During the NBC Democratic presidential debate on Wednesday night, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg ripped into socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) over his health care plan.
Buttigieg hammered Sanders over his lack of transparency, hitting the senator for repeatedly stating that he doesn&#8217;t know the cost of this own plan, and has only outlined tax hikes, including on folks in the lower-middle class, to pay for a fraction of the estimated cost.
Sanders &#8220;said it was impossible to even know how much it&#8217;s going to cost, and even after raising taxes on everybody making $29,000, there is still a multi-trillion dollar hole,&#8221; Buttigieg said of Sanders&#8217; pricey Medicare for All plan.
&#8220;Matter of fact,&#8221; the former mayor continued, &#8220;if you add up all his policies together, they come to $50 trillion. He&#8217;s only explained $25 trillion worth of revenue, which means the hole in there is bigger than the size of the entire economy of the United States.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
On if Bernie Sanders&#39;s release of doctors&#39; notes in lieu of full medical records is sufficient, Pete Buttigieg says, &quot;No, it&#39;s not,&quot; says, &quot;I am certainly prepared to get a physical, put out the results, I think everybody here should be willing to do the same.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/fgvkHNp4iW">pic.twitter.com/fgvkHNp4iW</a>
&mdash; DJ Judd (@DJJudd) <a href="https://twitter.com/DJJudd/status/1230324075282812934?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Buttigieg hammers Bernie on lack of transparency on his healthcare plan costs <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemDebate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/uTq3NeUkqd">pic.twitter.com/uTq3NeUkqd</a>
&mdash; The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1230335591121854467?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier in the debate, Buttigieg hit Sanders for being &#8220;polarizing&#8221; and &#8220;not even a Democrat.&#8221;
&#8220;We have got to wake up as a party,&#8221; Buttigieg said, according to <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/19/bernie-sanders-turns-red-in-fiery-exchange-with-pete-buttigieg-at-democrat-debate/">Breitbart News</a>. &#8220;We could wake up two weeks from today, the day after Super Tuesday, and the only candidates left standing will be Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, the two most polarizing figures on this stage.&#8221;
&#8220;And most Americans don’t see where they fit if they have got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil, and a billionaire that thinks that money ought to be the root of all power,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Let’s put forward somebody who actually lives and works in a middle-class neighborhood in an industrial Midwestern city. Let’s put forward somebody who’s actually a Democrat.&#8221;
Sanders responded: &#8220;If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long-neglected working class is &#8216;polarizing&#8217; – I think you have got the wrong word. What we are trying, finally, to do is to give a voice to people who, after 45 years of work, are not making a nickel more than they did 45 years ago. We are giving a voice to people who are saying, we are sick and tired of billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg seeing huge expansions of their wealth while a half a million people sleep out on the street tonight. And that’s all what we are saying, Pete, is maybe it’s time for the working class for this country to have a little bit of power in Washington, rather than your billionaire campaign contributors.&#8221;
&#8220;We can actually deliver health care without taking it away from anyone,&#8221; Buttigieg retorted. &#8220;We can actually empower workers and lift wages without further polarizing this country. And we can build a movement without having legions of our supporters online and in person attacking Democratic figures and union leaders alike.&#8221;
The former mayor also said Sanders was not being transparent enough with his health. &#8220;I am certainly prepared to get a physical, put out the results. I think everybody here should be willing to do the same.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We shouldn&#39;t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and one candidate who wants to buy this party out. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemDebate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/iE8syCzv17">pic.twitter.com/iE8syCzv17</a>
&mdash; Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1230316299026300932?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;

Democratic presidential debate

WATCH: Buttigieg Demolishes Sanders On Healthcare, Socialist Plans

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders

democratic debate

Health Care

Nevada

Pete Buttigieg

There is no doubt that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is now the leading Democratic presidential candidate. That&#8217;s not because his ideas are overwhelmingly popular — a majority of Americans approve of capitalism, while less than 1 in 5 like socialism; few Americans are on board with total nationalization of health care, even if many like the idea of universal health care; most Americans do not approve of Sanders&#8217; anti-American ideology with regard to foreign policy.
But nobody in the Democratic Party can stop Bernie.
There&#8217;s a reason for this: The Democratic Party has fed off the energy of Sanders&#8217; ideology hoping that, eventually, the voters would come to their senses. Leading candidates have echoed Sanders&#8217; talking points. Sen. Elizabeth Warren adopted and then abandoned Medicare for All, and former Vice President Joe Biden mirrored Sanders&#8217; Howard Zinn historical perspective. Those who have attempted to siphon off Sanders&#8217; base and approximate his authenticity have failed dramatically.
Instead, Sanders continues to resonate with the base. After all, if you&#8217;re going to go with an anti-Constitution, anti-free market, intersectionality-based perspective, why water it down with insincerity? Sanders brags about the fact that his ideology has never changed. He&#8217;s right. Back in 1976, he suggested that he favored &#8220;the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries.&#8221; He sounded off for decades on the glories of communist Cuba and the Soviet Union; he basked in the joys of bread lines, saying: &#8220;In other countries, people don&#8217;t line up for food. The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death.&#8221; Sanders trots out campaign surrogates who openly claim that the United States is rooted in genocide and racism, and that the American system must be fundamentally remade.
This is radical stuff. But radicals have passion. And politicians of the Democratic Party are unwilling to quell that passion — not when they believe they can capture it and turn it against President Donald Trump.
This is the mirror image of the Republican problem with Trump in 2016: Trump ran on a platform of bashing the Iraq War and America&#8217;s intelligence agencies, blasting free trade, pledging to avoid entitlement program reforms and slamming the door on immigration. Instead of fighting those elements, Republicans decided to tinge their own campaigns with those attitudes and then assume Trump would collapse under the weight of his own personality flaws. That never happened.
Democrats seem to be waiting for another collapse that simply isn&#8217;t coming. Sanders isn&#8217;t going anywhere. His floor is high, and his ceiling remains low — just like Trump. Electability problems aren&#8217;t going to dissuade his supporters, who believe — correctly — that inauthenticity provides its own electoral issues.
There was another path. Some Democrat could have completely and utterly rejected Sanders&#8217; perspective on the world. Some Democrat could have rejected Sanders&#8217; view that America has been a nefarious force in the world; some Democrat could have argued that America isn&#8217;t perfect but that it has always been great; some Democrat could have talked about the wonders of the free market while arguing for greater strictures on it. After all, the majority of Democrats count themselves as patriots who don&#8217;t despise the free market.
But no Democrat was willing to stand up to the Sanders base. They were too greedy for its energy, and too optimistic that the energy was transferable. It wasn&#8217;t. And so the Democratic Party has been captured by an ideology foreign to it — the ideology of Noam Chomsky infused directly into the bloodstream of a party that once touted former President John F. Kennedy. Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

SHAPIRO: Why The Democrats Won’t Stop Bernie

Democratic Socialism

Socialism

There are a few lessons we can learn from the disastrous beginning of the Democrat Party&#8217;s primary process. A process that, as they boasted in a <a href="https://twitter.com/DNC/status/1224456542478462977">tweet</a> on Monday afternoon, they&#8217;d spent the last three years preparing for. Well the pilot of the Hindenburg was also &#8220;prepared,&#8221; but all of the preparation in the world cannot compensate for incompetent execution.
Somehow, after the build up, Monday night ended without a winner — or any results at all. It seems the Democrats decided to hand the facilitation and management of its primary over to a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699">secretive firm</a> literally called Shadow Inc, which is a bit like sending your children to a daycare center named Child Neglect LLC.
These are the sorts of unforced errors the Democrats cannot seem to stop themselves from making, as they continue to achieve the remarkable feat of making the Republican Party look competent by comparison. Of course, I may be giving them too much credit by calling the Iowa debacle an &#8220;error.&#8221; That categorization assumes there is no deliberate corruption at play here, and that is probably not a safe assumption. Especially given the Democrats&#8217; track record with primaries.
All in all, this amounts to more good news for Donald Trump, a man who has been blessed with the most impotent and ineffectual adversaries the world has ever seen. But it is also an ominous warning about the future, should Trump still manage to lose to these blundering clowns (a possibility that seems less likely with each passing day).
<iframe title="Democrat Clown Show Wants To Run Health Care System | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 419" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qpWybf4OtGk?start=77&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We should keep in mind that these people, who cannot figure out how to operate their own primary, also want to operate the entire health care system. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in particular have promised a complete government takeover of health care. Indeed, Sanders is on the record advocating a complete government takeover of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html">all major industries</a>. Which, by the way, is full-blown communism. And not &#8220;communism&#8221; in the loose, pejorative sense, but actual communism. The communism of Soviet Russia and the Khmer Rouge and many of the other evil, blood-drenched regimes of the 20th century.
This latter fact should be enough to cause us to run fast and far away from any candidate who advocates a full government takeover of any industry, let alone every industry. But if the 20th century is too far in the past to make an impression, than this Monday is lesson enough.
In order for the plans proposed by Sanders, Warren, and company, to have any appeal, we must first place our trust in the skill, competency, and integrity of government bureaucrats. This is the part of the case that the socialists never bother trying to make. Yes, they can tell a harrowing tale about the evils of capitalism, and they can convince us to look with suspicion on corporations and those dreaded billionaires, but they never get to the part where they actually explain why we should trust them instead.
That&#8217;s because even they could not make that argument with a straight face. We&#8217;ve all been to the DMV. We know how the government works. This week is just the latest example.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-inconsistencies-found-in-democrat-iowa-caucus-reporting-conspiracies-explode">‘Inconsistencies’ Found In Democrat Iowa Caucus Reporting, Conspiracies Explode</a>

WALSH: The Democrat Party Can’t Run Its Own Primary But Wants To Run The Health Care System

