Coronavirus - death of a campaign

Bernie Sanders suspended his presidential campaign. A New York Post article attributes the death of Sanders' campaign to COVID-19. Bernie Sanders’ socialist fantasies lost their appeal when coronavirus hit. The news media's attention is monopolized by COVID-19. It has pushed aside the huge amount of attention the news media previously gave to Sanders and his campaign. The following copies liberally from the article.

Socialism and Medicare for All, the subjects Sanders has hammered home with metronomic monotony for many years don’t matter right now. Sanders is a politician with an ever handy villain. But the coronavirus "can’t be blamed for its greed or taxed [or regulated by government] into submission." It's useless to yell at the virus, and yelling at things is Sanders’ political métier.

Sanders prefers "to traffic in fantasies rather than provide realistic and workable solutions to glaring and inescapable realities."

"Who among us hasn’t noodled on what it would mean to win the lottery, to consider what you would do to fix things if you had unlimited money and power and were unconstrained by tradition or precedent or reality?"

"That is the seduction of socialism — it monopolizes resources and power and then distributes the goodies. But ­resources don’t work like that; if you seize them and centralize them, you pull them from their roots, and they begin to die."

'Whatever the world is going to look like once this [pandemic] is over, it won’t be a world that will have time for the ludicrous [ ] delusions of Bernie Sanders."

It is often said that Bernie Sanders' greatest support comes from young people. They aren't swayed by the common arguments against socialism or the history of socialism when put into practice. Why do they support Sanders, or more accurately, socialism? An audio on this page by Professor Stephen Hicks tries to answer this question. Starting at about 17 minutes Professor Hicks describes several mindsets he has found among young people who consider themselves socialists and the values on which they base their support of socialism. He calls these positions anti-cronyist, altruistic, central-planning, free stuff, communalist, welfare state, environmentalist, and emotionalist. His goal is only to explain, without criticism.

In an earlier audio Professor Hicks described socialism in theory or put into political practice by eight historical people. Their ideas of socialism are very different from those of modern young people.

Coronavirus - Medicare for All #3

The publication Current Affairs is also using the pandemic to advocate socialism, more specifically Medicare for All. The title of this article proclaims that our (the USA’s) for-profit healthcare system is failing us.

Firstly, it’s absurd to call the USA’s healthcare system as only for-profit. Government spending is about half of total spending on healthcare. There is also a lot of not-for-profit spending beyond that. Employer spending on health insurance for its employees is a big cost with no financial profit in it. Only 26% of hospitals are for-profit; 74% are nonprofit or public.

The author proclaims “Medicare for All would have solved all these problems.” This is merely a product of his wishful imagination and no reality check. He ignores the fact that the USA already has Medicare-for-all-over-age-65 plus Medicaid. He proclaims it despite the tragic result of Medicare for All in Italy and Spain. His only mention of either country is to smear detractors of Medicare for All. “But then, of course, as detractors point out, there’s Italy—which despite government health insurance found itself battling, for a time, the most serious COVID-19 outbreak in the world. Until, of course, we passed them.”

Duh! Yes, with about 5.5 times Italy’s population, the latest numbers show the USA has passed Italy in the number of cases. However, the USA has not passed Italy in the number of deaths nor the ratios deaths/cases and cases/population. Italy leads the world in deaths/cases with about 12.5%. Its neighbor Switzerland, with more cases/population than Italy and nothing like Medicare for any of its population, has only 3.6%. The USA ratio is even less. I predict the USA ratio will rise but will remain below 1/3rd of Italy’s ratio. Yet the author judges USA healthcare a failure, but doesn't judge Italy's healthcare!

Coronavirus - Medicare for All #2

On March 27 I wrote about an article using the coronavirus pandemic to make propaganda favoring Medicare for All. I was unaware of the website before then, and I guess it has a small audience. Only three days later comes more propaganda rationalized on the pandemic, this time from The New Yorker with many readers and the presumptive title "Reality Has Endorsed Bernie Sanders."

