Medicare for All=Tyranny for All

The Medicare For All bill introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) is a frontal assault on individual freedom, chock-full of rules, regulations, proscriptions, vote-buying, slush funds and handouts for Democrat special interest groups. Jayapal’s bill is similar to the Sanders bill, and both are awful. If passed, the full noxious effects will not be felt for years to come. Here are some of the more immediate consequences, gleaned from my slog through this 120-page nightmare.

In a cynical attempt to buy votes, illegal aliens will be covered (Section 104 {a}). It’s outrageous, but we’ll be made to pay for the health care of people who have broken our immigration laws. And just to rub our noses in it, Section 104(b) gives illegals the right to sue for “discrimination” in Federal court. This is to prevent states from passing laws to exclude illegal aliens from healthcare coverage. It’s a giveaway to two Democrat constituency groups: trial lawyers and the pro-immigration lobby. Combine universal health care with open borders, and the current flood of illegals now crashing our southern border will turn into a tsunami.

Every child will be enrolled at birth, per Section 105 (1). Parents will have no choice.

Private health insurance will be outlawed, per Sec. 107 (a) (i). Take note, union members – teachers, government employees, members of trade unions – your hard-won deluxe plans will be gone forever. Senior citizens will lose Medicare, a program they have depended upon and which was designed for them, per Title VII (I), breaking 54 years of promises dating back to Medicare’s inception in 1965. Seniors, along with the taxes they’ve paid over a lifetime of work, will be absorbed into the new program. This is the statist no-compete clause. Government can’t compete on a level playing field, so they’re eliminating the competition.

The Jayapal plan, like the revised 2019 Sanders plan, far exceeds what Canada covers (Sec. 201.) This includes, but is not limited to: medical devices, dentistry, prescription drugs, long-term care, audiology, vision, and alternative treatments like acupuncture. The original plan cost an estimated (in 2017-2018) $3.5 trillion per year. At this point, the price tag with the major additions is $3.5 trillion plus??? For context, the entire Federal budget is $4.7 trillion. Democrats have not put a price tag on this bill for an obvious reason: they don’t want us to know.

If our health care is ever nationalized, it will be open season on the unborn and on faith. Section 104 forbids discrimination based on pregnancy. If doctors refuse to do abortions for religious reasons, they risk being disciplined or sued in Federal court. And there are no funding limits. Title VII, Section (3) reads, “Any other provision of law in effect on the date of the enactment of this act restricting the use of Federal funds for any reproductive health service shall not apply to monies in the Trust Fund.” Since the Trust Fund is where the monies come from to pay for the entire program, it will be abortion on demand, no limits.

The right to privately contract with a doctor for covered services will be illegal (Sec. 303.) One of the most basic rights of free people will be illegal. This is to make sure is the government is the sole provider of health care and that everyone waits in line, like in Canada. Canadians wait an average of 5 months for treatment after referral from their GP. That’s five months of pain.

This plan will create mammoth new bureaucracies, starting with Regional Health Offices (Sec. 403.) Each office will be headed by a Regional Director and Deputy Director. Then there’s the Beneficiary Ombudsman (Sec. 404), who is supposed to receive complaints from the public and ostensibly act on behalf of citizens, but can’t actually do anything about their complaints (Section 404 says the Ombudsman can only suggest programmatic changes.) The law also births the Office of Primary Healthcare (Sec. 615.) Nationalization will create millions of new bureaucrats, who will become union members. Their union dues will go directly into the coffers of the Democrat party as campaign contributions. Money laundering? You bet.

If passed, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the power of life and death over every resident of the United States. The term “the Secretary shall” appears no fewer than 87 times. The Secretary will have the power to approve drugs and new treatments (Sec. 203 {1}), will decide who is covered (Sec. 201 {b}) and how much doctors are paid (Sec. 612). The Secretary of HHS will dictate the number of doctors and nurses per hospital patient, per Section 302 (b). The Secretary will also make rules about professional training for doctors and nurses (Sec. 302 {c}.) The Secretary is charged with writing the regulations that will run the entire health care sector (Section 401.) And in case they forgot to grab every last bit of power, Section 401 (k) reads, “…any other regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this act.” This is not even close to listing all of the powers granted the Secretary under this insane act.