Elizabeth Warren

On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Phillip Swagel testified before the House Budget Committee. During the testimony, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) asked Swagel about the Democrats’ proposed prescription drug price control bill, H.R. 3.
The following exchange took place:
<blockquote>CRENSHAW: What else did CBO say about H.R. 3? About how many fewer cures there would be because of those price controls? It&#8217;s not a negotiation. Let&#8217;s not call it that; we know it&#8217;s not. It’s a formula for price controls on drug prices. So what did CBO say that would do to innovation?
SWAGEL: So, we also carefully modeled that as well using the economic research literature and showed that over the ensuing several decades, something on the order of 30 fewer drugs would be produced. About a 10% reduction.
CRENSHAW: So, we can afford the drugs, but they won&#8217;t exist. So it doesn’t really matter if you can afford them because they won&#8217;t exist. That’s not a really good trade-off.</blockquote>
The pertinent portion of the video begins at the 1:57:17 mark:
<iframe src="https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?468677-1/budget-economic-outlook" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-12/hr3_complete.pdf">CBO report</a> for H.R. 3 reads in part:
<blockquote>CBO estimates that under the bill, approximately 8 fewer drugs would be introduced to the U.S. market over the 2020-2029 period, and about 30 fewer drugs over the subsequent decade. (Under current law, the Food and Drug Administration approves, on average, about 30 new drugs annually, suggesting that about 300 drugs might be approved over the next 10 years.) The estimates are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes, in CBO’s assessment, and are uncertain.
Those effects would occur because the potential global revenues for a new drug over its lifetime would decline as a result of enactment, and in some cases the prospect of lower revenues would make investments in research and development less attractive to pharmaceutical companies. The result would be fewer new drug products developed and coming to market. The effects would be larger in the 2030s because of the considerable time needed to develop new drugs and because of the larger effects that would occur when more phases of development are affected. Later in the 2030s, the size of the effects would stabilize at an annual reduction of roughly 10 percent.</blockquote>
Under <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3/text">H.R. 3</a>, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would create a negotiation relationship with pharmaceutical companies.
According to the summary for H.R. 3: “The negotiated maximum price [of certain drugs] may not exceed (1) 120% of the average price in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom; or (2) if such information is not available, 85% of the U.S. average manufacturer price. Drug manufacturers that fail to comply with the bill&#8217;s negotiation requirements are subject to civil and tax penalties.”
This tax penalty is <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf">described</a> by the CBO:
<blockquote>Title I of H.R. 3 would require manufacturers of certain prescription drugs to negotiate prices with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) &#8230; If manufacturers did not enter into negotiations or agree to prices by specified dates or if they did not meet other conditions, they would be subject to an excise tax of up to 95 percent of the sales of those drugs.</blockquote>
Wayne Winegarden, director of Pacific Research Institute’s Center for Medical Economics and Innovation, writes in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynewinegarden/2019/10/18/price-controls-are-not-the-answer-to-expensive-drugs/#6262af1a715e">Forbes</a> that prince controls “have always made bad situations worse.” He cites as examples the grain price controls in post-revolution France, which led to a “greater economic crisis,” and, more broadly, rent control, which he says leads to “housing shortages and sharp declines in housing quality.”
“No matter where they have been tried, price controls have always made bad situations worse because it is impossible for policymakers to have the necessary knowledge to dynamically set the efficient price level,” writes Winegarden.
He then writes directly of H.R. 3, and how the excise tax of up to 95% isn’t a negotiation, but a total domination, and that a better alternative to price controls would be reducing various “market barriers,” thus heightening competition.
House Republicans have also outlined their own proposal, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/19/text">H.R. 19.</a>
According to a <a href="https://www.republicanleader.gov/leader-mccarthys-statement-on-the-lower-costs-more-cures-act-of-2019/">statement</a> released from House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), H.R. 19 would “make medication more affordable for seniors by capping their out-of-pocket costs; increase the availability of generic and biosimilar drugs by prohibiting drug companies from delaying the start of their exclusivity period and allowing the FDA to speed up its approval process for applications; and provide greater price transparency by requiring insurance companies to make information about drug costs available in the doctor’s office before a prescription is written.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw.

WATCH: Crenshaw Says Dem Price Control Bill Will Stunt ‘Innovation,’ Leading To Fewer New Drugs; CBO Agrees

Dan Crenshaw

Prescription Drugs

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global emergency over the spread of the deadly coronavirus epidemic, as thousands of new cases have been reported and the death toll closes in on 200 people.
&#8220;The decision reversed the organization’s decision just a week ago to hold off such a declaration,&#8221; The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/health/coronavirus-world-health-organization.html">reported</a>. &#8220;Since then, W.H.O. officials said, thousands of new cases in China and clear human-to-human transmission in several other countries — now including the United States — warranted a reconsideration of that decision by the agency’s expert committee.&#8221;
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Thursday that is had confirmed the first person-to-person of the coronavirus in the U.S.
&#8220;The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today confirmed that the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has spread between two people in the United States, representing the first instance of person-to-person spread with this new virus here,&#8221; the CDC said in a statement. &#8220;Previously, all confirmed U.S. cases had been associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by this novel coronavirus has been ongoing since December 2019. However, this latest 2019-nCoV patient has no history of travel to Wuhan, but shared a household with the patient diagnosed with 2019-nCoV infection on January 21, 2020.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today CDC and <a href="https://twitter.com/IDPH?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@IDPH</a> confirmed diagnosis of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2019nCoV?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2019nCoV</a> in a patient who had not traveled from China but had close contact with a traveler previously confirmed with the novel <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coronavirus?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#coronavirus</a>. Read the press release: <a href="https://t.co/d7FyZLzRed">https://t.co/d7FyZLzRed</a>. <a href="https://t.co/WSzdgpcgrU">pic.twitter.com/WSzdgpcgrU</a>
&mdash; CDC (@CDCgov) <a href="https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1222979023623553024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The latest <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/30/coronavirus-cases-top-8200-surpassing-2003-sars-outbreak-in-less-than-a-month.html">figures</a> to come out of communist China indicate that more than 8,100 people have been infected with the virus &#8212; a tenfold increase in just one week &#8212; with at least 170 dead as the virus has now officially spread more rapidly than the SARS virus did in 2002 and 2003.
&#8220;The Committee agreed that the outbreak now meets the criteria for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and proposed the following advice to be issued as Temporary Recommendations,&#8221; WHO said in a statement. &#8220;As this is a new coronavirus, and it has been previously shown that similar coronaviruses required substantial efforts to enable regular information sharing and research, the global community should continue to demonstrate solidarity and cooperation, in compliance with Article 44 of the IHR (2005), in supporting each other on the identification of the source of this new virus, its full potential for human-to-human transmission, preparedness for potential importation of cases, and research for developing necessary treatment.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Full statement on the meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee on the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2019nCoV?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2019nCoV</a> 👉 <a href="https://t.co/Ia5pFPn3Qi">https://t.co/Ia5pFPn3Qi</a> <a href="https://t.co/YhlPG2YwOJ">pic.twitter.com/YhlPG2YwOJ</a>
&mdash; World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) <a href="https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1222975329360392215?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Financial Times reported on Thursday that Russia closed its borders with China to prevent the virus from spreading into Russia.
&#8220;Russia on Thursday ordered the closure of its huge land border with China as Moscow scrambles to prevent the deadly coronavirus infection spreading from its southern neighbor,&#8221; The Financial Times <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/75adafb6-4306-11ea-abea-0c7a29cd66fe">reported</a>. &#8220;There have been no confirmed cases of the respiratory illness in Russia but Vladimir Putin’s government is anxious to prevent the virus from crossing a land border that stretches for more than 4,000km. Moscow has already blocked Chinese tour groups from entering the country.&#8221;
President Donald Trump weighed in on the overall situation on Thursday, writing on Twitter: &#8220;Working closely with China and others on Coronavirus outbreak. Only 5 people in U.S., all in good recovery.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Working closely with China and others on Coronavirus outbreak. Only 5 people in U.S., all in good recovery.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223004106408833025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This report has been updated to include additional information and corrected to note that the SARS virus outbreak was from 2002-2003, not 2012-2013.

Health care members make first aid to people as they cover

Global Emergency Declared Over Coronavirus; First Transmission Confirmed In U.S.

China

Coronavirus

Health

World Health Organization

On Friday, freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who is very outspoken on the 21s century geopolitical threat <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-forever-wars-and-face-chinas-threat-11574634656">posed by China</a>, raised with leading Trump administration officials the possibility of restricting or temporarily outright cutting off travel with the country due to the coronavirus that recently emanated from there.
Hawley &#8220;sent a letter Friday to the heads of four government agencies to ask whether the Trump administration was considering any potential Chinese travel ban to prevent an American outbreak of the coronavirus,&#8221; National Review <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coronavirus-outbreak-josh-hawley-asks-trump-administration-for-possible-china-travel-ban/">reported</a>.
Specifically, Hawley tweeted: &#8220;As deadly #coronavirus spreads, this morning I’ve written to the Secretary of State and others to ask whether temporary travel restrictions from affected areas in China may be necessary, and if they are, when American travelers will be notified. Public safety must be #1 priority.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As deadly <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coronavirus?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#coronavirus</a> spreads, this morning I’ve written to the Secretary of State and others to ask whether temporary travel restrictions from affected areas in China may be necessary, and if they are, when American travelers will be notified. Public safety must be #1 priority
&mdash; Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1220726263956021248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The tweet accompanied a <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/Hawley-Letter-Coronavirus-Departments-Health-Homeland-Security-State-Transportation-Travel.pdf">letter</a> that Hawley sent on Friday to four Cabinet secretaries or acting secretaries: Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services, Chad Wolf of the Department of Homeland Security, Elaine Chao of the Department of Transportation, and Mike Pompeo of the State Department.
Hawley&#8217;s letter concludes by asking four questions of the Cabinet secretaries:
<ol>
<li>Does the federal government have in place procedures and evaluative criteria to guide decisions about restrictions on air travel in the event of disease outbreaks such as this one?</li>
<li>Given the rate at which public health officials are capable of gaining insight into the severity of such an outbreak, can you offer guidance as to when and how the federal government would decide to implement travel restrictions in the event that an outbreak like this one merited them?</li>
<li>Have you begun exploring the means by which the federal government might continue to assist China and the international community in containing this outbreak in the event of restrictions on commercial air travel? If not, why not?</li>
<li>In the event that federal officials make a preliminary determination to rule out restrictions on air travel, will you commit to inform the public that such a determination has been made in the interests of transparency and appropriate public scrutiny?</li>
</ol>
&#8220;The virus, which, causes pneumonia-like symptoms, is related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, a virus that originated in China and killed hundreds of people in 2002 and 2003,&#8221; National Review also noted.
Since the virus&#8217;s breakout, China has quarantined the entire city of Wuhan in an attempt to staunch the virus&#8217;s pernicious spread.
Conservative commentator Daniel Horowitz, of Blaze Media, <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/will-trump-consider-suspending-travel-china-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/">wrote</a> today in support of a Chinese travel ban: &#8220;One would expect that the first course of action of the government would be to prevent Chinese from traveling here or Americans from traveling to China and returning, or at least to impose a travel ban on parts of China. That is the first step to ensuring that the disease doesn’t spread like wildfire in our country. Yet, as with epidemics of the past, there doesn’t seem to be any imminent warning of suspending travel.&#8221;
Taking a somewhat different approach, Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-the-media-wants-you-to-panic-over-the-coronavirus-dont-fall-for-it-here-are-the-real-facts">chalked up</a> the coronavirus as much ado about nothing: &#8220;I don’t mean to spoil the twist ending, but here’s how to protect yourself from the coronavirus if you live in America: Do nothing special at all. Carry on with your life. Wash your hands. Avoid ingesting the bodily fluids of strangers, as much as possible. Do all of the normal things you would do to maintain a healthy life. Media reports indicate that face masks are an &#8216;<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-face-masks-not-entirely-effective-2020-1" data-reader-unique-id="14">ineffective&#8217;</a> way of preventing the spread of the virus. What the reports forget to mention is that it would be a sign of delusional paranoia if a person in the United States went around wearing a mask for fear of a disease that almost nobody in this hemisphere actually has.&#8221;

Cargo containers with China and united States flag in the harbor.

