PERI – Economists in Support of Medicare for All

Progressive economists support M4A. That is no surprise and, of course, they claim all the benefits you have heard before, but avoid talking about any consequences that people should be aware of.

Here is a quote from their petition. I have highlighted one significant part. So, do you think there are any consequences we should consider for those items?

What measures might be taken to stay within a global budget? I know what other systems with budgets do, but I have no idea what the US would do, do you?

Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for healthcare, but of reducing total healthcare outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently. Implementing a unified single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and eliminate individuals’ and employers’ insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.  If combined with public control of drug prices and a dramatically simplified global budgeting system, a sensible Medicare financing system would reduce healthcare costs while guaranteeing access to comprehensive care and financial security to all.

Source: PERI – Economists in Support of Medicare for All


  1. The word “rationing” is not mentioned by anyone who wants to expand federal control of medical care. The fact that health care is rationed in Canada and Great Britain is overlooked entirely. As the boomer generation continues to age and increasingly requests knee and shoulder replacements, heart by-pass surgery, kidney dialysis, cancer treatments and so on, the current total cost of health care will be viewed as modest in comparison.

    The federal government will be forced to ration expensive procedures using a cost benefit analysis which will put patients on long waiting lists, with the unspoken aim of letting nature take its course on the oldest.


  2. No surprises here…. Look at the list of supporting members. All academics, the same folks who fill the heads of our youth with their left wing nonsense. What single payer proposes is a monopsony.

    [A monopsony is a market condition in which there is only one buyer. Like a monopoly which has only one seller, a monopsony also has imperfect market conditions. The difference between a monopoly and monopsony is primarily in the difference between the controlling entities.]

    When government is the controlling entity you have socialism and all its faults. There is a reason why we have anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. Why would we want to establish a monopsony for such a large portion of our economy?


  3. To me the first sentence is even more telling how to totally destroy our healthcare system as we know it.

    “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for healthcare, but of reducing total healthcare outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”

    Imagine if every doctor and nurse gets a pay cut and they can’t pay their student loans. Many will never enter the field. Imagine if some profits are removed from drug companies. Companies will reduce innovations and stop inventing new drugs because they will not be able to pay their investors. These are real world free market realities. Any suggestion that raising new money is not required is pure BS. More people equals more money and is true even in a pure socialist world. You just can’t add ten of million of people and maintain the same cost structure without rationing or cutting reimbursements to a fraction of what it is and expect the same level of service and care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s