American Press Pushes Ridiculous Comparisons Between Spanish Flu and COVID

 

American Press Pushes Ridiculous Comparisons Between Spanish Flu and COVID

In its race for clicks, the press fails to explore many of the critical differences between the Spanish Flu and COVID.

Posted by Leslie Eastman Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 07:00am 54 Comments

 

Of course, the American press is quick to push any analogy to the flu epidemic to drive click and panic. Today’s offering is the news that COVID has now officially killed more Americans than the 1918 Influenza.

COVID-19 has now killed about as many Americans as the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic did — approximately 675,000.

 The U.S. population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country. But the COVID-19 crisis is by any measure a colossal tragedy in its own right, especially given the incredible advances in scientific knowledge since then and the failure to take maximum advantage of the vaccines available this time.

“Big pockets of American society — and, worse, their leaders — have thrown this away,” medical historian Dr. Howard Markel of the University of Michigan said of the opportunity to vaccinate everyone eligible by now.

However, the press has left out many analysis details that reveal much starker differences between the Spanish Flu and COVID.

To begin with, the population of the United States as of today is 333,368,397. The US population in 1918 was 1/3rd of that amount, registering 103.2 million. Therefore, comparing apples to apples:

 – SPANISH FLU FATALITIES/100K = 665

– COVID FATALITIES/100K = 202

Furthermore, the Spanish Flu heavily targeted young adults. COVID, in contrast, has its most significant impact on the elderly (whose immune system is not as robust as when young). Here is a chart summarizing the age impact between the two diseases.

Furthermore, as a reminder, here is the chart produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing the relative risk of death in each age category compared to young, healthy adults (who were more vulnerable to the Spanish Flu).

The Spanish Flu was deadlier for young adults precisely because it created a cytokine storm, super-activating the immune system.

A cytokine storm is an overproduction of immune cells and their activating compounds (cytokines), which, in a flu infection, is often associated with a surge of activated immune cells into the lungs. The resulting lung inflammation and fluid buildup can lead to respiratory distress and can be contaminated by a secondary bacterial pneumonia—often enhancing the mortality in patients.

This little-understood phenomenon is thought to occur in at least several types of infections and autoimmune conditions, but it appears to be particularly relevant in outbreaks of new flu variants. Cytokine storm is now seen as a likely major cause of mortality in the 1918-20 “Spanish flu”—which killed more than 50 million people worldwide—and the H1N1 “swine flu” and H5N1 “bird flu” of recent years.

 In these epidemics, the patients most likely to die were relatively young adults with apparently strong immune reactions to the infection—whereas ordinary seasonal flu epidemics disproportionately affect the very young and the elderly.

In contrast, COVID causes a cascade of symptoms that include inflammation. For the most part, its effects depend on the diet, weight, and preexisting conditions. If the press were genuinely interested in helping during this crisis, it would strongly urge healthy eating, exercise, and outdoor activities.

Finally, during the Spanish Flu era, doctors could not detect the virus nor had effective treatment options. This differs from COVID, which has many new and potentially new options. The press should be providing trustworthy analysis of effective products instead of highlighting only those with politically approved Big Pharma connections. Early treatment is going to keep the COVID fatality rates low.

The American Press: So much smug self-importance. So little understanding and reliable analysis.

 

The CDC Just Made an Orwellian Change to the Definition of ‘Vaccine’ and ‘Vaccination'

 

For your entire life, you’ve known that when you get vaccinated, you’re protected from a particular disease. You’ve probably been vaccinated for such diseases as polio, tetanus, measles, diphtheria, and others, and you no longer have to worry about them, because the whole reason your parents took you to the doctor to get those shots was to protect you from those diseases. Polio, in particular, has been completely wiped out in the United States thanks to the immunity created by vaccination.

 This is why the CDC says that vaccines provide immunity, which means that we can be exposed to a disease without becoming infected by it.

At least they used to.

A recent change on the CDC website should disturb all of us because it appears that the CDC is trying to change how we understand vaccinations.

Here’s the “Definition of Terms” for Immunization as captured on August 26, 2021. I’ve highlighted the key points.

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

These definitions have been in place since at least May 16, 2018.

Recommended: New Study Shows Breakthrough Infection Risk Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Here’s the “Definition of Terms” for immunizations now, which was updated on September 1, 2021, with changes highlighted.

 Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

So in a week, a vaccine went from being something that “produces immunity to a specific disease” to something that merely “stimulates the body’s immune response against diseases,” and a vaccination no longer “produces immunity” to a disease, just “protection” from a disease.

Does anyone else find this disturbing? Why did the CDC suddenly redefine “vaccine” and “vaccination” to make them sound similar to your basic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a prescription drug you have to keep taking regularly?

No explanation for the change is given.

Is this part of the Biden administration’s efforts to make the public accept regular COVID-19 boosters by changing how we understand the purpose of vaccines? Vaccines, we’re now supposed to accept, don’t provide us with immunity, just protection from disease. This vague definition essentially makes it easier for the government to recommend endless boosters for COVID (or any other disease) because vaccines, they say, no longer make us “immune.” And yes, there are several vaccines that do need boosters, but that never changed our understanding or the definition of vaccines and vaccination.

 The Biden administration already had a problem with vaccine hesitancy in the wake of its Johnson & Johnson vaccine pause. You want to know how to increase vaccine hesitancy instead of decrease it? Do something like this.

Big Pharma Pays-Big for Oxy

 

McKinsey's Gonna Need More Than a Spoonful of Sugar

 

Prominent consulting shop McKinsey & Co. has agreed to pay DC and most US states and territories $573 million for its role in the opioid epidemic—the first such nationwide settlement.  The allegations: In 2013, when the impacts of opioids and addiction were already well-documented, the firm advised OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma on how to "supercharge" sales by $100 million, including by targeting doctors who might have overprescribed opioids and by switching patients to more powerful doses.  Under the settlement, McKinsey admits no wrongdoing.  Most of the settlement money will head to treatment and rehab programs in areas hit hard by the epidemic, which has killed 400,000+ Americans. $15 million will be used to reimburse the National Association of Attorneys General for investigation costs.  The payout is larger than revenues the firm brought in advising opioid clients (a practice it stopped in 2019).   Zoom out: A wave of litigation that started in 2017 against companies linked to the opioid crisis is seeing results. Some pharma companies have reached settlements with individual states; Purdue Pharma agreed to pay the DOJ $8.3 billion; and Johnson & Johnson and three drug distributors are in negotiations for another multistate settlement worth $26 billion.

CDC Urges School Reopenings - Citing Accumulated Evidence

 

CDC Urges School Reopenings

The total number of COVID-19 cases reported worldwide surpassed 100 million yesterday, with more than 2.1 million deaths (see dashboard). Five countries—the US (25 million), India (11 million), Brazil (8.8 million), Russia (3.7 million), and the UK (3.7 million)—make up more than half of all reported cases. 

In the US, where cases have fallen by about 30% over the past two weeks (see previous write-up), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called for schools to begin returning students to the classroom. The decision cited accumulating evidence in districts where schools have opened that in-person learning has not contributed meaningfully to community spread of the virus, assuming mitigation measures were in place. See an overview of the data here.

Separately, Johnson & Johnson said it was on track to produce 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine by June, and would present efficacy data early next week. Pending approval, it would become the third available vaccine in the US. Unlike the existing two vaccines, it requires only one shot and can be stored at standard refrigerator temperatures for up to three months (how it works).

As of this morning, the US had distributed more than 44 million vaccine doses, with about 23.5 million administered. Roughly 4,100 COVID-19 deaths were reported yesterday, bringing the total in the US to just over 425,200. See rolling averages for cases and deaths.

At least $760 billion of annual U.S. health care spending is considered wasteful.

HEALTH CARE Stats That Make You Go…“Wow”

Giphy

20%–25% of U.S. health care spending is wasted annually, according to new research published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. That made us go “wow” but also “eh, kinda makes sense,” considering the U.S. spends more than any other country on health care at nearly 18% of GDP. FYI, the study’s lead author is the chief medical officer of health insurer Humana. Back to the numbers: At least $760 billion of annual U.S. health care spending is considered wasteful. Breaking that down... $266 billion is flushed down the toilet on administrative costs, the greatest source of waste. Pricing failure accounts for $231 billion to $241 billion in waste. Other ways we’ve managed to throw money down the drain: Overtreatment and low-value care, fraud and abuse, and failure of care delivery.  Now that we’ve identified the problem, we can fix it...right? Right?  "It is likely that substantial waste in U.S. health care spending remains," the study’s authors inform us, but evidence-based interventions could produce "better care at lower cost for all U.S. residents."

