We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
'Medicare-for-All': A Disaster Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, October 17 2018
Under 'Medicare-for-All,' patients would suffer, seniors would be shunned, hospitals would fail and health care workers would lose.

Senator Bernie Sanders says that because Medicare is "the most popular, successful and cost-effective health insurance in the country" everyone should have it, regardless of age.

But watch out for the bait and switch. Truth is, Sanders' "Medicare-for-All" legislation actually abolishes Medicare and Medicare Advantage, as well as employer-provided coverage, union plans and plans people buy for themselves. Every person, whether they want to or not, would be forced into a government-run system with the phony name "Medicare-for-All." The quality of your medical care would plummet.

"Medicare-for-All" would plunge hospitals into financial distress, exposing patients to dangerous medical shortages, and forcing pay cuts on health care workers.

But 16 Democratic senators, including New York's Kirsten Gillibrand, and 123 Democrats in the House, endorse the legislation. Have they actually read it?

President Donald Trump warns that Sanders is "eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors." Trump cautions that "hospitals would be put out of business," patients would face "long wait lines," and seniors would "effectively be denied" care they need.

Sanders calls Trump a liar. Fortunately, there's a way to determine who's telling the truth. The answer is in the 96 pages of Sanders' bill.

Four years after "Medicare-for-All" begins, all private insurance would be banned (Sec. 107), and Medicare and other government health programs would be terminated, just as Trump said. Everyone, including immigrants in this country illegally, would be enrolled in the new government program (Sec. 106). Newborns would be automatically enrolled at birth (Sec. 105).

On paper, the new program guarantees hospital care, doctors' visits, even dental vision and long-term care, all paid by Uncle Sam. Here's the hitch. Hospitals would be forced to operate under conditions of extreme scarcity, with little revenue and more patients than ever.

Right now, Medicare shortchanges hospitals, paying them less than the full cost of caring for seniors, but hospitals accept the low payments because they can shift the unmet costs on to younger patients who have private insurance that pays more.

But in the new scheme, hospitals would be paid at Medicare rates for all their patients, not just seniors (Sec. 611). With everyone on "Medicare-for-All," no cost-shifting would be possible. The rates would be 40 percent less than what hospitals could get from private insurance plans. The severe short-changing would throw hospitals into crisis.

Meanwhile, demand for care would surge, because it's free for all.

Hospitals would have to jam more beds into rooms and corridors, skimp on nursing care and make patients wait. Sounds like the austerity in the British National Health Service. Only, in Britain, the public has an escape hatch. They're allowed to buy private coverage. That's not true under Sanders' "Medicare-for-All" (Sec. 107). Those alternatives are banned. You'll be trapped.

The gold-plated union health plan or Medicare Advantage Plan you used to have would be a distant memory, as you wait in crowded clinics alongside people who never paid into Medicare or earned on-the-job coverage.

In New York, the austerity would be magnified. Hospitals here have more debt and slimmer operating margins than elsewhere, making them less able to withstand cuts. Gary Fitzgerald of the Iroquois Healthcare Alliance warns that Sanders' bill would "devastate upstate hospitals."

Doctors would also be paid 30 percent less than private insurance would pay them. To keep their doors open, they'll have to see more patients per hour. That's bad news for seniors, who take up more time. Doctors would avoid them like the plague.

The Sanders' bill is a labor fiasco in the making. A staggering 1.2 million New Yorkers work in health care, more than in retail or manufacturing or any other industry. When hospitals are paid less, health care workers would get cut too.

Under "Medicare-for-All," patients would suffer, seniors would be shunned, hospitals would fail and health care workers would lose. Who exactly is supposed to benefit, except the politicians?


Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
How many times in our nation’s history has a presidential election been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook said on Wednesday that it expected to be fined up to $5 billion by the Federal Trade Commission for privacy violations. The penalty would be a record by the agency against a technology company and a sign that the United States was willing to punish big tech companies.The social network disclosed the amount in its quarterly financial results, saying it estimated a one-time…[more]
 
 
—Mike Isaac and Cecilia Kang, New York Times
— Mike Isaac and Cecilia Kang, New York Times
 
Liberty Poll   

Does Joe Biden's entry into the Democratic race for president virtually seal the general election as Trump vs. Biden, or will one of the other Democrats be the candidate?