The Secretary will establish a “national health budget” per Title VI, Section 601(a). There’s no mention of how much it will cost or how it’s paid for.

Within the national health budget are line items for capital expenditures, special projects and administrative costs, Title VI Section 601 (2) (b), (c), (f). If your local hospital needs new medical equipment or a new wing it must be approved by the regional office director and the Secretary of HHS. They will hand out checks with one hand while twisting arms with the other.

The Secretary will have the authority to confiscate any drug or medical device she deems necessary to carry out the program, section 616 (1). Think of the frightening precedent this sets. Inventors don’t own their inventions? The government can commandeer them? Kiss private property rights and medical innovation goodbye.

Outside of wartime, this is the biggest power-grab in American history. Democrats have been itching to take over healthcare since FDR. They blew it with Obamacare and they know it. They will not settle for a partial takeover this time. If they gain sufficient majorities in Congress and the Presidency, they will move heaven and earth to pass this bill, or another just like it. We must oppose this at every turn: in quiet conversations with friends and neighbors, at town hall meetings, in the union halls, in our houses of worship, with our campaign contributions and of course, with our votes. Our hard-won freedoms compel us. Our dignity as free people demands it. Our children’s future and that of future generations depend on it.

Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.



Rock legend Mick Jagger could have had his lifesaving heart surgery in the UK, but he chose to have it in the USA. Jagger’s decision speaks volumes about health care in the two countries. But beware: Democrats, led by Bernie Sanders, want to bring UK-style care to our shores under the guise of “Medicare for all” or “single payer.”

First, let’s dispense with the cute focus-group-tested names and call Medicare for All what it really is: a hijacking of our healthcare system that would make Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez proud. When government commandeers an entire industry, it’s called nationalization. Instead of “I want you to have Medicare for all,” how about “I want to nationalize your healthcare.” At least it’s honest. Scary, but honest.

Before we turn over our health care and our lives to the government, Bernie and company need to answer some questions. Why is a massively inefficient government the best vehicle to administer health care? What’s proposed is a socialist model; every socialist takeover of any industry has resulted in shortages and long waits; why will it be different this time? Will they create an agency to deny care like the UK has done with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)? Politicians only know how to count votes and money; why are politicians the best choice to run health care for every American? Democrats had a chance to reform health care and instead gave us the mess that is Obamacare, fraught with high premiums, high co-pays and high deductibles. Why do Democrats deserve a second chance? Every Democrat who voted for Obamacare lied about it (including Sens. Sanders and Gillibrand– why should we believe anything they say about health care now?

All they have to do to cover every American is to just say “you’re covered.” It’s that easy, but getting people to a doctor is a much tougher trick. Currently, there are 940,000 physicians practicing in the US. Throw in 388,000 physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners, and that brings the number to 1.3 million healthcare providers in the US to care for 325 million people. With these numbers, we can draw up the waiting list right now. Getting a medical degree takes smarts and loads of determination. It takes four years of undergraduate study, four years in medical school and 3-plus years in residency. That’s why doctors are rare. Doctors in Canada and the UK are paid less, so many go abroad to work, creating doctor shortages in their own countries. Where is Bernie going to get the doctors? Or does he plan to wave a magic wand and make them appear?

They say we will save oodles by having the government as the single payer. Not true. Every doctor’s office already submits claims on the same form and uses the same codes to bill for services. All a government takeover will accomplish is to change the mailing address of the bill. The government will have to hire legions of bureaucrats to administer health care to the masses (that’s us). How many? In the UK the National Health Service (NHS) employs 1.5 million to run health care for 66 million Britons, making the NHS the biggest employer in the UK and the 5th largest employer in the world. Extrapolating from the NHS number to 325 million Americans means we will need 7.4 million new bureaucrats. Medicare, the government program designed for seniors, already has unfunded liabilities of $37 trillion. Efficient? No. Money-saving? I don’t think so.

Bernie and his followers love the British system. They always cite the per-capita healthcare spending of the US ($10,224) versus the UK ($4,246) to scold us about how stupid and wasteful we are. The per-capita number is so cold. Let’s try it in human terms. Would you volunteer to have less spent on you or your loved ones when they are in need? Bernie, Kirsten, I don’t see your hands up.