Single Payer

Single Payer

Nordic Socialist Countries Moving Towards Private Healthcare

Nordic Socialist Countries Moving Towards Private Healthcare

Congress Approves Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

FDA prepares regulations for OTC devices coming in 2020

by Larry Bleiberg, AARP, May 6, 2019 | Comments: 0

 GETTY IMAGES    

Getting a hearing aid has never been an easy process.

Before consumers can buy one, they generally must see a licensed professional, which requires appointments, tests and fittings. The experience is similar to purchasing prescription eyeglasses, and in the end, patients may end up spending thousands of dollars, an expense not covered by Medicare or most insurance companies.

Those are some of the reasons studies show that only 20 to 30 percent of adults who could benefit from a hearing aid ever get one.

But things may soon change. 

Beginning next year, if not sooner, consumers should have access to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids that are expected to bring down the price and hassles associated with purchasing one. The change comes thanks to a federal law passed in 2017 directing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ease barriers to buying a hearing aid.

The new devices are expected to cost less than traditional hearing aids. “There will be so much consumer interest,” says David Copithorne, content director at HearingTracker.com, a website that monitors the industry. “These products will make a difference.”

The change also promises to open up the often confusing process of purchasing these expensive products.

But these new self-fitted devices won’t be for everyone. For one, they’re designed for people with only mild to moderate hearing loss. Treating more severe loss requires careful adjustments and monitoring.

That’s because hearing aids are surprisingly sophisticated devices, providing more than mere amplification. They can automatically suppress sounds users don’t want to hear, like chatter from across the room. And many are equipped with directional microphones to pick up sounds directly in front of the wearer.

---

For expert tips to help feel your best, get AARP’s monthly Health newsletter.

---

Sarah Sydlowski, audiologist director of the Cleveland Clinic Hearing Implant Program, says she sees promise in the OTC aids but is concerned that people might simply buy a cheap product and not get the help they need. Fitting a hearing aid is much more complicated than buying reading glasses, she notes. “You put glasses on and the world’s clear and that’s great. With hearing, you don’t know what you’re missing.” 

Sydlowski urges patients to first see an audiologist and discuss strategies for improving their hearing, which could include starting with an OTC product. Professionals can also determine if there’s a medical issue causing hearing loss.

It’s important to treat the problem, since the consequences of hearing loss go beyond missed conversations. It’s been associated with cognitive decline, because as people lose their ability to hear, they get less mental input and stimulation. It also is linked to depression and social isolation, as the problem can make it difficult to interact with friends and families.

While the new products aren’t supposed to appear until 2020, one company, Massachusetts-based Bose Corp., got special approval from the FDA to sell its aid earlier, using the same process that allows promising and novel medical devices to get to the market quickly. 

Although there’s not yet a release date or price, Bose’s application gives an idea of what other OTC hearing aids may look like. The company’s filing suggests its product may look more like a Bluetooth cellphone headset than a more familiar behind-the-ear or in-air amplifier. It would be similar to a product Bose already sells, called Hearphones, which retail for $499.95 and are marketed as a personal sound amplification product (PSAP), which is not considered a medical device.

Bose’s application shows a product worn around the neck with wires leading to earbuds. It’s programmed through a smartphone and can be used to listen to music or talk on the phone. “It’s kind of like a pair of reading glasses that hangs around your neck,” Copithorne says.

Initial reports look promising. Clinical studies of 125 patients reviewed by the FDA indicated that on average the outcomes for the self-fitted OTC hearing aid were comparable to those for people who had the device fitted by a hearing professional.

But Copithorne says that there’s still an important role for audiologists and hearing aid specialists: “You hit a certain level with your hearing problems and you can’t take care of it yourself, and you can hit that pretty quickly. Audiologists can provide tremendous value.”