Josh Hawley Proposes Possible China Travel Ban In Response To Coronavirus

Immigration

Josh Hawley

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was grilled on Friday during an interview on CBS News after he claimed that no one knew how much his estimated $60 trillion in government programs were going to cost.
&#8220;While the new spending programs Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed in his presidential campaign would at least double federal spending over the next decade, he has faced almost no questions from other candidates or the media – on the eve of the last debate before primary voting begins – about how he would implement or finance such a massive increase,&#8221; CNN <a href="https://outline.com/bBywr2">reported</a> last week, noting that his plan &#8220;would potentially bring his 10-year total for new spending to around $60 trillion, or more.&#8221;
&#8220;You are a self-proclaimed socialist,&#8221; CBS News&#8217; Norah O&#8217;Donnell began.
“‘Democratic,’ put in there please,&#8221; Sanders shot back.
&#8220;Thank you. Your agenda has promised free health care for everybody, free college tuition, and to pay off people&#8217;s college loans,&#8221; O&#8217;Donnell continued. &#8220;The price tag for that is estimated to be $60 trillion over ten years, correct?&#8221;
&#8220;Well look, we have political opponents who come up –&#8221; Sanders responded.
&#8220;You don&#8217;t know? You don&#8217;t know how much your plan costs?&#8221; O&#8217;Donnell pressed.
&#8220;You don&#8217;t know; nobody knows,&#8221; Sanders responded. &#8220;This is impossible to predict.&#8221;
&#8220;You&#8217;re going to propose a plan to the American people, and you&#8217;re not going to tell them how much it costs?&#8221; O&#8217;Donnell persisted.
&#8220;Of course I will,&#8221; Sanders responded. &#8220;Do you know exactly what health care costs will be – one minute – in the next ten years if we do nothing? It will be a lot more expensive than a Medicare for All single payer system.”
WATCH:
<iframe title="Bernie Sanders: “Nobody Knows” How Much My Plans Will Cost" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6QqYQW7ivWI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The estimated $60 trillion price tag for Sanders&#8217; socialist agenda may be a generously low estimate, as others have noted that his programs could cost nearly $100 trillion.
The City Journal <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">reported</a> last October:
<blockquote>All told, Sanders’s current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade, and total government spending at all levels would surge to as high as 70 percent of gross domestic product. Approximately half of the American workforce would be employed by the government. The ten-year budget deficit would approach $90 trillion, with average annual deficits exceeding 30 percent of GDP.
The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders’s three most ambitious proposals. Sanders <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">concedes</a> that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He pledges to spend <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/28/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-sets-tone-on-crucial-issue-in-democratic-primary.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$16.3 trillion</a> on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/23/bernie-sanders-to-unveil-plan-to-guarantee-every-american-a-job/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government job</a> paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes <a href="https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-college-cancel-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$3 trillion</a> to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition—plus <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-defazio-introduce-bill-to-expand-social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$1.8 trillion</a> to expand Social Security, <a href="https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$2.5 trillion</a> on housing, <a href="http://www.crfb.org/blogs/sanderss-paid-family-leave-plan-explained/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$1.6 trillion</a> on paid family leave, <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-1-trillion-investment-in-vermont-and-nations-infrastructure" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$1 trillion</a> on infrastructure, <a href="https://www.the74million.org/article/bernie-sanderss-k-12-proposal-would-more-than-double-the-federal-education-budget-6-of-his-top-spending-priorities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$800 billion</a> on general K-12 education spending, and an additional <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-unveils-plan-to-overhaul-public-education-2019-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$400 billion</a> on higher public school teacher salaries.
This unprecedented outlay would more than double the size of the federal government. Over the next decade, Washington is already projected to spend <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">$60 trillion</a>, and state and local governments will spend another $29.7 trillion from non-federal sources. Adding Sanders’s $97.5 trillion—and then subtracting the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All—would raise the total cost of government to $184 trillion, or 70 percent of the projected GDP over ten years
Such spending would far exceed even that of European social democracies. The 35 <a href="https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">OECD</a> countries average 43 percent of GDP in total government spending. Finland’s 57 percent tops the list, edging France and Denmark. Meantime, Sweden and Norway—regularly lauded as models for the U.S.—spend just under 50 percent of GDP. The U.S. government, at all levels, spends between 34 percent and 38 percent of GDP, depending on how one calculates.</blockquote>
Sanders is not the only Democrat proposing an estimated $100 trillion in government programs as Sen. Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s (D-MA) proposals have also received <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-policies-100-trillion-town-hall">the same</a> estimated price tag.

Bernie: ‘Impossible’ To Know How Much My $60 Trillion In Plans Cost. CBS News Grills Him.

On Saturday, December 28, former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden held a campaign event in Washington, Iowa.
During a question and answer session, a young man asked Biden about his support for Obamacare:
<blockquote>I just need this question. So we&#8217;re going to take a trip back 2008 real quick. During the run-up to the passage of Obamacare, President Obama promised my father that if he likes his plan, he can keep his plan, and that his insurance will be cheaper. After passage, his plan was no longer allowed and his insurance costs doubled. Since you supported the plan, were you lying to my dad? Or did you not understand the bill you supported?</blockquote>
Biden began his answer with a what appears to have been a joke, the offered an incoherent ramble:
<blockquote>No, look, the fact is that what I&#8217;m talking about now is that when – because I get asked the question – since, what I do is I&#8217;d add a public option to the existence of Obamacare, meaning that a Medicare-like option is available if in fact you – but there&#8217;s 160 million people out there who&#8217;ve negotiated a health care plan with their employer that they like and they don&#8217;t want to have to give up like Medicare for All requires. It says you have to give it up. You cannot have any private insurance.</blockquote>
Biden then told the young man that costs have “gone down.”
<blockquote>What happened is, and by the way, the cost of Obamacare has gone down in the last two years, not up as you probably know, you seem to know this, number one. </blockquote>
Then, he talked about the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to give up their insurance plans:
<blockquote>Number two is that when you put yourself in a position of – I have faith in the American people – that if you&#8217;ve worked and given up significant portions of your salary over the last two, five, 10, 12 years to get a healthcare plan you like that you negotiated with an employer, then in fact, you should not be forced to give it up. You should have the choice. If you want to keep it, you can keep it. And if in fact the employer eliminates the plan, which he could, eliminates the plan, then you&#8217;d have the option to buy into a subsidized plan of Obamacare.</blockquote>
Following this, Biden spoke for another four minutes before arriving back at a semblance of an answer in which he noted that “no one did understand Obamacare.”
<blockquote>We&#8217;ve changed a lot of things for the better, and we&#8217;ve tried under five Democratic presidents, tried to change those things, and people say, &#8220;Well Biden, why now do you think you can add the public option and why can you further subsidize it?&#8221;
Well, because people, there&#8217;s two ways people know when something is important. One, when it&#8217;s so clear when it&#8217;s passed that everybody understands it – and no one did understand Obamacare, including the way it was rolled out.
And the gentleman&#8217;s right, he said, &#8220;You could keep your doctor if you wanted to,” and you couldn&#8217;t keep your doctor if you wanted to necessarily. He&#8217;s dead right about that. But the fact is that when something&#8217;s taken away, when you – people didn&#8217;t know. I used to say to President Obama, &#8220;Mr. President, why don&#8217;t you take a victory lap? You got this passed. Let people know exactly what&#8217;s happened.&#8221;
&#8230;And he&#8217;d say, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have time to take a victory lap. We have too many things we have to do.&#8221; So people didn&#8217;t know, and we lost the House of Representatives after that passed. And people attributed to the fact that Obamacare passed and that was one of the arguments made, whether it&#8217;s true or not.</blockquote>
In the end, Biden simply didn’t answer the young man’s very simple question.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kIKPlOgaCW8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Former President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was ranked as Politifact’s 2013 “<a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">Lie of the Year</a>.”
After the Obamacare rollout disaster, and at least 37 documented instances of Obama using the “keep your plan” phrase “without caveats,” reports Politifact, the president was forced to concede that what he claimed just wasn’t true.
Speaking with NBC’s Chuck Todd in November 2013, Obama <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/53492840#53492840">said</a>: “We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

Joe Biden.

Biden Dodges ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Obamacare Question: ‘Were You Lying … Or Did You Not Understand The Bill You Supported?’

Joe Biden

Obamacare

Dr. Raj Mehta, 65, had been a general practitioner for the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) for nearly 40 years when he was accused of sexually assaulting a female patient during a consultation.
The patient claimed Mehta touched her breast during the consultation – which was, apparently, not a breast exam. He was charged in 2017 with two counts of sexual assault. He was convicted on one of those counts. The U.K.’s General Medical Council revoked Mehta’s right to practice after his conviction, even though he had planned to appeal.
Last week, Mehta won his appeal after his attorney’s found evidence that the patient who accused him had lied under oath. The decision to appeal was made on December 13 and a full written judgement will be released in the New Year.
GP Online, a magazine and news source for general practitioner, <a href="https://www.gponline.com/gp-exonerated-15-months-prison-assault-patient/article/1669363">reported</a> that Mehta was “enormously relieved” after he was exonerated on appeal nearly three years after being convicted.
“After my conviction, I lost everything. I lost my career after nearly 40 years of NHS service. I lost my reputation after adverse media coverage, but also following the medical regulator’s decision to strike me off the medical register, instead of waiting for the outcome of the ongoing appeal,” Mehta told the outlet. “I feel very anxious for the medical profession. Doctors work to do their very best for their patients, often in challenging circumstances, and there simply are not adequate protections to safeguard them against the few patients who make false accusations.”
Dr. Rob Hendry, medical director of Medical Protection, told the outlet: “We are delighted that Dr Mehta has been acquitted by the Court of Appeal. He and his family fought hard to clear his name and we are proud to have been able to support them in achieving this outcome.”
“False allegations can cause a loss of reputation, profession and income. Tragically in Dr Mehta’s case, they can also lead to a loss of liberty,” he added.
Further, Hendry told the outlet, these kinds of allegations hurt trust, which is “vital to the doctor-patient relationship.”
“While such cases are very rare, it is vital that support and protection are in place to protect doctors and the wider profession from the threat of false accusations,” he said.
Nigel Richardson, a defense attorney at Hodge Jones &amp; Allen who represented Mehta, told GP Online: “The conviction of Dr Mehta was particularly troubling, and it took a great deal of effort to uncover the evidence that undermined the single witness’s account.”
Richardson added that Mehta’s “long and distinguished career” had been destroyed due the false allegations and hoped the new British government would pass reforms to the justice system to help victims like Mehta.
It is unknown at this time what evidence the defense presented that convinced a judge to overturn Mehta’s conviction. A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service told GP Online that “The material that formed the basis of the grounds of appeal was not in the possession of the CPS at the time of the original trial, and the Court of Appeal did not suggest that that the prosecution had failed in our duties of disclosure.”

