Marxicrat Plans For Total Control – High Priority – Universal Health Slavery Medicare for All’ Isn’t Medicare as We Know It The program would eliminate competition and choice, limit access and raise taxes. By Joel Zinberg Oct. 18, 2026 5:05 pm ET Sen. Bernie Sanders first introduced his Medicare for All legislation in 2017. Despite multiple reintroductions, the proposal has never received a floor vote in either congressional chamber. Medicare for All has become a rallying cry for progressives this election season, and recent polling suggests public support has surged. Voters should be careful what they wish for. Most Americans don’t understand the proposal or its likely effects. Medicare for All would eliminate competition and choice in medical care, limit access, and inevitably lead to tax increases. Medicare for All isn’t an expansion of the current Medicare program. Medicare as we know it combines public and private insurance options, allowing competition and choice. Eligible beneficiaries can choose from a traditional Medicare plan run by the federal government, privately-run Medicare Advantage plans, and privately-run Medicare Part D drug plans. Medicare for All would replace the existing public-private system for financing healthcare with a single, universal insurance program operated by the federal government. It would ban private insurance, including the employer-sponsored group insurance that half of Americans have, if the insurance duplicates any Medicare for All benefits. It would eliminate Medicaid for low-income households, Medicare as it now exists for the elderly and disabled, and the Affordable Care Act exchange-based individual insurance market. The proposal includes systemwide decreases of reimbursement levels below private insurance rates. Patients who don’t like the quality of care provided by the government monopoly would have no other insurance options. Studies of Mr. Sanders’s original proposal estimated it would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over 10 years. The projected 10-year cost is now $47 trillion, according to a recent White House Council of Economic Advisers estimate. That increased spending could be financed through a combination of deficit spending, program cuts and taxes—most likely heavy on the last. Because Medicare for All’s reimbursement rates would be substantially below private insurance rates, providers would respond by offering less service. This would lead to longer waiting times and less access to care. By eliminating the cost-sharing that private plans and Medicare currently impose to limit overconsumption of “free” healthcare, Medicare for All would also increase demand for care, further impairing access and possibly diverting care away from patients with urgent need. In the long term, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that lower reimbursements would cause fewer people to enter medical professions and pharmaceutical companies to develop fewer new drugs, exacerbating access problems and diminishing health. When respondents in the KFF poll were told the effects of Medicare for All, support plunged. Only 52% were in favor when told that private insurance would be eliminated, 38% when learning Medicare for All could threaten the current Medicare program, 35% once they considered that Medicare for All could require most Americans to pay higher taxes, and 24% after learning it could lead to delays for medical tests and treatments. Only 21% of the British public were satisfied with what is now the most famous single-payer health system in the world, the National Health Service, in a 2024 survey. Six in 10 Britons said they were “very” or “quite” dissatisfied, the highest level of dissatisfaction with the NHS since the survey began in 1983. In Canada, where private health insurance is prohibited from covering services included in the centrally financed public health insurance, more than 105,000 Canadians traveled abroad to pay for nonemergency medical care in 2025. Canadians who sought care within the country waited an average of almost 29 weeks between seeing a primary-care provider and obtaining treatment—a 15.3-week wait to see a specialist and then 13.3 more weeks before treatment. Canadians report far more access problems than Americans. Americans should know that Medicare for All will eliminate their existing coverage, ban private insurance options, dramatically increase taxes and impair access to care. With those facts on the table, voters will likely conclude no version of the Medicare for All Act should ever pass Congress. Dr. Zinberg is director of the Paragon Health Institute’s Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative.

To The remaining democrats with an ounce of common sense - You have been lied to by your icons - Get Out Now! Whatever legitimate ignorance you could have once claimed as victims of the state-controlled media is over - If you remain with these Destroyers you can only be described as Evil or Stupid! Vote Republican for once!

You might be a Democrat -- If You think that in this country of thousands of ways to get assistance that black Americans and women in general are too stupid to acquire ID.