The National Health Service is virtually all that remains of Britain’s brief and painful flirtation with socialism. Like any socialist system, the NHS is centrally planned. A fixed amount of money is allocated by Parliament and is then distributed to where the planners think it should go. When the money runs out, so does health care. The central planners are often wrong. Circumstances arise that the planners didn’t anticipate.

In 2015, an NPR report found that hospitals and ER’s in the UK were overcrowded. It was so bad that ambulances full of suffering patients were left outside hospitals for five hours. Paramedics were forced to treat these unfortunate patients. Hospitals locked doors to keep patients out. To quote the NPR story, “the horror stories just keep coming in.” A 2009 story in the Daily Telegraph found thousands of hospitalized patients were thirsty and hungry. Thousands more were suffering from repeatedly canceled operations. As recently as 2018 the NHS was having a “Winter Crisis” with the influx of patients overwhelming the NHS ability to care for them. That’s the tragedy of central planning: no anticipation, no flexibility equals human suffering. It’s not because of a lack of funding. Health care spending in the UK has increased 160% from 2000 to 2015. Guess what else has increased from 2000 to 2015? Britons’ spending on private health care. It has gone up 233%.

Mick Jagger chose us for two reasons: timeliness and quality. The socialist model always forces people to wait and diminishes quality. No amount of money will fix that. Put yourself in the shoes of a union member or a senior. Nationalization will take away your hard-won plan. Medicare will no longer be for seniors, and deluxe union plans will be outlawed. There will be no choice; it’s the government plan or no plan. There are many lessons to be learned here. Let’s make sure we all get it and tell everyone about it. Our lives depend on it.

Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.



In full disclosure, I’m a psychologist in a busy private practice which is in its 28th year. So I know a bit about health care from the inside, including health insurance. This is a view that few if any politicians have.

Ever since Obamacare was passed, I’ve noticed two things. One, every patient I’ve seen with Obamacare insurance has had gargantuan deductibles, usually in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $5,000. This means that the patient must pay for everything up to that number before insurance kicks in. From a practical point of view, they have no coverage. This illustrates the great lie of government health care, which is the promise of coverage with no access to a doctor.

If that wasn’t bad enough, try the next one on for size. Every spring, to comply with the ACA (Obamacare), I’m asked to turn over the “complete medical record” of a selected few patients for audit. When I tell them I must first ask my patients, they invariably say that the patients have already signed a consent, and that I must surrender the records NOW! Consider for a moment the deeply personal things patients confide in a therapist. My response is, has been, and ever will be: No, I must first talk to my patient and I’ll get back to you. When I call the patients to tell them of this demand, they are uniformly horrified and outraged. But, not to worry: a consent given can be revoked. And every patient I contacted has revoked their consent.

Healthcare should always be between doctor and patient, a bond of trust. I work for the patient, and my primary interest is his well-being and health. This is the way health care has been and should always be. Your doctor should never be an agent of social change or social justice (the government.)

Progressives say that eliminating insurance companies and having one centralized source for claims will save money. As of now, every healthcare professional already submits claims on one form (HCFA 1500), uses standardized codes for billing, and submits claims online. We may realize savings from not having to call for permission for various medical procedures, but that pre-supposes the single-payer (the government) will always says yes. I have my doubts about this. In the end, it’s not much of a saving.

To keep health care between doctor and patient, we must reject single-payer.

Michael Morrongiello, Ph. D.


These are my planned remarks for the last Political Pundit night, which was October 23rd. Most plans don’t survive first contact with real people, and neither did mine. I had to answer baseless charges from one panelist that millions were dying as a result of having no health care. Not true, as everyone is required to be treated at the ER. And besides, if millions were dying, wouldn’t we hear about it from our Democrat-loving media? I’m told the crowd was quiet while I spoke, a welcome change to be sure. I hope some of what I said got through.

Thanks again to Dr. Coleman for putting this event together. I was pleased to participate. It’s a fun event in an iconic setting, the Elmira Heights Theater. Please come to the next Political Pundit Night, scheduled for late January of 2019.

My remarks follow.

Dr. Coleman, fellow pundits, ladies and gentlemen:

Seniors, President Trump vowed to never touch Medicare. Keeping

Republicans in charge will preserve the program for us, the seniors it

was designed for.

