The HBO comedian, John Oliver, recently broadcast a show that strongly supported the idea that Medicare for All is the right solution for the current health care crisis in the U.S. In a 20-minute monologue, he attempted to refute the three main arguments against M4A.

First, he took on the cost of a government-controlled, single-payer system. He argues that health care would be free - no co-pays, no drug expenses, no dental costs, and no doctor or hospital bills. Sounds great, until you realize that multiple health economists estimate that M4A would cost an additional $14 to $32 trillion of government spending over the first ten years. The tax burden, yes even on the middle class, would be catastrophic and would lead to a massive decrease in the country’s gross domestic product. Even Senator Bernie Sanders, who “wrote the d—m bill,” admits he has no idea what M4A would actually cost.

Oliver drags out the old argument that the government could negotiate prices down – as long as it did not set prices “too low,” whatever that means. This is simply price-control and has been proved disastrous by every socialist country that has tried it. Price-controls lead to shortages – drugs, hospital beds, doctors, dentists, and so forth. Who would want to make health care a career if government bureaucrats were setting your income? Who would want to invest in drug companies if there was no profit? Only the free market can determine where prices should be set, just like in every other economic activity.

Next, Oliver attempts to tackle wait times for medical care, claiming they are “slightly longer” in Canada and Great Britain. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, has tracked wait times in Canada for the past 20 years. In 2019, the time from seeing a primary care doctor until specialty treatment was 20.1 weeks – five months. That would be totally unacceptable to Americans. In practice, Canada has a two-tiered system in the sense that officials allow their citizens to travel to the U.S. for privately funded health care.

Great Britain established a comprehensive government health-care system in 1948 that gives every citizen cradle-to-grave coverage. About 10 percent of the population has private insurance, and many physicians combine government entitlement work with private practice. Over the past year, 250,000 citizens have waited more than six months for planned treatments within the National Health Service, while 36,000 people have waited nine months or more.

He also goes on to claim that only 10 percent of Canadians or Brits want to change their respective health care systems. What he neglects to address is the fact that those two countries are not only smaller than the U.S. but also more culturally cohesive.

His last argument is that a socialized medicine system would offer more choice, without cumbersome provider networks or employer-based health insurance. He claims that the government (in reality, unseen and disinterested bureaucrats) would “carefully design” a health care system and offer Americans their choice of unlimited, free medical care. In all other industrialized countries, the demand for health care is much greater than the money budgeted for it. The results of this supply/demand mismatch are chronic shortages, followed by strict rationing of health care. The rationing can take many forms — from long waits to denying the elderly access to specific procedures, to allowing individuals with political influence to receive priority attention from providers.

Oliver essentially argues that our only choices are to continue the status quo or proceed to a socialized health care system. That is totally incorrect and overlooks a system where patients are in charge of their own health care. To control costs, increase choice and maintain or improve quality, patients must be allowed to control their own health care dollars and make their own health care decisions. The solutions involve :

• Price transparency;
• Change the tax code to allow individuals the same tax breaks that employers now take;
• Health insurance regulatory reform;
• Eliminate costly and unwanted insurance mandates;
• Use high-risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions
• Meaningful reform to Medicare and Medicaid to make them sustainable.

No third party, whether it is the government or an employer, is more concerned about a person’s health than that person is. Patients, as health care consumers, should be allowed to be informed about, to review the prices of, and to gain access to the best health care available in a fair, open, and free marketplace.

WARNING: Profanity and poor policy recommendations ahead.