Doctor patient

She Claimed Her Doctor Touched Her Breast During A Consultation. His Conviction Was Overturned After A Court Determined She Lied.

false accusations

Sexual Assault

Ten former NFL players, including some high-profile names, were charged Thursday by the Justice Department for allegedly defrauding the league&#8217;s healthcare benefits program of millions of dollars through an elaborate fraud scheme.
The Justice Department announced the charges in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ten-former-nfl-players-charged-alleged-nationwide-fraud-health-care-benefit-program-retired">press release</a> Thursday. &#8220;Ten former NFL players allegedly committed a brazen, multi-million dollar fraud on a health care plan meant to help their former teammates and other retired players pay legitimate, out-of-pocket medical expenses,&#8221; said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski, in a statement included in the release.
&#8220;The alleged fraud targeted the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan (the Plan), which was established pursuant to the 2006 collective bargaining agreement and provided for tax-free reimbursement of out-of-pocket medical care expenses that were not covered by insurance and that were incurred by former players, their wives and their dependents – up to a maximum of $350,000 per player,&#8221; the statement reads (full text below). &#8220;According to the charging documents, over $3.9 million in false and fraudulent claims were submitted to the Plan, and the Plan paid out over $3.4 million on those claims between June 2017 and December 2018.&#8221;
The retired players allegedly submitted &#8220;false and fraudulent claims to the Plan for expensive medical equipment – typically between $40,000 and $50,000 for each claim – that was never purchased or received,&#8221; the release explains. Among the expensive medical equipment were &#8220;hyperbaric oxygen chambers, cryotherapy machines, ultrasound machines designed for use by a doctor’s office to conduct women’s health examinations and electromagnetic therapy devices designed for use on horses.&#8221;
The release identifies ten retired players allegedly involved in the racket: Robert McCune, John Eubanks, Tamarick Vanover, Carlos Rogers, Clinton Portis, Ceandris Brown, Correll Buckhalter, Etric Pruitt, Joseph Horn, and Donald &#8220;Reche&#8221; Caldwell (formatting adjusted):
<ul>
<li>Robert McCune, 40, of Riverdale, Georgia, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, nine counts of wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud.</li>
<li>John Eubanks, 36, of Cleveland, Mississippi; Tamarick Vanover, 45, of Tallahassee, Florida; and Carlos Rogers, 38, of Alpharetta, Georgia, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of health care fraud.</li>
<li>Clinton Portis, 38, of McLean, Virginia; Ceandris Brown, 36, of Fresno, Texas; James Butler, 37, of Atlanta, Georgia; and Fredrick Bennett, 35, of Port Wentworth, Georgia, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, one count of wire fraud and one count of health care fraud.</li>
<li>Correll Buckhalter, 41, of Colleyville, Texas, and Etric Pruitt, 38, of Theodore, Alabama, are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud.</li>
<li>In addition, the government has filed notice that it intends to file criminal informations charging Joseph Horn, 47, of Columbia, South Carolina, and Donald “Reche” Caldwell, 40, of Tampa, Florida, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud in the Eastern District of Kentucky.</li>
</ul>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nfls-goodell-on-kaepernick-weve-moved-on-after-he-skipped-workout">NFL’s Goodell On Kaepernick: ‘We’ve Moved On’ After He Skipped Workout</a>
Full text of the Justice Department&#8217;s <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ten-former-nfl-players-charged-alleged-nationwide-fraud-health-care-benefit-program-retired">press release</a> below:
Ten former National Football League (NFL) players have been charged in the Eastern District of Kentucky for their alleged roles in a nationwide fraud on a health care benefit program for retired NFL players. 
The alleged fraud targeted the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan (the Plan), which was established pursuant to the 2006 collective bargaining agreement and provided for tax-free reimbursement of out-of-pocket medical care expenses that were not covered by insurance and that were incurred by former players, their wives and their dependents – up to a maximum of $350,000 per player.  According to the charging documents, over $3.9 million in false and fraudulent claims were submitted to the Plan, and the Plan paid out over $3.4 million on those claims between June 2017 and December 2018.
“Ten former NFL players allegedly committed a brazen, multi-million dollar fraud on a health care plan meant to help their former teammates and other retired players pay legitimate, out-of-pocket medical expenses,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski.  “Today’s indictments underscore that whoever you are, if you loot health care programs to line your own pockets, you will be held accountable by the Department of Justice.”
“The defendants are alleged to have developed and executed a fraudulent scheme to undermine a health care benefit plan established by the NFL – one established to help their former teammates and colleagues pay for legitimate medical expenses,” said U.S. Attorney Robert M. Duncan Jr., for the Eastern District of Kentucky. “The defendants allegedly submitted false claims to the plan and obtained money for expensive medical equipment that was never purchased or received, depriving that plan of valuable resources to help others meet their medical needs. We have prioritized the investigation and prosecution of health care fraud in our office, and we appreciate the partnership we share with the Criminal Division and the FBI in pursuing these important matters.”
“This investigation serves as an illustration of the rampant and deliberate scams against health care plans occurring daily throughout the country,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the Miami Field Office.  “In this case, these fraudsters pocketed money from the Gene Upshaw National Football League Health Reimbursement Account Plan that was intended for former NFL players who are ill or infirm.  Over 20 FBI field offices participated in this investigation which demonstrates the level of commitment we have to rooting out this type of fraud.”
Two separate indictments filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky outline two alleged conspiracies involving different players related to the same scheme to defraud the Plan. Those charged in the indictments are the following:
<ul>
<li>Robert McCune, 40, of Riverdale, Georgia, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, nine counts of wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud.  
 </li>
<li>John Eubanks, 36, of Cleveland, Mississippi; Tamarick Vanover, 45, of Tallahassee, Florida; and Carlos Rogers, 38, of Alpharetta, Georgia, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of health care fraud.  
 </li>
<li>Clinton Portis, 38, of McLean, Virginia; Ceandris Brown, 36, of Fresno, Texas; James Butler, 37, of Atlanta, Georgia; and Fredrick Bennett, 35, of Port Wentworth, Georgia, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, one count of wire fraud and one count of health care fraud. 
 </li>
<li>Correll Buckhalter, 41, of Colleyville, Texas, and Etric Pruitt, 38, of Theodore, Alabama, are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud. </li>
</ul>
In addition, the government has filed notice that it intends to file criminal informations charging Joseph Horn, 47, of Columbia, South Carolina, and Donald “Reche” Caldwell, 40, of Tampa, Florida, with conspiracy to commit health care fraud in the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The indictments charge that the scheme to defraud involved the submission of false and fraudulent claims to the Plan for expensive medical equipment – typically between $40,000 and $50,000 for each claim – that was never purchased or received.  The expensive medical equipment described on the false and fraudulent claims included hyperbaric oxygen chambers, cryotherapy machines, ultrasound machines designed for use by a doctor’s office to conduct women’s health examinations and electromagnetic therapy devices designed for use on horses.  
  
According to allegations in the indictments, McCune, Eubanks, Vanover, Buckhalter, Rogers and others recruited other players into the scheme by offering to submit or cause the submission of these false and fraudulent claims in exchange for kickbacks and bribes that ranged from a few thousand dollars to $10,000 or more per claim submitted.  As part of the scheme, the defendants allegedly fabricated supporting documentation for the claims, including invoices, prescriptions and letters of medical necessity.  After the claims were submitted, McCune and Buckhalter allegedly called the telephone number provided by the Plan and impersonated certain other players in order to check on the status of the false and fraudulent claims. 
  
This case was investigated by the FBI and is being prosecuted by the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  The investigation included efforts by various FBI Field Offices and Resident Agencies, including: Augusta, Georgia; Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Columbia, South Carolina; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Jackson, Mississippi; Lexington, Kentucky; New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami, Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Newport Beach, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Washington, D.C.  
  
Trial Attorneys John (Fritz) Scanlon, Alexander J. Kramer and Thomas J. Tynan of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul C. McCaffrey and Andrew E. Smith of the Eastern District of Kentucky are prosecuting the cases.

Washington Redskins v Philadelphia Eagles

10 Former NFL Players Charged With Stealing Millions Of Dollars In Elaborate Healthcare Scheme

On Monday, Campus Reform released a video in which Cabot Phillips speaks with students at George Washington University about “Medicare for All.”
“So the main issue that Democrats have taken up, and [are] running against Trump on, is health care,” Phillips said. “The policy right now that they’re proposing is Medicare for All, which is the idea of government-funded health care for everyone. Is that a concept you view favorably or unfavorably?”
As expected, all of the students who were questioned said that, to one degree or another, they approved of Medicare for All.
<blockquote>“Favorably, for sure.”
“I do support Medicare for All.”
“I do think that every American deserves health care.”
“I do support that. I think it’s an important form of universal heath care.”
“I do support free health care for everybody.”
“In general, I would say yes. I do favor Medicare.”</blockquote>
A Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) supporter wearing a pink and gray scarf told Phillips that she didn’t believe he could say anything that would have her “view it unfavorably.”
Phillips then outlined some of the consequences of a Medicare for All system, and asked each participant to tell him whether they “view them favorably or unfavorably.”
“So, first off, it is mandatory, so it would be – over a hundred million people right now have private insurance plans that they like – they would be removed from those plans by the government,” Phillips stated. “It would be mandatory, and they would be put on the government plan, even if they didn&#8217;t want to. Is that something that concerns you at all?”
A female student wearing a black backpack said it “probably” concerns her. Another female student holding an orange cup agreed, saying she views that aspect of the plan “unfavorably.”
A male student holding a water bottle and another male student in a pink T-shirt indicated an unfavorable position.
“I mean, they shouldn&#8217;t be like kicked off of it, I guess. That’s not really – that doesn&#8217;t seem fair,” said the student in the pink tee.
A student with a beard and glasses who had previously indicated that he favored “free” health care said that the “government can’t force” Americans onto its plan, to which Phillips replied: “Well, that&#8217;s what this would do.”
Orange cup shared a similar sentiment, noting that while she believes “everyone should have health care,” Americans shouldn’t be stripped of their private plans.
The Sanders supporter remained steadfast: “I mean, as a Bernie support, I think you do have to give up some choice just for the benefit of everyone in society.”
Phillips moved on to another ramification of enacting a Medicare for All system.
“So, the second part – it would eliminate private health insurance, the entire industry. It would be just under a million jobs [that] would be eliminated because all insurance [is] moved to the government,” he said.
Most of the students stated that they viewed such a consequence “unfavorably.” Orange cup even went as far as to say that she believes “having jobs and being able to make a living and &#8230; survive on your own and take care of your family is more important than everybody having health care.”
Black backpack added that “the way someone wants to insure their life and their health is their choice.”
A student wearing a white T-shirt told Phillips that he was “fine with that,” leading to the following exchange:
<blockquote>WHITE TEE: People can have health care, you know, regardless of whether its private or governmental they will have health care –
PHILLIPS: But this would eliminate private health care.
WHITE TEE: Yeah, you know, and either way it&#8217;s still health care, you know?</blockquote>
Phillips moved on to the final detail.
“In the Bernie Sanders proposal – it would be about $32 trillion over the next decade – that would be every American paying about one-fifth of their income toward funding it. Is that a concern?” he asked.
The student with the beard and glasses was confused, asking: “You have to pay for it?”
Phillips replied: “Yes, so taxes will go up.”
The student shot back: “You still have to pay for it? I don&#8217;t support that.” He later added, “I just think that&#8217;s a lot and it&#8217;s just like, health care is definitely important and crucial, but there&#8217;s also other things that people are trying to worry about.”
Black backpack echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the adverse impact it might have on “low-income” families.
Pink tee said he would view the tax burden in an “unfavorable” light if he were on his own financially.
The student holding the water bottle laughed and said, “No comment.”
When asked if the information troubled her, orange cup replied in the affirmative, adding: “I didn&#8217;t know those facts before. Now I&#8217;m kind of debating on if I’m supporting Medicare for All now.”
Pink tee still wasn’t sure, although he said the information did “shock” him.
Black backpack said the information “could change [her] mind,” but “the overall goal is worthy of conversation.”
Phillips pressed white tee, asking him what his message was to people who want to keep the insurance they already have.
Tee offered an incoherent answer: “I mean, you know, regardless, I feel like insurance you can keep – here&#8217;s – I don&#8217;t really know much, I&#8217;m just [saying my] support, I [mumbles] just governmental stuff, but personally, yeah, it&#8217;s &#8230;”
Lastly, Phillips asked a female student from Venezuela if she viewed Medicare for All favorably or unfavorably.
She replied: “Where I come from &#8230; we used to have health care for all, right? But I feel like, for us particularly, it didn&#8217;t work. We’re socialist. It really hurt us as a country.”
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V8EOcRIduP8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sanders and Warren.

