they are spending millions of dollars to spread misinformation to protect their interests and defeat significant change and health care freedom for the American people. Do not fall for their scare tactics, and false arguments.

Ask yourself at least one of these questions, “Who is behind what is being said? Are they using fear-based language trying to scare you? What do they have to gain? Which studies are they using and who paid for them? We reference The World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and many more to cross check the facts you see here.

Healthy people, healthy economy, healthy country!

Linda Napier is a business owner from Sun City West and Carol Mattoon is a health care Advocate from Sun City

 

3 comments

  1. Lesko presents a truly pie-in-the-sky overview of Medicare for all, and even manages to insert the liberal-touted fallacy about how much illegal immigrants contribute to taxes vs. what they cost American citizens. First of all, anyone who believes Medicare for all will provide us with all we have now, plus even more, is a complete fool and hasn’t bothered to do any research beyond what MSNBC tells them. I alone have three physicians who will not take any new patients who are on Medicare. Why? Because Medicare limits what each of those doctors can be paid, how much time they can spend with patients, what tests they are allowed to order, and which medications or treatments can be prescribed. They don’t like those limitations because they want to be able to provide the best care for their patients, not the cheapest. I saw firsthand what my mother was able to receive as health care under Medicare. It ain’t pretty.
    Second, just once I’d like for these illegal immigrant proponents/defenders to consider all the costs of illegal immigration, not just the public assistance dollars they receive. Illegals put a tremendous burden on every American citizen in costs for incarceration, court fees, hospital visits they can’t pay for but are legally entitled to receive, overcrowding our schools, increased crime and higher property insurance costs wherever they amass to live, high incidence of traffic accidents and higher auto insurance wherever they live, wear and tear of our roads they didn’t help pay for (and the same for libraries, museums, parks, etc.), the cost of providing everything in more than one language. I could go further, but hopefully the point is made. There is a reason we have a legal immigration process. So just exactly how much do liberals think cheap lawn care and domestic help is worth, anyway?

  2. We need look no farther than the Veterans Administration to see how Medicare for All would work in practice.

  3. bradley taylor hudson

    “The Devil is in the details”. I’ve read both sides, and discovered that both make simplistic arguments. First, one would have to define “Medicare for all”. There are perhaps hundreds of possible definitions for “Medicare for all”, yet the arguments talks as if it is one program, to opine simply “yes” or “no”. Even among the Dem debaters last night, there were several opinions on what it means. So, rather than throw insults and innuendos around, we should discuss the details of what we want and don’t want. Do we want insurance companies to continue to control the govt and the doctors? “Profit” and “care” are opposing goals, so the private insurance model is simply not in the best interest of the patient. Do we want to cover illegal immigrants? As a “Christian” nation, we are bound to care for our fellow man, but… To what level? Do we want to include verbiage that limits “medicare for all” payments to current medicare levels? This argument is too complex to do here. I agree Medicare is not great, but private insurance is worse. I have “socialized medicine, VA, and it is wonderful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Definition of the word Minimum wage in a dictionary

Arizona’s U.S. House members should oppose minimum wage bill

I urge my representative, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and neighboring Democratic district representatives, U.S. Rep Tom O’Halleran and U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, to oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Arizona employees, business owners and their local communities will thank them for it.