More on Hearing

• Visit AARP's Hearing Resource Center
• Untreated hearing loss may lead to other health problems

$1.2 Billion Health Care Fraud - BUSTED

HEALTH CARE "Operation Brace Yourself" Leads to a Bust The Justice Department has charged 24 people in a $1.2 billion telemarketing scam. Officials said it was one of the largest health care fraud schemes in U.S. history...and the investigation was truly a marathon. They executed more than 80 search warrants across 17 federal districts, charging doctors and CEOs from New Jersey to California. How the scam allegedly worked (do not try this at home): A network of telemarketers in the Philippines and Latin America pitched “free” orthopedic braces to seniors eligible for Medicare. Doctors would write prescriptions for these braces, whether patients needed them or not. The prescriptions were sold to medical brace manufacturers, who shipped the equipment off and billed Medicare anywhere from $500 to $900 per brace. Cue kickbacks of almost $300/brace, per the AP. And where to launder the illicit profits? The usual suspects...exotic cars, yachts, and luxury real estate. Bottom line: IRS criminal investigations chief Don Fort said the scheme exploited the “systemic flaws in our health care system.”

Biogen Bet the Ranch... Alzheimer’s Setback

BIOTECH

Biogen Bet the Ranch...

But the harvest couldn’t make it out of the lab. The biotech giant announced yesterday that its experimental Alzheimer’s drug was unlikely to be effective, halting research and ending two late-stage studies for the treatment.

The news sank shares as much as 25% for their biggest intraday drop since '05, plus it knocked off about $18 billion from Biogen’s market value—the equivalent of losing an entire Expedia.

It stings for a couple reasons.

1. The failure of this Alzheimer’s drug, aducanumab, is another dose of bad news for the estimated 5.7 million Americans affected by the disease.
2. It was a “transformative failure for Biogen’s pipeline,” said RBC. Analysts had expected aducanumab to do about $3 billion in sales come 2023—and represent nearly one-fifth of Biogen’s top line for the year. Biogen itself has recently spent $743 million on aducanumab R&D, along with $93 million marketing the drug.

Zoom out: The company is one of several big biotechs that’ve staked their futures on the outcomes of only a handful of drugs. But it doesn’t always work out—Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer have all recently ended quests for Alzheimer’s treatments.

Montana's Solution - Sharyl Attkisson

Montana's Solution

BY FULL MEASURE STAFF SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD 2019

We begin with the cost of health care. High—and still rising. The cost of medical and drug benefits is expected to rise 5% in 2019. The 6th year in a row with a 5% increase. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employees and dependents will average $14,800. Congress has struggled for years to fight the escalating costs— with little success. But what if the answer lies in a place they haven’t bothered to look? What if it’s right there out in the open in Big Sky country? Today’s cover story takes us to Montana where their solution came from a senior citizen with a knack for numbers. Those who took her on quickly learned they’d grabbed a tiger by the tail.

Our story begins a few years back about two thousand miles from Washington DC in Helena, Montana - Where Marilyn Bartlett was assigned to tackle the seemingly impossible.

Sharyl: People have told you it couldn't be done?

Bartlett: Absolutely. People told me it could not be done.

It was 2015, and Bartlett had just been hired as Montana's new healthcare and benefits, or insurance administrator. Montana's 30,000 state employees and their families were in deep trouble: their health insurance plan was going broke. Fixing it would be like moving a mountain. But Montana passed a law saying it had to be done. So Bartlett had about a year to do what nobody else had ever done and what Congress hasn't been able to do on a national scale: drastically slash healthcare costs.

Bartlett: We had no choice, but I'll tell you, there were sleepless nights for me. I did not know how we're going to pull this off.

It was a tall order. But Bartlett came equipped with a very particular set of skills acquired over a very long career.

She'd managed finances at a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, and been chief financial officer for a benefits firm. She believed the key to success had nothing to do with "insurance for everyone" after all, every state employee was already insured.

Sharyl: When we talk about what's the issue with healthcare today, a lot of people say the issue is getting everybody insured. This was not really the approach that you took.

Bartlett: You're right. I don't agree with that. I think the solution is getting the cost affordable and I did not take the approach of "insurance for everyone." I found a lot of waste just with the insurance part.

She began by comparing charges from two different hospitals for similar knee replacements.

Bartlett: And one came in around $30,000 in the other at $105,000. Huge difference. I just kept asking why, why? Well, the implant was much more expensive. Well, can I see the invoice? Can I see what you paid? No, that's private. You can't see that. So I couldn't get to the information. It was frustrating and I couldn't get to the answers. And one hospital said, well, we don't really know our costs.

Bartlett wanted to take the mystery out of hospital billing. Find out what things really cost, add on reasonable profit, and standardize prices. Her plan required an insurance company that would roll with the punches and fess up what it paid hospitals and why. Bartlett says Montana's insurer at the time, Cigna, would not play ball. So she fired them and took bids from other companies, settling on Allegiance Benefit Plan Management.

