Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory is a psychological model proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943, in which he established human needs in a hierarchy. The first and most basic of all needs are those to do with physical survival. Ask anyone who suffered an unexpected hospitalization or surgical procedure and ended receiving a bill for unintended services and fees, and it will quickly have an impact on your view of health care in America and a need for Health Care Reform. Americans often feel vulnerable and anxious by the inability to predict sudden failures of health and the intended financial consequences that it may entail. Therefore, health care coverage is a direct threat to the first principle of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, being physical survival, the # 1-factor impacting human survival instincts.
Democrat’s Healthcare for All, Single-Payer, and Medicare for All proposals are deceitful, unaffordable, and lead to the disadvantage of the poor and sicker communities. Democrats have measured their political advantage by mining on the psychological impact that physical survival plays in the mind of Americans. In a nutshell, Medicare for All is simply a euphemism that translates into votes. If they could not gain a vote and move the heart of many vulnerable Americans that given dire-straight circumstances health care places them at a disadvantage, we can rest assured this would never be a subject for political debate. One would argue that if they are genuinely interested in Americans, why are Democrat ran cities plagued with homelessness as CA and NY? However, socialist ideas as Health Care for All proposed by Democrats will always come dressed as a noble and good societal ideal. It is often said that the greatest lies are generally disguised with the truth. Why wouldn’t a proposal to a provision of health care to every American not be appealing! Nevertheless, it is a poisoned apple we should never take.
According to a study by the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund, $32+ trillion in new federal revenue will be needed to pay for the plan, as proposed by the Democratic socialist ideas. Even more outlandish is the cost for the proposed program by a leading Democratic candidate of $52 trillion. How can America afford this as deceitfully proposed by these Democratic candidates? To place these numbers into proper perspective, our surmountable present National Debt exceeds $22 trillion, and 77% is directly related to mandatory government social programs that include healthcare programs as Medicaid and Medicare costs. Therefore, as much as socialists make claims of being affordable, if we could afford $32-52 trillion, why not propose the cancellation of our National Debt? These socialist ideas are utterly a path to our country’s demise and clearly, unaffordable. Not even the Obama Magic Wand could help them. We could not have a better example of the failure of Single-Payer health care than the living example of failure in Bernie Sander’s state of Vermont. Speaking of the attempt to implement Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont, Peter Suderman, for the NYT, stated, “Yet despite strong support from the legislature and the governor’s office, not to mention Mr. Sanders himself, the effort failed.”
We have ample experience in the United States with poor and substandard service rendered by government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Veteran Affairs. First, it does not cease to amaze us that those who fight for the right to kill babies in the womb would appeal to a misguided “choice to choose” by appealing that health care should be nobody’s business but, one owns, yet, see them give up every right to choose health care and trust politicians without health care experience to make those choices for them. Placing all your healthcare choices in the Affordable Care Act, one would hope that the evidence-based process of measurements dictating reimbursement should always be linked to better outcomes. To simplify the process, the healthier the patients are after service, the higher the potential for reimbursement. However, how is this fair, for example, to a facility located in a poor demographics area where the community patients are less prone to follow good health care practices, may be affected by social-economic issues that make them more susceptible to lower health care outcomes. A facility located in this area will be in a financial reimbursement disadvantage, as the patients may be sicker or more prone to lesser health care status. A cookie-cutter system as a single-payer program, will not work. Quality measures need to be predictive and addressed in these areas, but a single-payer program will place them at a disadvantage if reimbursement must always be linked to better outcomes. Ultimately, nonpayment due to socio-economic outcomes will close a distressed hospital. The marginalized will be the very first target of the concept and lead to the disadvantage of the poor and sicker communities of American Citizens. Do not be lured by false claims and pay attention to the words of one of the fathers of Socialism, Vladamir Lenin.