WATCH: ‘Medicare For All’ Supporters Shocked By Facts About ‘Medicare For All’

Medicare for All

On November 24, 2019, Michael Rubens Bloomberg announced his formal entrance into the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 presidential primary. To date, he is the latest candidate to enter the primary field.
Michael Bloomberg served three full terms as mayor of New York City, from 2002 through the end of 2013. He was New York City&#8217;s mayoral successor of the failed 2008 Republican presidential candidate and current private attorney for President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg is also the co-founder, CEO, and majority owner of financial services conglomerate Bloomberg L.P., which is perhaps best known for its flagship Bloomberg Terminal hardware. As of November 2019, Bloomberg&#8217;s net worth was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg">estimated</a> at $58 billion dollars, which makes him one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. He has been a prolific donator to various charitable and political causes.
Born in Boston in 1942, Bloomberg has degrees from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School. A registered Democrat earlier in his career, Bloomberg actually ran for and successfully sought the New York City mayoralty office as a registered Republican before re-registering as an independent in the midst of his second mayoral term. He re-registered as a Democrat in 2018. Since joining the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary field, Bloomberg News — an international news outlet operating as a legal subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P. — has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-news-wont-investigate-bloomberg-democrats-its-journalists-go-to-work-on-bloombergs-campaign">announced</a> that it will not journalistically investigate Bloomberg or his fellow 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign rivals.
Electoral History: Bloomberg&#8217;s only experience in elected office is his three terms as New York City mayor. In 2001, shortly following the 9/11 jihadist attacks, Bloomberg sought to replace outgoing Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a fellow Republican and defeated his Democratic opponent, Mark Green, by a 50.3%–47.9% margin. In 2005, Bloomberg once again ran as a Republican and was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin over his opponent, Fernando Ferrer. In 2009, after having successfully lobbied the New York City Council to change its mayoral two-term limit to a three-term limit, Bloomberg was narrowly elected to a third mayoral term while running as a Republican Party-endorsed registered independent.
On The Issues: Bloomberg&#8217;s general political profile is that of a fiscal and national security centrist, although he positions himself far to the left on social issues — with his <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/bloomberg-unveils-expansive-gun-control-plan-076376">anti-gun advocacy</a> perhaps emerging as the political issue with which he has become most closely identified. The latter stages of Bloomberg&#8217;s mayoral tenure were marked by odd flirtations with nanny state-style progressive governance, with the infamous <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/11/the-new-york-city-soda-ban-explained/">&#8220;soda ban&#8221;</a> as the most prominent example. Furthermore, in terms of hot-button leftist issues, Bloomberg&#8217;s current 2020 presidential campaign is aggressively <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/international-climate-priorities">advertising</a> his commitment to combatting global warming. But on bread-and-butter issues pertaining to fiscal prudence and foreign policy — perhaps especially with respect to Israel and the Middle East — Bloomberg is generally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-michael-bloomberg-would-have-no-chance-at-the-democratic-presidential-nomination">far more centrist</a> than most of his other primary opponents.
Constitution: Bloomberg&#8217;s career in the financial services industry and his tenure as New York City mayor provide little in the way of concrete guidance as to what he may believe about constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. However, following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Bloomberg expressed support for &#8220;chang[ing]&#8221; prevailing constitutional jurisprudence so as to allow for easier mass domestic surveillance. His far-left stances on most cultural issues might also portend a belief in leftist &#8220;living constitutionalism.&#8221; Similarly, his nanny state governing proclivities likely augur in favor of an expansive view of the Constitution&#8217;s Commerce Clause — a provision that has justified decades of progressive economic regulatory overreach, going back to the New Deal.
Economy: Bloomberg has self-described as a fiscal conservative, pointing to his balancing New York City&#8217;s budget as his most supportive data point. Bloomberg may indeed be fiscally conservative to the extent fiscal conservatism means cutting deficits and balancing budgets, but his mayoral tenure and public statements also evince a willingness to raise various taxes toward achieving those ends. Bloomberg is also a firm proponent of free trade and opponent of protectionist policies. Out of all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, it is possible that no one better personifies the decades-long post-Reagan/Clinton bipartisan neoliberal economic consensus than Bloomberg.
Health Care: Bloomberg&#8217;s nanny state governing tendencies, as best seen with the now-infamous &#8220;soda ban,&#8221; are perhaps most evident in the health care context. Despite his self-identification as a fiscal conservative, then, Bloomberg has long demonstrated a willingness to extend the reach of government to regulate both health care and the health of those citizens under his governing watch. His 2020 presidential campaign now <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">emphasizes</a> the pursuit of universal health care, and how &#8220;expanding Obamacare and Medicare is the best way to achieve universal coverage.&#8221;
Immigration: Bloomberg has previously been very critical of border hawks who call for deportations of illegal aliens, suggesting a personal view that mass amnesty is proper. To that end, he was supportive of the U.S. Senate&#8217;s failed 2007 &#8220;comprehensive immigration reform&#8221; push, which included amnesty for millions of illegal aliens as one of its underlying goals. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg was fairly lax on immigration enforcement and largely shirked meaningful steps to crack down on illegal immigration plaguing the city. His current campaign <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">website</a> hails Bloomberg&#8217;s erstwhile formation of &#8220;pro-immigration organization New American Economy,&#8221; and he is generally seen as a staunch advocate of large-scale legal immigration.
Foreign Policy: Bloomberg assumed the New York City mayoralty in the near-term aftermath of the 9/11 jihadist attacks, and he is generally considered to be more hawkish on foreign policy and national security matters than most of his 2020 Democratic presidential rivals. He previously supported the PATRIOT Act, was an initial supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and publicly endorsed President George W. Bush&#8217;s re-election campaign at the New York City-hosted Republican National Convention in 2004. Bloomberg is much more pro-Israel than most of his 2020 Democratic rivals: In 2014, when President Barack Obama oversaw a temporary <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/213288-obama-defends-israel-flight-ban">U.S. flight ban</a> to Israel amidst the jihadist rocket fire that rained down on the Jewish state that summer from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-israel-must-destroy-hamas-once-and-all-josh-hammer">Hamas</a>-controlled Gaza Strip, Bloomberg personally <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-23/why-i-flew-to-israel">flew to Israel</a> solely to demonstrate to his fellow Americans that it was safe to do so. In September 2019, Bloomberg conducted an odd interview on the issue of China, in which he <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/michael-bloomberg-china-pbs-climate-xi-dictator.html">defended</a> Chinese Communist Party strongman Xi Jinping against charges that he is a &#8220;dictator.&#8221;
Abortion: Bloomberg is emphatically pro-abortion.
Guns: Bloomberg&#8217;s anti-gun advocacy is perhaps the single most defining issue of his recent private citizen activism — and perhaps the single most defining issue of his 2020 presidential bid. He is very closely affiliated with and has <a href="https://everytown.org/press/new-gun-violence-prevention-group-everytown-for-gun-safety-unites-mayors-moms-and-millions-of-americans-on-new-paths-to-victory-state-capitols-corporate-responsibility-voter-activation/">helped</a> <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/bloomberg-gun-violence-moms-demand-action-volunteers">fund</a> Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which are both groups deeply hostile to Second Amendment rights. He also co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns while he was mayor of New York City. Bloomberg supports <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/gun-safety">“universal” background checks</a>, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. Bloomberg believes that every gun owner should need a permit before making a gun purchase. He <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cory-booker-wants-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-yes-it-means-putting-gun-owners-in-jail" data-reader-unique-id="49">supports a ban</a> on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer" data-reader-unique-id="50">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.

Michael Bloomberg

Where Does Michael Bloomberg Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

Abortion

Bloomberg News

Constitution

Democratic Party

Economy

Foreign Policy

Gun Buybacks

Gun Control

Gun Laws

A Virginia doctor has been arrested after he allegedly performed hysterectomies and tied fallopian tubes without the patient’s consent.
NBC News reported that Javaid Perwaiz, 69, was charged with “health care fraud and making false statements to federal investigators.” His case is in the hands of federal authorities.
NBC reported that Perwaiz was an obstetrician-gynecologist in Chesapeake, VA. More from NBC:
In one case, Perwaiz, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Chesapeake, told a woman she needed a hysterectomy after discovering the “imminent onset” of cancer, the documents said.
The patient objected and asked instead for a less invasive operation, in which only her ovaries were removed, the court papers said.
When the woman awoke from surgery, “she was shocked to discover Perwaiz performed a total abdominal hysterectomy.” The doctor cut the patient’s bladder in the process, causing sepsis and requiring a six-day hospital stay, investigators claimed.
When the woman later obtained her medical records, the surgery was described as “elective” and cancer was not mentioned, they said.
Another woman had gone to Perwaiz for post-menopausal bleeding. Perwaiz performed a hysterectomy on her and claimed in medical records that the woman suffered from “chronic pelvic pain, pressure and persistent cramping.”
The woman, according to NBC, told investigators she had none of those symptoms and that Perwaiz warned her that she could get cancer if she did not get the surgery.
Other patients claim Perwaiz “routinely used the ‘C-word’ [cancer] to scare patients into having surgery.”
In yet another horrific example, a woman who was helped by Perwaiz for an ectopic pregnancy later learned that she would not be able to naturally conceive a child because her fallopian tubes “were burnt down to the nubs, making natural conception impossible,” court documents reviewed by NBC showed.
Further, “Perwaiz lost his admitting privileges in 1982 at a hospital in nearby Portsmouth for performing unnecessary surgeries and poor clinical judgement,” NBC reported. He also “faced eight malpractice suits, including allegations he caused permanent injuries to three patients and life-threatening injuries to two others and failed to use techniques that were not invasive.”
Perwaiz’s name has since been removed from the websites of Bon Secours Maryview Medical Center and Chesapeake Regional Medical Center.
WTKR <a href="https://wtkr.com/2019/11/09/chesapeake-doctor-facing-charges-after-accused-of-performing-unnecessary-surgeries-on-unsuspecting-patients/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+U.S.%29">reported</a> that Perwaiz had been under investigation by the FBI since September 2018, after a hospital employee provided a tip that he was performing unnecessary surgeries on patients without their knowledge. Between January 2014 and August 2018, the outlet reported, “Perwaiz performed a surgical procedure on 40% of his Medicaid beneficiaries which amounted to 510 patients.” Of those patients, about 42% received two or more surgeries.
Perwaiz is currently in custody at Western Tidewater Regional Jail. His first court appearance is on November 14, the outlet reported.