The author writes: "In the last Democratic debate, former Vice-President Joe Biden insisted that the U.S. doesn’t need single-payer health care because the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in Italy proved that it doesn’t work." She quickly moves on, ignoring Biden's statement as not worth considering.

Fittingly on April Fools Day, the site of the first propaganda follows with this story. Engaging in fantasy, it is oblivious to the toll of the pandemic in Italy and Spain, the countries with health care systems most like Medicare for All.

The Hollywood Reporter gives Bernie Sanders another opportunity to air his propaganda amid the pandemic. BS asks how is it that in the USA, with the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world, there are shortages of protective equipment and ventilators. He names his usual scapegoats --  for-profit insurance companies and drug companies. He fails to address why there are even greater shortages of beds in hospitals and ventilators in Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. BS's mindset has no use for such a reality check.

Bernie wants the USA to guarantee healthcare to all its people. "Guarantee" is hyperbole. A government can promise all it wants. Delivery is what matters. Like Italy and Spain demonstrate, promises can be broken. No bed in a hospital and no ventilator for a horde of seniors.

A Washington Examiner article is far more objective. It isn't based on fantasy and does a reality-check. The reality is Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. Comparing them to Switzerland -- with nothing like Medicare, less tragic, and much less governmental interference -- would have been a plus. The article is still excellent. 

Coronavirus #5

Five days ago I computed and showed elsewhere Deaths/Cases from the coronavirus for Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA. The ratios for Italy and Spain were several times those for Switzerland and the USA. Calculating the same ratios today shows (a) higher ratios for all four countries, and (b) Italy and Spain remain several times those for Switzerland and the USA.

This Worldometer page says the following about such ratios. "Once an epidemic has ended, [the case fatality rate] is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases. But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients."

Of course, the ratio might be "naïve" and "misleading" if used to predict the ratio when the pandemic will end. However, that was not my purpose. My purpose was clearly to compare the countries' healthcare system's effectiveness of response to the pandemic, and I don't believe the above argument undercuts that. There is a competing explanatory hypothesis -- Italy and Spain have a higher fraction of their populations ages 65+. But I am keeping my doubt that age differences fully explain the fatality differences.

Italy and Spain both have far more government control of healthcare and health insurance than Switzerland and the USA. Italy and Spain also spend far less per capita. They are indicative real world examples of single-payer healthcare and Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders and Medicare for All promoters advocate both much more government control and spending far less.

Doctors in Italy have said there is a severe shortage of ventilators and younger patients have higher priority than older patients. This doctor tearfully says the same about Spain. Yet an advocate of Medicare for All, whom I wrote about three days ago, naïvely asserts by innuendo that there will be no waiting lines if there is Medicare for All. Tell that to those older patients in Italy and Spain. At the latest count Switzerland has more cases per 1,000 population than Italy and is not far behind Spain. Yet in Switzerland there is much more concern about a shortage of staff than there is a shortage of ventilators (link). 

Coronavirus - Medicare for All

This article argues that ‘The coronavirus is making the case of Medicare For All even stronger.’ In my opinion the argument is feeble and includes plenty of cherry-picking.

It describes the USA as merely a “for-profit” healthcare system, whereas the USA is already Medicare-for-all-over-age-65 and the majority of hospitals are non-profit. It insinuates that rationed care and waiting lines are symptomatic of a “for-profit” healthcare system, and implicitly assumes rationed care and waiting lines will not be the case if the USA adopts Medicare-for-All. 

Their comparison fails to include Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Italy and Spain have two of the most Medicare-for-All like systems in the world. Their healthcare spending per capita is much less than Switzerland's or the USA's, like Medicare for All advocates assert it should be. Italy and Spain are doing comparatively poorly dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. Based on the Worldometer's latest statistics, Italy’s mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 10.19%. Spain’s is 7.58%. Switzerland has nothing like Medicare. While the government subsidizes its purchase, all health insurance is provided by private insurers. While Switzerland has even more cases per 1,000 population, the mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 1.65%, much less than Italy or Spain. The USA’s is close, 1.52%.

