O'Rourke's 'Medicare for America' plan just another government takeover of health care

This is what passes for "moderate" in the Democratic Party these days.

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is proposing an alternative to the socialist "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by Bernie Sanders and several other major candidates.  He's calling it "Medicare for America" — a stealthy attempt to eventually bring about full government control of the health care industry.

CNN:

For O'Rourke, the proposal's appeal is that he thinks it moves the country to guaranteed health care more quickly than the alternatives, including the signature Medicare for All proposal from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is also vying for the Democratic nomination.  That's in part because it would maintain the private insurance industry, which is a deal breaker among progressives.

"What it says is, if you like your employer-sponsored insurance, you like the network that you're in, you like the doctors that you can see, you're happy with that, you can keep it," O'Rourke said Thursday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in response to an audience question.  "If you do not like your employer-based insurance and want to enroll in Medicare, you can.  If you have no insurance whatsoever or if you are under-insured today, you can enroll in Medicare as well."

Gee...where have we heard that before?

While many Americans like the idea of expanding Medicare, their support drops when they hear private insurance would be eliminated, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.  Medicare for America would address those concerns, said Jen Tolbert, the foundation's director of state health reform.

"The bill does try to strike a middle ground," she said.

"Middle ground"?  Compared to what?  I suppose if you're looking for a difference between the full on socialism of Medicare for All and O'Rourke's socialism-lite scheme, you might be able to see a distinction between the two.

In reality, even O'Rourke admits that his plan gets us to total government control eventually.

It's the boiling frog scenario, where we, the health care consumers, are the frogs.  "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain taking over your health care."  Meanwhile, bureaucrats will look to sabotage the private insurance industry, making sure that "Medicare for America" morphs quickly into "Medicare for All."

This is what passes for "moderate" in the Democratic Party these days.

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is proposing an alternative to the socialist "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by Bernie Sanders and several other major candidates.  He's calling it "Medicare for America" — a stealthy attempt to eventually bring about full government control of the health care industry.

CNN:

For O'Rourke, the proposal's appeal is that he thinks it moves the country to guaranteed health care more quickly than the alternatives, including the signature Medicare for All proposal from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is also vying for the Democratic nomination.  That's in part because it would maintain the private insurance industry, which is a deal breaker among progressives.

"What it says is, if you like your employer-sponsored insurance, you like the network that you're in, you like the doctors that you can see, you're happy with that, you can keep it," O'Rourke said Thursday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in response to an audience question.  "If you do not like your employer-based insurance and want to enroll in Medicare, you can.  If you have no insurance whatsoever or if you are under-insured today, you can enroll in Medicare as well."

Gee...where have we heard that before?

While many Americans like the idea of expanding Medicare, their support drops when they hear private insurance would be eliminated, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.  Medicare for America would address those concerns, said Jen Tolbert, the foundation's director of state health reform.

"The bill does try to strike a middle ground," she said.

"Middle ground"?  Compared to what?  I suppose if you're looking for a difference between the full on socialism of Medicare for All and O'Rourke's socialism-lite scheme, you might be able to see a distinction between the two.

In reality, even O'Rourke admits that his plan gets us to total government control eventually.

It's the boiling frog scenario, where we, the health care consumers, are the frogs.  "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain taking over your health care."  Meanwhile, bureaucrats will look to sabotage the private insurance industry, making sure that "Medicare for America" morphs quickly into "Medicare for All."