The Bernie Sanders “Medicare for all” plan will cost a whopping $32.6 trillion dollars over just ten years.  In case anyone is keeping up with the math, that’s over ten trillion more than the United States entire national debt.

Paying for this socialist scheme would require an increase in taxation.  In fact, the amount all taxpayers would have to pay would more than double, reported Reason.  A new study released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a free market think tank, said that the analysis attempts to apply a price tag to the single-payer proposal backed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It is currently known as the “Medicare-for-all” plan. Sanders’ plan would see the federal government replace private health insurance that Americans currently receive as a benefit of employment or purchase independently, and would have the federal government become responsible for current state-level health care spending.

Great.  Just what we all need. More government in our lives and a doubling of our taxes – which are theft, by the way. 

Even with conservative cost estimates (conservative because the estimate assumes, as Sanders does, that the single-payer plan would deliver savings in administrative costs and drug prices), the Medicare-for-all plan would require an “unprecedented” increase in government spending, writes Charles Blahous, the study’s author.  You don’t say? A massive expansion of the ruling class’ bureaucrats.  Sound like it’ll cheap…and effective too! (Insert eye roll here). Are we all ready to feel the Bern in our wallets?

“Doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan, even under the assumption that provider payment rates are reduced by over 40 percent,” says Blahous, who was a health policy advisor to President George W. Bush and served as a Medicare trustee during the Obama administration. “Such an increase in the scope of federal government operations would precipitate a correspondingly large increase in federal taxation or debt and would be unprecedented if undertaken as an enduring federal commitment.”

Vermont experimented with single-payer health care a few years ago, but ultimately abandoned the project in 2014 because it was too costly, reported Reason.  Additionally, in Colorado, voters rejected a proposed single-payer system in 2016 when faced with the prospect of increasing state payroll taxes by 10 percent to meet the estimated $25 billion annual price tag.  Imagine the outrage at asking people to tolerate their federal tax burden to double.

Figuring out how to pay for a single-payer system remains a serious problem for supporters of the idea. With more than $21 trillion already on the national credit card, it would be beyond irresponsible to pass a wildly expensive overhaul of the health care system without adequately funding it. Supporters of single-payer will have to convince Americans that it is worth paying twice (or more) as much in taxes in order to get “free” healthcare (and abolish premiums, co-pays, and deductibles). –Reason

In polls, support for single-payer health care declines substantially after respondents are told about the associated costs.  Instead of the massive intrusive government-run and inefficient health care system, we could give the free market a chance.  Of course, having control over their own health is far too scary for the enslaved masses.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.