Woman at the Gynecologist

Virginia Doctor Arrested After Allegedly Performing Hysterectomies Without Patients’ Consent

Crime

As the 2020 election looms closer, health care has choked out virtually every other issue to stand alone as the primary focus of several top-tier candidates in the Democratic primary race.
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have each put forward a “Medicare for All” plan, candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden have taken a softer position, proffering smaller ideas that would reportedly cost much less.
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with health care policy expert and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Scholar Joe Antos about “Medicare for All.”
In part one of this interview, which you can read <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-health-care-policy-expert-joe-antos-breaks-down-the-dangers-of-medicare-for-all">here</a>, Antos breaks down the complexity of the current Medicare system, and discusses the damage that a “Medicare for All” system could cause, such as rationing of care, the raising of taxes on the middle class, provider flight, and innovation drain.
In part two below, Antos talks about a more “free market” approach to health care, understanding “universal” coverage, the way in which conservatives and Republican lawmakers should approach health care legislation, and the ultimate damage that a “Medicare for All” system could do.
<blockquote>DW: Is it realistic to think that someone could keep their doctor if we were to move to a “Medicare for All” system? A friend of mine from another country claims that she can see whatever doctor she wants under their plan, which is essentially a state-run plan.
ANTOS: That may be the case, as long as your doctor remains in practice. There’s a generational issue that may explain your friend’s comment. Young, healthy people typically do not have a doctor that they see regularly. In that sense, you could see any doctor you like, but you would not much care who it is. Older people or those with chronic conditions become attached to their doctors, so being able to keep their doctor is a more serious concern. One other point: older, more established doctors may be more likely to leave the active practice of medicine under a plan that sharply cuts their payments. In such a case, their patients would have no choice but to establish a relationship with a new doctor.
DW: Some people claim that the United States is a free market healthcare system, but that&#8217;s obviously not quite true. What are the differences between what we have and what a truly free market system would look like?
ANTOS: It is not very clear what people mean when they say “free market healthcare.” Our system is a mix of public and private coverage, with nearly everyone receiving a government subsidy. Private health insurance is subject to state and federal regulations, and providers are subject to licensure and other government regulations that are supposed to protect patients from unqualified providers – but also protect providers from competition. As a practical matter, government would have a role in a “free market” system, but it would be sharply reduced from what we see today.
One vision of a free market system would emphasize the role of consumers making their own decisions about their health care and bearing the full financial consequences of those decisions. Insurance would still play a financing role, with high-deductible plans accompanied by health savings accounts becoming even more common than we see today. To be workable, consumers and their physicians need information about treatment alternatives, provider performance, and cost. Both consumers and their doctors need strong financial incentives to select cost-effective care from efficient providers.
We’ve been edging our way toward a consumer-driven system for some time.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation-HRET survey found that employer-sponsored coverage has shifted away from unmanaged fee-for-service plans. Between 2014 and 2019, enrollment in high-deductible plans with health savings accounts grew from 20% to 30% of the market. HMOs grew from 13% to 19% of total enrollment. Preferred provider organizations, which are fee-for-service plans with provider networks, shrank from 58% to 44% of total enrollment. That is a direct response by employers and employees to the high cost of unmanaged care.
However, we are sending consumers into the battle completely unarmed. It&#8217;s very hard to know what anything costs. It&#8217;s very hard to know what your insurance will pay for until after you have received the medical service. It&#8217;s very hard to judge how effective a treatment may be and whether there are alternatives that might be better. Patients depend on their physicians for good advice, and physicians often do not know whether a specialist is in your insurer’s network or what your plan will cover.
Lower back pain is a good example of the challenges we face as consumers, and how large employers are beginning to address them. In most cases, back surgery is the treatment of last resort. Patients with lower back pain need physical therapy, which in many cases will resolve the problem as long as the patient consistently follows the exercise regimen at home. Unnecessary spine surgeries are expensive, debilitate the patient for extended periods of time, and may not be effective.
Several large corporations, including Wal-Mart and Boeing, have contracted with well-known medical centers to evaluate their employees with lower back pain. Instead of an incentive to do more surgeries that is seen in unmanaged fee-for-service plans, these contracts reward appropriate care. The patients are assured that their care is being managed by high-quality providers, and the savings comes from reducing unnecessary use of high-cost treatment.
This example also highlights the critical role of the physician in guiding the patient’s decisions about the course of treatment. Health care is complex. To be successful, consumers need the guidance of their physicians, whose financial incentives should promote cost-effective care.
DW: Proponents of universal healthcare systems say that their primary goal is to get everyone covered because everyone should have good health care. What is the more optimal, free market-based plan, and how do we get there?
ANTOS: One of the things that advocates often get wrong is that health insurance does not guarantee appropriate care. The political focus for the last decade has been on expanding insurance coverage, with far less attention paid to what that coverage actually buys.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) relied on a mandate and penalties to force people to buy health insurance. Although the mandate was not effective, the idea was that the threat of a penalty would make younger, healthier people buy coverage that they would not otherwise purchase. Because premiums in the health insurance exchanges were high, coverage options were not attractive, and the financial penalty was small, exchange coverage attracted an older, sicker population.
A better approach would change the culture of health insurance. Instead of the ACA’s approach, which mandates consumers to buy expensive coverage, we could adopt automatic enrollment. Under that method, everyone would be automatically enrolled in a high-deductible health plan financed by restructuring existing federal health insurance subsidies. Consumers would not be charged a premium for this basic plan, but they could buy better coverage if they wished to. Anyone not wishing coverage could drop out, but few would take the time to do so. This approach makes insurance coverage the default without imposing unaffordable costs on consumers.
Under automatic enrollment, everyone would be eligible for a basic subsidy tied to their income level. Catastrophic expenses would be covered, but the benefit could be expanded to allow free or low-cost primary care. Covered California, which operates the ACA exchange in that state, requires all plans to offer such basic services, which has helped promote enrollment.
Implementing automatic enrollment would not be as difficult as skeptics think, but enrollment would take time to expand. Uninsured people who should be automatically enrolled can be identified through normal interactions with state and local government agencies. Enrolling a child in school, getting a driver’s license, voting, and other activities can be used to enroll the uninsured in this default system. Similarly, public health clinics and hospital emergency rooms can help enroll people who otherwise do not have coverage.
Automatic enrollment is not an instant solution, but it is also not disruptive. The measure of success is not how many people are newly covered by the default plan in any one year. Instead, the goal is to set up a process that will eventually cover everyone without locking them into unaffordable plans.
DW: Do you think Conservatives need to be more aggressive in offering their own solutions, instead of just pointing out the flaws in “Medicare for All” style systems?
ANTOS: Conservatives should offer their own proposals, but to be useful, the proposals need to be developed carefully. All too often, proposals focus on broad themes without the detailed specifications to implement those themes through legislation. It is important to work through the implications of one’s proposal to avoid overlooking problems that could make it technically and politically unworkable. The flight of Democrats from Elizabeth Warren’s plan demonstrates the importance of thinking through the details, and not ignoring the potential for a negative response from the public.
Republicans have too often reacted to Democratic initiatives rather than taking positive actions of their own. I think that partly explains the 2017 collapse of repeal and replace efforts in Congress. Well-developed conservative proposals can fill the policy void, but they must be realistic about how much any single piece of legislation can change the system. Realistic proposals should build on the best of what already exists, rather than pretending that we can start with a clean slate.
It&#8217;s very important to move away from simply reacting, and embrace a positive political approach. In my opinion, that means supporting the goal of making affordable coverage available to everyone. Affordability is not measured solely by the subsidies that help people pay for insurance, although subsidies targeted on those most in need are an essential part of any reform. We also have to improve the efficiency of the system to slow the growth of health spending, without rationing care and driving out innovation.
This takes hard work. The emphasis by liberals on expanding coverage is the easier message. Improving system performance is much more complicated, and that is what conservative proposals should focus on.
DW: What damage, aside from fiscally, could a “Medicare for All” system cause to patients, to doctors, etc?
ANTOS: I see a large waiting room filled with millions of people as doctors decide that another line of work makes more sense. Seriously, we will have growing access problems. The promise of free health care means that patients will have no financial reason to question whether a service is necessary. The reality of reduced provider payment rates means that physicians will have a strong incentive to try to make up their income losses by providing more services, especially those services that Medicare overpays. We could see increases in the volume of services that are not very effective, not very harmful to the patient, and more highly remunerative than more necessary care.
The broader effects on the economy could be very damaging. Warren has admitted that thousands of people now employed in the health industry would lose their jobs, but she claims that they will just shift to good jobs in other industries. That’s not so simple if you don’t have the skills needed for that next good job. If it exists. That’s the rub. Warren’s proposals to tax companies, individuals with high incomes, and wealth would create a serious drag on the economy. What she overlooks is that those taxes will take vast sums out of more productive sectors and pump it into the notoriously inefficient health sector. By and large, the wealth of this country goes into productive investments that create jobs, largely outside the health sector.
Access to care will become more difficult once it becomes “free.” The fiscal drag from “Medicare for All” will result in lost jobs and lower productivity, economy-wide. Business investments that would have been made in the U.S. will move to other countries with more favorable tax codes. It is not unreasonable to expect a recession that we might not recover from unless we come to our senses about our health system. Nearly one-fifth of our economy is in the health sector. That provides plenty of leverage for bad health policy to do serious damage.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Joe Antos for speaking with me about such a critical issue. For more information, check out Antos’ profile on the American Enterprise Institute’s website <a href="https://www.aei.org/profile/joseph-antos/">here</a>, and follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/joeantos?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Twitter.</a>

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

INTERVIEW (Part II): Health Care Policy Expert Joe Antos On The Harsh Realities And Dangers Of ‘Medicare For All’

