Different Takes: Is ‘Medicare For All’ The New Health Care Debate Or Just An Old One?
Editorial pages focus on the controversy over "Medicare For All" and other health care costs.
Bloomberg:
Welcome To The New Health-Care Debate
America’s health-care debate is entering a new phase. Liberals, inspired by self-described socialists such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative-to-be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are excited about the possibility of “Medicare for All.” Republicans have at the same time largely abandoned efforts to enact major reforms of health care. This new phase of the debate is full of opportunity for Republicans, and peril for conservatives. But perhaps it would be better to say that the debate is reverting to an older pattern. For roughly four decades, liberals have highlighted the flaws of the existing health-care system, chiefly high costs and unequal access, and proposed increased governmental involvement as the solution. Conservatives talked up the dangers of bigger government, chiefly even higher costs and the disruption of existing arrangements, and reminded voters of the virtues of the status quo. (Ramesh Ponnuru, 8/3)
The Hill:
'Medicare For All' Is A Pipe Dream
A new study released by Charles Blahous at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has received a lot of attention this week. It concludes that the “Medicare for all” proposal endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others would “increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.” The study goes on to point out that “doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.” (Marc Siegel, 8/4)
Los Angeles Times:
The Kochs Helped Fund An Attack On 'Medicare For All.' It Still Concluded The Plan Would Save Us Trillions
The Kochs have a clear challenge: How do you undermine growing support for an idea that will improve the health and finances of most Americans? They’re trying to invert the formula that CEO gave me years ago: Take a plan that gives us more, and make us think it’s less. That’s where Charles Blahous comes in. Blahous, a longtime Republican aide, is affiliated with the Koch-funded, right-wing Mercatus Center. His attack on M4A (Medicare For All) has been widely reported as predicting an “astronomical” cost. Blahous is entitled to his conservative ideology, as discredited as I believe it is. My biggest problem is with his math, not his mindset. Blahous says that M4A will add $32.6 trillion to government spending over a 10-year period. That number is overstated, and ignores the “invisible taxes” Americans currently pay to private corporations every year. (Richard Eskow, 8/3)
The New York Times:
The Outsize Hold Of The Word ‘Welfare’ On The Public Imagination
The federal program known as welfare delivers cash assistance to less than 1 percent of the United States population. This is far smaller than the share of those aided by food stamps, or by other government support like disability benefits, unemployment insurance, college grants and medical benefits. But none of those other social programs have captured the public imagination or pervaded American politics as thoroughly as welfare, a piece of the safety net that helps about 2.5 million people. Its outsize influence has remained — and could soon become larger — even as the program itself has shrunk to its smallest size. (Emily Badger, 8/6)
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Gov. Scott Walker Up To His Old Tricks In Obamacare Debate
Gov. Scott Walker has one signature move, and it’s so tired that it’s a wonder anyone still falls for it: He creates or exacerbates a problem, then claims to be the only one who can save us from it. ...The latest example comes in the form of health insurance expenses. (Emily Mills, 8/3)
Cincinnati Enquirer:
SNAP-Ed Program Means Healthier Lives
The changes in the proposed 2018 Farm Bill puts the SNAP-Ed program in the hands of a nationwide educational system that is uniquely positioned to meet these expectations. Through Ohio State University Extension, the SNAP-Ed program will be a continued success that helps low-income Ohioans lead healthier lives, be better parents and learners, and be more productive in their jobs. (Pat Bebo and Rick Klemme, 8/5)