The article lauds South Korea’s and Taiwan’s healthcare systems and cites the low impact of the coronavirus in the two countries. The author uses them as innuendo to assert that it’s because their healthcare systems are instances of Medicare-for-All. In fact South Korea’s is far from it. There is a national health plan. However: “77% of the population have private insurance. This is due to the fact that the national health plan covers at most 60% of each medical bill” (link). 

Taiwan’s healthcare system is more like Medicare-for-All. The mortality rate from COVID-19 is very low, but so is the number of cases per 1,000 population. I can’t explain the latter. See update below. The author asserts the existence of “high traffic with mainland China,” an innuendo that Taiwan's exposure to the coronavirus is as high as, maybe higher than, other countries. Anyway, the healthcare system has not faced a stress test similar to Italy, Spain, Switzerland, or even the USA.

Switching the topic, Bernie Sanders is the most vocal advocate of Medicare for All in the USA. He has also expressed his contempt for billionaires. His world view implicitly takes for granted a fixed supply of goods and services. How that supply comes about doesn't interest him. He has shown no understanding of it. He views billionaires as “profiteers” and greedy hogs of that supply he takes for granted, depriving other people of their “fair share.” He regards the existence of billionaires as a "moral outrage." Contrary to his world view, multi-billionaires Elon Musk and James Dyson are working on producing more ventilators in the battle against the coronavirus. In Bernie’s ideal world, they would not have the money they are pouring into these efforts.

Update 3/27: Fear of China Made Taiwan a Coronavirus Success Story

Bernie's Medicare for All Megamillionaires

Bernie Sanders' proposed Medicare for All provides "everyone in America with comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service." "No networks, no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills."

Why does BS want government-paid, taxpayer-funded comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service for megamillionaires and billionaires? Supposedly the legislation allows for private contracts between health care providers and individuals for services for which the provider will not seek reimbursement from the government.  In such cases the healthcare providers would have to operate outside the universal Medicare system, with patients who could afford to pay out of pocket. So people such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Jeff Bezos could do so. Still, I believe the question warrants repeating. Why does BS want government-paid, taxpayer-funded comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service for megamillionaires and billionaires?

Does he believe voters are too stupid to grasp this consequence of his proposal?

12/19/2019 Biden vs Sanders re M4A

I didn’t watch the Democratic debate, but the Los Angeles Times has a story about a testy exchange between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders regarding Medicare for All (M4A). This video shows Sanders touting his plan. This video shows Biden touting his plan, criticizing Sanders’ M4A, Sanders’ response, and then the testy part.

Biden’s criticisms of M4A were the cost and “ending private insurance could upend the lives of millions of Americans who have negotiated their healthcare costs with their employers” per the LA Times story. So regarding ending private insurance Biden states explicit concern only for unionized workers. He doesn’t mention non-unionized employees who have insurance via their employers. He doesn’t mention Medicare Advantage, which is private insurance that covers 20 million or so people. He doesn’t mention Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies, also private insurance, which 30 million or so people pay for to cover substantial medical costs that original Medicare doesn’t.

Why doesn’t Biden (and other politicians and the media) question Sanders about eliminating Medicare Advantage, and Medigap policies, and Medicare prescription drugs insurance like I wrote about here? Also, note that Sanders does not mention them in the first video above. Why doesn’t Biden (and other politicians and the media) question Sanders about job-related health insurance for government employees like I wrote about here? Until he answers these questions in some detail, his proposed Medicare for All is a floating abstraction, based on little more than comparing other countries’ healthcare spending as a percent of GDP to the U.S.’s. On second thought, there is also his moral outrage. His moral code is coercive altruism, with government looting and edicts as permissible means.