That's when she got her first taste of resistance from the insurance industry, including so-called third-party administrators or TPAs.

Bartlett: The other unsuccessful TPAs or insurance companies made fun of us and laughed, went to the Governor's office and said, 'what she's proposing is stupid. It's never going to go.'

With a new insurance company on board, the big questions were: how to set reasonable prices for medical care. And how to get Montana's hospitals to agree to them.

Montana's insurance plan had been paying some hospitals a whopping 600% of what federal insurance for the elderly, Medicare, pays for the same treatment.

After crunching the numbers, Bartlett suggested hospitals would get paid somewhere around 220 to 250 percent above Medicare. Way less - but still a healthy profit.

Bartlett: The hospital industry was adamant against it. They then started lobbying with the governor. They lobbied heavily, but they couldn't tell me anything that would fit with our goal of lowering healthcare costs. And so we had the hospitals very, very upset with us. We had some legislators upset with us. You know, it's interesting, legislators that were hammering on me during the 2015 legislature to get costs down I didn't realize that many of them sit on the boards of directors of these hospitals. And so they're kind of playing both roles too and that caused problems. And we had the insurance companies against us.

The unions were also unhappy most of Montana's state employees are in unions. And Bartlett heard from them at meetings.

Bartlett: And they were very hostile. They were very, very tough meetings. Employees were mad. They were yelling at us. And one meeting, a woman flipped me off and left the meeting.

One month away from the new pricing structure taking effect, six major hospitals were holding out. If they didn't agree to join in, the new plan could fall apart. Employees could face hour-plus drives to get treatment from participating hospitals. A turning point came when Bartlett helped convince the unions to channel their anger into sending postcards and making phone calls to pressure the hospitals. At the very late minute, it worked. On July 1, 2016, Bartlett's radical pricing reforms took effect.

Sharyl: The results defied expectations. Inside of two years they went from projecting a $9 million-dollar deficit to a more than $100 million surplus.

Today, Montana continues its unorthodox path. On the day we visited, Bartlett and state senator Dr. Albert Olszewski, an orthopedic surgeon, met to discuss new ideas.\

Sharyl: Do you think some of this would work if Congress were to talk about attacking health care costs in this way?

Olszewski: Indeed. I look at Montana and we are very large state geographically, but we're very small population and we're an ideal test tube or a bed of experimentation for the rest of the country. If we can make it work here in Montana, it can work for the rest of the country.

A new, proposed Montana law would regulate the little known pharmaceutical middlemen who take a cut of the consumer's money when it comes to drugs.

Back in Washington DC, Congress might learn a lot from Montana's experience. But in this town, the insurance and pharmaceutical industry hold even more sway.

Sharyl: Why is this so hard?

Olszewski: Well, because many people profit from it. The fact is that if the system would stay where it's at - broken - too many people profit and the profit, not in thousands of dollars, but in millions upon millions of dollars. That's why it's so hard to fix.

Barlett's plan worked, she says, because she was prepared to take some arrows and she knew her numbers.

Bartlett: We had to stand up to the barriers and I knew that data didn't lie. And I knew we had the numbers. There weren't any arguments that could hold up against that. It really was pretty simple.

North Carolina is following Montana’s lead and other states are considering it. Bartlett thinks large, self insured corporations could also follow her pricing model to save patients millions.

Link to story and video of the segment:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/montanas-solution

Progressives pulling a bait-and-switch with 'Medicare for All'

BY PAUL R. GREGORY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/03/19 11:30 AM EST 583

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

468

 

 

 

© Stefani Reynolds

Politicians are known to misrepresent themselves to get elected, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is supposed to be an exception. It is said that he has remained true to his socialist convictions through thick and thin.

Surely, such a dedicated socialist can truthfully explain what socialism is. If not he, then Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), the influential newcomer to Congress and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), could lend a hand. She must know what socialism is if Bernie won’t speak up.

Prepare for a surprise. Sanders has consistently claimed that his socialism is a Scandinavian-type welfare state. He assures voters that his socialism is comprised of free medicine and education and a fair distribution of income, nothing more, nothing less.

Ocasio-Cortez rattles on about giving things away free and that capitalism is rotten. If pressed, she turns to recipes and social-media tips.