Leftism

As the 2020 election looms closer, health care has choked out virtually every other issue to stand alone as the primary focus of several top-tier candidates in the Democratic primary race.
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have each put forward a “Medicare for All” plan, candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden have taken a softer position, proffering smaller ideas that would reportedly cost much less.
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with health care policy expert and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Scholar Joe Antos about “Medicare for All.”
In part one of this two-part interview, Antos breaks down the complexity of the current Medicare system, and discusses the damage that a “Medicare for All” system could cause, such as rationing of care, the raising of taxes on the middle class, provider flight, an innovation drain, and more.
<blockquote>DW: “Medicare for All” is said by many people, especially on the Left, to be popular among Americans. Is this true, and if so, why do you think that is?
ANTOS: Well, if it is popular, it&#8217;s because people don&#8217;t actually understand what the consequences would be for them personally. Opinion polls conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other organizations ask for respondents’ reactions to “Medicare for All” without explaining what that could mean in terms of access to care or higher taxes. The public at this point is responding to a phrase that sounds good but might not be. Would “Medicare for All” actually be something that people would welcome? I think the answer is no – based on what we already know about Medicare.
The traditional Medicare program is a not a great insurance program. Medicare’s structure is extremely complex, unlike any other health insurance available today. Its benefits are not up to the level most middle-class people receive through their employer plans. The program is hard to navigate, and most beneficiaries rely on supplemental coverage to fill in Medicare’s gaps.
To give you a few examples. Most private insurance requires a single annual deductible – perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 for a family plan. Medicare has multiple deductibles. If you are admitted to a hospital, you pay a deductible, which is $1,364 this year. If you are admitted again more than 60 days later, you pay another $1,364 deductible. You are also liable for coinsurance starting at $341 a day if you are in the hospital for more than 60 days. There’s another deductible of $185 for physician and other services under Part B, and 20% coinsurance after you’ve satisfied the deductible.
That’s a sharp contrast with typical private coverage. If you were used to paying $20 for a visit to the doctor under your private insurance before you turned 65, Medicare’s high cost and arcane rules would come as a shock. Your out-of-pocket costs under Medicare are both expensive and unpredictable. There are arbitrary limits on what Medicare will cover and how long that coverage lasts, and those limitations vary by the type of medical service. It’s a very confusing program.
This is one of the reasons why Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown rapidly, especially over the last decade. About 35% of Medicare beneficiaries are in MA plans, which are all structured similarly to the kind of coverage you had when you were working. MA generally offers better benefits than traditional Medicare, and it&#8217;s in one easy-to-understand package. Traditional Medicare, by contrast, requires seniors to work their way through a maze of rules that frankly baffles experts, not just the average person.
Warren and Sanders only want parts of Medicare in “Medicare for All.” They would dispense with the success of private plans in containing program costs, and extend Medicare price controls to the entire health sector. They would add benefits and eliminate premiums and cost-sharing, opening the door to a massive increase in the use of services. Even most contenders for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination know that won’t work.
The Kaiser Family Foundation polls demonstrate another important point about the public’s views. If asked how they feel about a “public option” or an “optional federal plan,” responses are much more favorable than for “Medicare for All.” The public likes the idea that there might be an alternative that might be better, but they don&#8217;t want to be forced into it because it might not be better. That says to me that the average person is leery about taking government promises at face value.
Anyone who has employer coverage knows what to expect. You may not be totally thrilled by it, but you know what it is. To be told that you will lose that coverage and be enrolled in a new, uncertain government plan is a disruption that many people would not welcome. Despite the enthusiasm from some on the Left, that&#8217;s not a positive political message.
DW: Sen. Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s plan is said to cost an additional $20.5 trillion over the first decade, and it would require major legislation to be passed, such as immigration reform. Sanders&#8217; plan would cost roughly $32 trillion, and he says middle class taxes would go up. Can you talk about that?
ANTOS: The Warren and Sanders plans are basically the same. Everyone would be enrolled in the government plan, and benefits would be expanded well beyond Medicare’s benefits to include dental, hearing, vision, and long-term care services. As a result, the bottom line cost would be about the same – about $32 trillion over the next decade. That’s the additional amount the federal government would have to pay to finance “Medicare for All” over the next decade.
Warren’s $20.5 trillion is lower only because it assumes some questionable sources of savings that total about $12 trillion. Her plan assumes that the federal government would receive the full amount state and local governments now pay for Medicaid and insurance for employees. Some spending would be reduced due to lower administrative costs. Health care providers would be paid substantially lower rates than they now receive from private insurers.
Warren’s plan would pay physicians and most other providers Medicare rates, which are about 40% below commercial rates. Recognizing that hospitals are a more potent political force, her plan offers hospitals 10% more than Medicare rates. That would have a devastating effect on many small and rural hospitals, many of which likely would be forced to close without additional subsidies. This proposal would directly challenge two of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington. That probably isn&#8217;t going to work out too well.
The remaining $20.5 trillion would be financed by a raft of new taxes. Nearly $9 trillion would be collected from employers to capture the amount they contribute to their employee’s health plans. The proposal also increases taxes on wealth, large corporations, financial transactions, and assumes increased tax revenue as a result of higher wages paid to workers who no longer have employer coverage. It is clear that the middle class will foot much of the bill for Warren’s proposal.
DW: If somehow the “Medicare for All” plans are paid for, is there a fear that talented surgeons, doctors, and even prospective surgeons and doctors who are planning to enter into medical school, might choose a different career path because those jobs won&#8217;t pay as much anymore?
ANTOS: That’s a legitimate concern, and we see this happening already. There is high demand for highly-trained physicians in roles that do not involve the direct delivery of care to patients. The hours are better, and the pay is good. That shift would certainly increase.
Delivering health care is not an easy job. It&#8217;s very time-consuming. There&#8217;s administrative hassle, which would not decrease under “Medicare for All.” At the end of the day, you&#8217;ve got to keep your business going, and now they&#8217;re going to cut your rates. For many providers, that would not make sense.
Young people would be less likely to go to medical school under such circumstances. Just as important, the health sector would be less attractive to investors who finance research that can lead to the next innovation in health care. This is a concern raised about pharmaceutical research, but it spans all of heath care. New diagnostic methods and new treatment approaches can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our health system. Those advances will be less forthcoming under “Medicare for All.”
DW: If there&#8217;s a type of doctor, say a therapist, that doesn&#8217;t accept insurance currently because they don&#8217;t make enough money from it, and they just accept check or cash payments, how would they be affected under a “Medicare for All” system? Would they be able to keep their practice going, or would they have to accept insurance?
ANTOS: That&#8217;s a difficult question to answer. Sanders is clearer about this than Warren. He flat out says that private health insurance would be banned by law. The only services that could be offered by private providers would be ones not covered by “Medicare for All.” That would restrict private health care to a narrow range of services, such as elective cosmetic surgery, which is generally not covered by insurance now. The market for such limited services is very small.
The bread and butter of health care would be delivered under the government plan, without a private sector alternative. It might be possible for some providers to establish concierge practices that accept only cash customers, but few people would be able to afford this. It seems likely that proponents of “Medicare for All” would try to outlaw such work-arounds, arguing that everyone should access health services on the same terms with no exceptions.
DW: What the proponents of “Medicare for All” systems continuously say is, &#8220;Yes, you may pay more in taxes, but the overall cost will go down.&#8221; What do you say to that?
ANTOS: Some people will gain financially, some will lose. Where you come out depends on many factors, including your income, the generosity of your previous coverage, and your health status. Warren says she will tax the rich without increasing taxes on the middle class. That doesn&#8217;t mean the middle class won&#8217;t pay more in taxes. They certainly will. There just isn&#8217;t enough money from taxes on high-income people and wealth to finance the kind of expansions they&#8217;re talking about.
For the middle class, it is a close call. If you are likely to use expensive medical services and your previous coverage required significant out-of-pocket payments, you are more likely to save money looking narrowly at health costs. However, even in that case, you could end up with higher total costs when taxes are taken into account. The amount you currently contribute to your employer premium would become taxable income, and the employer tax is actually a tax on part of your total compensation – so you pay that as well.
A major goal of both proposals is income redistribution through the health system. Low-income people who are not eligible for Medicaid would have their medical bills paid. High-income people would see their taxes increase. But everyone would face longer waiting lines to access medical services. We can look to Canada to see that.
We&#8217;re also going to lose access to services that simply won&#8217;t be there because we will not have put the investment in, and nobody on the private side will take the risk.
DW: I was talking to a friend of mine from Canada who said that her mother had a ligament injury in her knee, and she had to wait six months to get an MRI. Despite the injury being terribly painful, it wasn&#8217;t life threatening, so they pushed her down the waiting list. On the other side of that, I have friends from Italy, from Canada, from the U.K. who have told me that they love their medical systems.
ANTOS: People&#8217;s attitudes about their health system depend on their expectations and, for many, whether they had a good experience the last time they needed care. Americans have high expectations. The British may be less demanding, partly because Britain is a less wealthy country and people may be more willing to wait for services. Opinions in other countries have no bearing on how a government health system would be viewed here.
The example of a torn ligament is revealing. If you are in pain and are told to wait for treatment, you won’t be happy regardless of your nationality.
Sally Pipes, the president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in California, is Canadian. She has pointed out that a dog would have more rapid access to an MRI than a human Canadian. The reason is that veterinary care is not part of the Canadian health system, and the private market responds to consumer demand. Moreover, since veterinary care is not subsidized by the government and insurance is not involved, prices are lower – reflecting what pet owners are willing to pay. Fido does not wait in line even though his owner does.</blockquote>
In part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday, Antos talks about a more “free market” approach to health care, understanding “universal” coverage, the way in which conservatives and Republican lawmakers should approach health care legislation, the ultimate damage that a “Medicare for All” system could do, and more.

Bernie Sanders &#038; Elizabeth Warren.

INTERVIEW (Part I): Health Care Policy Expert Joe Antos Breaks Down The Dangers Of ‘Medicare For All’

The following is satirical.
Elizabeth Warren has released details of her health care plan. The plan, entitled “Pay Now, Die Later,” is estimated to cost $56 billion in added expenses, but Warren says that will be paid for with a tax on billionaires as soon as they return from their tax-free retreats in the Cayman Islands.
Warren says not a single penny of the plan will be paid for by the middle class because we’re all in this together and no one will be left behind and it’s time to make a difference and, yeah, the middle class will basically be taxed out of existence paying for the whole thing.
On the positive side, Warren says that, under her plan, instead of being ripped off by private insurance companies who take your money and then fail to pay when catastrophic illness strikes, you’ll be ripped off by the United States Government who’ll take your money and then turn every hospital into a cross between the VA and the DMV so that you wait in line so long you finally beg to die, whereupon they kill you and congratulate themselves on their fast, efficient service. After all, Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.
What’s more, the Warren plan will increase the efficiency of doctors by bathing them in magic efficiency dust which will cause them to forget they have no reason to be more efficient because the government will pay them the same thing no matter what. Plus, everyone will be healthier because of public service announcements telling them not to eat eggs until we find out eggs are good for you when there will be announcements telling you to eat eggs, but too late, since you’ve already died from too few eggs, thus saving government money and providing a much-needed tax break to the middle class who did I mention will be paying for the whole thing.
When asked what will happen to the millions of people currently employed in the insurance industry, Warren said none of them would suffer, but would instead be put painlessly to sleep like everyone else on government health care.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/klavan-nyt-columnist-calls-collapse-of-american-christianty-overstated-hes-got-a-point">KLAVAN: NYT Columnist Calls ‘Collapse’ Of American Christianity ‘Overstated.’ He’s Got A Point.</a>

Elizabeth Warren Delights Democrats With Hilarious New Health Plan [Satire]

Satire

With the rollout of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) health care plan on Friday, a “Medicare for All” style system has now been officially proposed by two of the most popular Democratic presidential candidates.
Multiple analyses have concluded that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “Medicare for All” plan would cost as much as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465894-new-study-full-scale-medicare-for-all-costs-32-trillion-over-10-years">$32 trillion</a> over a decade. Warren claims her plan would require approximately <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775339519/heres-how-warren-finds-20-5-trillion-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">$20.5 trillion</a> in “new” federal spending.
Many progressive commentators and politicians claim that “Medicare for All,” or its more general counterpart, “Universal coverage,” is popular among voters. Poll after poll appear to suggest the same thing – except upon closer inspection, that’s not quite the case.
In February, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-only-13-americans-want-government-run-frank-camp">The Hill-HarrisX</a> released a survey that asked respondents the following question about health care: “Which of the following comes closest to your views?”
<ul>
<li>15% of respondents said that “the government should remove itself from paying for all health care.”</li>
<li>14% said “the current health care system should be kept as is.”</li>
<li>26% said “any citizen should be able to sign up for Medicare/Medicaid regardless of age or income while those with private plans could keep their existing insurance.”</li>
<li>32% said “Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income but people should be able to purchase private supplemental plans.”</li>
<li>13% said “Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to cover all citizens regardless of age or income and private health plans should be abolished.”</li>
</ul>
A July poll from <a href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a> asked respondents if “Medicare for all, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance,” was a “good idea” or a “bad idea.” 41% said it was a “good idea,” while 54% said it was a “bad idea.”
An August survey by <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_082619/">Monmouth University</a> asked: “Which of the following comes closest to how you would like to see health care handled:  A) Get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of having everyone on a single public plan like Medicare for All, B) Allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage &#8230; or D) Keep the health insurance system basically as it is?”
Only 22% selected A, while 53% selected B, and 11% selected D.
In September, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6426498-19357-NBCWSJ-September-Registered-Voter-Poll-Final.html">NBC News/Wall Street Journal</a> released a survey in which respondents were asked if they supported a Medicare for All-style system in which “private health insurance would be eliminated.” 22% said they “strongly support” such a system, 19% said they “somewhat support,” while 44% said they “strongly oppose,” and 12% said they “somewhat oppose.” That’s a combined 41% supporting such a system, and 56% opposing it.
In October, the <a href="https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/">Kaiser Family Foundation</a> (KFF) asked respondents: “Would you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan if you heard that it would &#8230; eliminate private health insurance companies?” While 37% said they would favor such a plan, 58% said they would oppose it.
What these surveys demonstrate is that once the glossy buzzphrase of “Medicare for All” is wiped away, and the American people are faced with the elimination of private insurance, the majority react negatively. Despite this fact, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren, two of the leading Democratic candidates for president, have put out plans that would indeed eliminate private insurance.