Beware Democrats who will throw seniors under the bus to pass

single-payer (“Medicare for all.”)

Democrats lied to pass Obamacare.

Here are some whoppers they told with a straight face.

Premiums will decline by $2,500. (They skyrocketed.)

You can keep your insurance and your doctor, said Obama some 30


Millions lost plans they liked and doctors they trusted.

Democrats promised to protect Medicare, but they robbed $500 billion

from it to fund Obamacare.

If they lied about health care then, why trust them now?

What do the single-payer advocates really think about seniors?

ABC news gave an infomercial disguised as a Town Hall to

promote Obamacare, hosted by the selfsame President Obama.

One participant, Jane Sturm, asked Obama if her 90-year-old mother

could have a life-saving heart operation. Would he consider her

spirit, her joyful approach to life? Obama’s chilling reply was that

maybe her mother should take the pain pill… (meaning: die.)

Obama wielded the power of life and death with a

disquieting ease that should have frightened all of us.

This was a totalitarian moment more in line with the likes of

Mussolini and Castro than the tradition of Washington.

The message: seniors are disposable.

Bernie Sanders, like most Democrats, wants single-payer health care.

Bernie loves the Canadian system, which is plagued by shortages. Quebec native George Zelotis was 73, suffering from heart problems and needed a hip replacement.

But he was on a wait list for surgery. That’s common in Canada.

Zelotis was stuck and in pain.

Private insurance is illegal and physicians in the Canadian System

can’t privately sell their services to patients.

So Zelotis and his doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, sued. The case wound

its way to their Supreme Court, which found that Zelotis’s rights were

violated by being forced to wait for the surgery that would ease his


Here’s what Justice Marie Deschamps said, writing for

the majority:

Some patients die as a result of long waits for treatment in the

Public system…”

Medicare for all means two things. One: seniors will no longer be

Medicare’s priority. And as you can see in the case Chaoulli

v. Quebec, the second meaning is—get in line.

Economist Milton Friedman said “if you put the government in

charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

A shortage of sand is an inconvenience. For seniors, a shortage of

health care means a shorter life.

Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.


Look out: Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan lies in wait for the day Democrats take over the government. With the debacle of Obamacare fresh in their minds, Democrats will make sure that this time, they take total control of your health care. This is a decades-old Democrat dream, and if they get the chance, they will say and do anything to achieve it.

The draconian BernieCare will outlaw all private insurance. The bill creates Regional Health Authorities to curb “over-utilization.” Translation: the Authority will decide if you get health care, and what kind you get. Every American will be automatically enrolled, and every child will be signed up at birth. If you are a union member with a hard-earned deluxe plan, you lose your plan. If you’re a senior, the Medicare you’ve grown to trust and paid for all your life will change forever. A program designed for seniors will now cover everyone, and seniors will be shunted to the back of the line.

Bernie wants Canadian-style healthcare, having declared that “..for decades, every man, women and child in Canada has been guaranteed health care through a single-payer publicly funded healthcare program.”

Canadian health care has been plagued by long waiting lists for years. The average wait between referral from a primary care physician to a specialist is five months. In 2007 the Canadian government enacted the Patient Wait Time Guarantee Trust to “introduce guarantees” of prompt service to all Canadians. But isn’t prompt health care the promise? This “guarantee” cost an additional $1 billion on top of their already steep taxes, all in a country of about 37 million. Imagine how this would work in a country of 325 million.

To enact single-payer, Democrats will say, “We’ve tried the private sector and it failed.” They will promise unlimited health care with no waiting. And that will be the most cynical of the many lies they will tell to sell the plan. We must remember the many Obamacare lies: your premium will decrease by $2500 (premiums skyrocketed,) we won’t raid Medicare to pay for Obamacare (Democrats robbed Medicare to the tune of $500 billion.) Obama looked the American people in the eye and said “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period.” Millions lost doctors they liked and insurance they trusted.

Every government-run system eventually constricts access to care. In the UK they created the Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to “guide” doctors. The real purpose is to limit access to care.

The great con of all single-payer schemes is to say everyone is covered, but that doesn’t mean you actually get care. If Democrats gain control, your health care is in serious jeopardy.


Michael A. Morrongiello, Ph. D.