POLL DATA: Majorities Oppose ‘Medicare For All’ If It Eliminates ‘Private Health Insurance’

About <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/health-medical-insurance-united-states">600,000 people</a> work in the health and medical insurance industry in the United States, according to market research firm IBIS World. Under Medicare-for-All, these people and many others would likely lose their jobs, since private insurance would be abolished.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who recently released her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all-is-a-complete-fantasy">dubious plan</a> to fund Medicare-for-All, was recently asked what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their jobs under her single-payer health care plan.
&#8220;No one gets left behind,” Warren responded. “Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance. In life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance. Some will work for Medicaid.&#8221;
“And there is a five-year transition support for everyone,” she continued. “Because, what this is about is how we strengthen America’s middle class and how we make sure, in transitions, no one gets left behind. It’s right there in the plan and it’s fully paid for.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Q: Where do those who work in health insurance go when private insurance is eliminated?
Sen. Warren: &#8220;No one gets left behind. Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance. In life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/KGJ4Eg9VKR">pic.twitter.com/KGJ4Eg9VKR</a>
— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1190441142069817344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This sounds an awful lot like Warren is claiming ‘If you like your job, you can keep your job.” It also sounds like the much criticized “learn to code,” a skill journalists suggested displaced coal workers learn but then claimed the phrase was harmful when suggested back to them.
It is not so easy, even with the five-year transition plan to move one entire industry (health insurance) into another (car or life insurance). There are not 600,000-plus job openings in the other insurance industries to accommodate those people, and that’s not even factoring in where the jobs might be if they were available. We’re talking about thousands upon thousands of people potentially needing to move in order to transition into another type of insurance. That’s a ton of people whose lives will be uprooted due to Warren’s plan.
Luckily, the probability of Warren actually getting her Medicare-for-All plan passed is close to zero. She has claimed that her plan won’t raise taxes on the middle class, which is impossible and something her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has admitted would be necessary. Warren’s plan to fund her single-payer proposal hinges in part on immigration reform, something Presidents Donald Trump Barack Obama, and George W. Bush could not achieve.
Her funding plan would also end up costing the middle class, as the numerous taxes she plans to place on employers would inevitably be passed on to employees.
Warren also relies on phantom funding to raise $2.3 trillion toward paying the $52 trillion price tag on Medicare-for-All. She claims she can raise $2.3 trillion from better IRS enforcement, yet the Congressional Budget Office has previously stated improved enforcement would only bring in a net $35 billion.
Warren <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-elizabeth-warren-admits-medicare-for-all-would-cause-tremendous-loss-of-jobs">had admitted</a> previously that her health care plan could cost upwards of 2 million jobs, but dismissed those losses by discussing health care costs.
“I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan,” she said at a recent forum in New Hampshire. “Although I do recognize on this what we’re talking about, and that is in effect how much of our health care dollars have not gone to health care, how many of those dollars have been pulled out in other directions.”

Elizabeth Warren Asked What Will Happen To Health Insurance Workers Under Medicare-For-All, Claims They’ll Work In Car Insurance

Medicare

The modern-day Democratic Party is, on any number of issues, simply <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-democratic-party-has-become-parody-itself-josh-hammer">beyond parody</a>. The far-left tail that is the AOC-led &#8220;Squad&#8221; has long come to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">wag the dog</a> that is the institutional party apparatus, and perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the intersection of economics and mathematics that sentient human beings have hitherto referred to as &#8220;sanity.&#8221;
In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">Communist</a> &#8211; VT) was notable for proposing sundry pie-in-the-sky socialistic nostrums that far outflanked eventual nominee Hillary Clinton on the hard left. In the clown car pile-up that is the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Sanders has once again outdone himself. As economic policy expert Brian Riedl recently broke down for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">City Journal</a>, Sanders&#8217; &#8220;current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade,&#8221; and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product would rise to an astonishing 70% — or three and a half times the 20% that has been the frequent post-World War II <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S">American norm</a>. The single priciest component of Sanders&#8217; hammer-and-sickle agenda, as the erstwhile Soviet Union honeymooner has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM">conceded</a>, is his bankrupting &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; plan — to the tune of $30–$40 trillion over a ten-year timeframe.
What is simply remarkable is that Sanders&#8217; &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; price tag now looks positively conservative compared to the newly unveiled plan of 2020 Democratic presidential primary rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ashe Schow <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all-is-a-complete-fantasy">noted</a> earlier today, Warren&#8217;s new &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; proposal &#8220;would cost $52 trillion over 10 years.&#8221; Proving even more thoroughly that the quixotic Democratic Party mind lies somewhere between the idyllic river of dragon dreams and the paradisal valley of unicorn farts, Warren doubled down on the disingenuous mathematical impossibility that she peddled ad nauseam at the last presidential primary debate and informed us gullible plebeians that her plan will somehow <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775335150/read-elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">not result in middle class tax hikes</a>.
Hmmmm.
As Riedl has <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes">previously</a> <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deficits-on-the-rise-and-not-because-of-tax-cuts-democrats-will-make-it-worse">demonstrated</a>, there is simply no world in which this exorbitant level of federal spending can be sustained. It is a complete and utter mathematical impossibility. Heck, we as a nation cannot even fiscally sustain our own previously pledged commitments to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-republicans-need-be-adults-and-talk-about-josh-hammer">bankrupting entitlement programs</a>!
But sure, what&#8217;s another $52 trillion in health care going to do, once we&#8217;re all already heading straight for a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html">Greece-style</a> sovereign debt abyss? At this point, the entirety of both the Democratic Party and &#8220;progressive&#8221; economic firmament seem to be unanimously in thrall to the <a href="https://economics21.org/modern-monetary-theory-rational-inflation">economically illiterate</a> fiction that is co-called &#8220;modern monetary theory&#8221; (MMT) — the nonsensical notion, as <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060">explained</a> by Investopedia, that governments that print their own currency &#8220;do not need taxes or borrowing for spending&#8221; because &#8220;they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.&#8221; Intellectually honest Democrats would publicly proclaim their fealty to the MMT cabal, in lieu of constantly equivocating when pressed about how they might possibly fund their fiscally ruinous and un-fundable schemes.
Sober-minded citizens have already seen the 2020 Democrats lurch to the far left on all sorts of bread-and-butter cultural and civilizational issues — from border security to religion to abortion to transgenderism. But on perhaps no issue is this crop of hucksters more transparently nutty than on their various plans for perhaps the most rudimentary political issue of all: Government spending.

October Democratic primary debate

HAMMER: The Democratic Presidential Primary Is A Race To The Fiscally Illiterate Bottom

Progressivism

She might as well have said she’d pay for the plan with leprechaun gold.
After being asked repeatedly how she would fund her Medicare for All plan, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) finally released the details, and they are as impossible as one can imagine.
For starters, Warren’s 2020 campaign claims her plan to fund single-payer health care in America would not raise taxes on the middle class, something her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has admitted would be necessary.
Warren’s plan would cost $52 trillion over 10 years, but remember, there is no sunset for the single-payer program. It would cost more than $5 trillion a year. For comparison, the federal government spent an already alarming $4.11 trillion in fiscal year 2018, up from $3.99 trillion in fiscal year 2017.
“Medicare for All puts all health care on the government’s books. But Medicare for All is about the same price as our current path — and cheaper over time,” said Warren, whose plan would cost $52 trillion over the next 10 years. “That means the debate isn’t really about whether the United States should pay more or less. It’s about who should pay.”
Warren says she can add that amount to the economy without crushing the middle class, by predictable cuts to military spending and tax hikes on the wealthy, the latter of which is likely unconstitutional.
Many of Warren’s pay-fors highlight the improbability of her plan. Politico’s chief Washington correspondent, Ryan Lizza, noted that Warren has rolled in immigration reform as a way to fund Medicare-for-All.
“To get a sense of how enormously difficult it is to raise the money to pay for Medicare for All, look at this section of the Warren proposal where she says that comprehensive immigration reform, a Herculean legislative feat that Bush and Obama failed at, will help pay for M4A,” Lizza <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/1190256613199941632">tweeted</a>.
The immigration reform portion of Warren’s plan claims that providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and expanding legal immigration would increase federal revenue to fund her plan. “Based on [the Congressional Budget Office’s] analysis of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, experts project that immigration reform would generate an additional $400 billion in direct federal revenue.”
But as Lizza pointed out, neither of the past two presidents have been able to achieve immigration reform, and it is unlikely Trump will be able to do the same. Democrats’ immigration plans &#8212; the parts granting citizenship to those who came here illegally or providing free government services for illegal immigrants &#8212; would not get much, if any, Republican support. It is highly unlikely that Warren would have veto-proof majorities in the congress to pass her proposal should she be elected president.
Another part of Warren’s funding plan suggests that properly collecting taxes “would generate $2.3 trillion in additional federal revenue without requiring the imposition of any new taxes” (emphasis added). The CBO, however, <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/54667-budgetoptions-2.pdf">has determined</a> that better enforcement from the IRS would raise just $55 billion over 10 years, but the necessary costs of funding the better enforcement would cost $20 billion, meaning just $35 billion would be raised. That’s far from Warren’s claims of $2.3 trillion.
Warren’s plan would also cut payments to doctors. This could not occur in a vacuum. Those cuts would be passed on to the patients, meaning that Warren’s claims that people would save money from her plan, based on current health care prices, is likely untrue.
“The most sweeping and controversial piece of her additions to Sanders’ bill is a pledge to pay most physicians current Medicare rates — which are much lower than private insurance rates but higher than Medicaid — and to pay hospitals slightly above Medicare rates. She argues that doctors will save money overall because they’ll be able to dedicate the hours they currently spend billing a swath of interlocking private and public insurance plans to providing care,” Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-plan-063775">reported</a>. “But medical providers who are <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/05/25/medicare-for-all-health-1436763">already mobilizing</a> against Medicare for All are likely to take this as a declaration of war.”
In addition, Warren’s plan proposes increased taxes on employers, including new Medicare taxes her campaign says will raise nearly $9 trillion over the next 10 years to pay for her single-payer plan. The campaign said that if they fail to reach the targeted revenue, they could impose a “Supplemental Employer Medicare Contribution” on corporations with “extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.” This “employer tax,” would likely be passed on to the workers in decreased wages.
Warren may be able to get away with saying she, unlike Sanders, won’t impose any new implicit taxes on the middle class, her plan will require additional funds from the middle class as taxes, fees, and payment reductions are passed on to the workers.
This doesn’t even take into account the favoritism Warren shows in her plan to unionized companies. Warren’s plan proposes that companies with collective bargaining agreements will pay less than non-unionized companies. This sort of favoritism will likely lead to consequences Warren either doesn’t foresee or refuses to acknowledge.
In response to Warren&#8217;s plan, Kate Bedingfield, communications director for former Vice President Joe Biden, <a href="https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1190282040509452289">told</a> Associate Press White House reporter Zeke Miller that &#8220;The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: it&#8217;s impossible to pay for Medicare for All without middle class tax increases&#8221;
The bottom line is that Warren’s fantasy accounting is unrealistic and would likely never be achieved, emphasizing the impossibility of the Left’s Medicare for All dream.

Menu