Those who wish for a clear definition of socialism from Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez are left with two possible interpretations: Either they have no idea, or they fear voters would be repelled if they came clean.

With a majority of the Democrat base now claiming to prefer socialism to capitalism, a flood of leftist Democrats (some newly minted) are seeking to co-opt Sanders’ platform of free this and free that. As they roll out their presidential-primary campaigns, they jostle to outbid each other in giveaways and taxing the rich.

That’s all we are going to hear from the left’s socialist crowd on the campaign trail. For those who wish to delve into what socialism really is, here are my key takeaways after having perused the DSA website: 

• First, socialism gives free medical care, education, retirement and other requisites of a welfare state to all. 
• Second, socialism will cripple private ownership of business enterprises. "Consumer representatives," worker collectives or state-run agencies will replace private owners. 
• Third, wise technocrats, not private consumers and producers, will decide what is in the public interest because the public interest prevails over private interest. 
• Fourth, large enterprises will be planned for the public good not directed by private profit.
• Fifth, capitalism must be checked because it exploits women, minorities, gays, immigrants and a whole list of downtrodden folks.  

The DCA description of socialism represents the consensus view of its 50,000 members, including, we assume, Ocasio-Cortez. It spells out how to construct a socialist America in the abstract, but we have two proposed pieces of legislation that dictate how to restructure American medicine in practice.

We are curious whether these proposed pieces of legislation are consistent with or are derived from the DSA’s version of socialism.

In September 2017, Bernie Sanders and 13 Senate co-sponsors (including five current Democrat presidential candidates) put forward the "Medicare for All Act."

In March 2018, 124 Democrat “progressive” members of Congress co-sponsored House Resolution 676 (HR676),  also entitled “Medicare for All.” The Senate and House bills are similar, but we focus on HR676 and ask whether the key provisions of “Medicare for All” follow the DSA model of socialism. 

Here are the features of HR676: 

Free giveaways:  HR 676 makes health care free to all U.S. residents. (The “secretary” decides who is a resident). Moreover, all conceivable medical services (opticians, dentists, chiropractors, doctors, surgeons, medicines, hospitals, etc.) are covered.

Eliminate private health insurance: “It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.” HR 676 includes all conceivable medical benefits; therefore there is nothing left to insure. Health insurance, including employer plans, ceases to exist. 

Eliminate for-profit providers: “No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.” All for-profit, medical-related practices must be converted to non-profits or government ownership. They are somehow to be compensated for their losses in what promises to be a massive expropriation. 

Hand control of all health-care decisions to the government: A mammoth VA-like bureaucracy will determine who is eligible, set compensation of medical providers, determine what services are covered, root out back-alley private providers and so on.

“Medicare for All” provides a revelatory snapshot of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and, increasingly, the left of the Democrat party. It seeks to destroy private businesses that provide medical care, the most important victim being private health insurance.

HR 676 replaces market allocation with bureaucratic decision-making and control. A giant bureaucracy, not the people affected, determine what is in the public interest and what is not. All of these provisions feature prominently in the DCA version of socialism.

If enacted, HT 676 would deliver a potentially fatal shock to our medical care system that accounts for one-fifth of the economy.

Medicare for all has been the Holy Grail of the left for decades. We could perhaps dismiss HR676 as an election stunt. Do not be so confident. HR676 could become law if American voters pay no attention and fall for the false promise of a Swedish or Danish-style welfare state.

Realize that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and the socialist wing of the Democrat party are employing a “bait and switch.” They are pretending to be European-style Social Democrats not socialists, as defined by DSA.

The European welfare state is the product of European Social Democrats who fought for improved working conditions, pensions and health care, while keeping private ownership and a market economy intact.

Some 90 percent of the Swedish economy is privately owned, and all three Scandinavian countries outperform the U.S. in business freedom. In the process, Social Democrats forged an eventual consensus with their conservative counterparts that the “social state” (Sozialstaat) is here to stay, despite its huge cost.

That political battle is still proceeding in the United States, whose electorate does not relish the astronomical payroll and value-added taxes required to pay for the social state.

"Medicare for All," if properly explained, should markedly increase the chances of Donald Trump’s re-election. The media has already figured out that "Medicare for All" outlaws the employer health insurance of 170 million Americans and that medical resources may cover 44 million currently on Medicare but would be insufficient for 325 million. 

Tough decisions lay ahead for the Democrat presidential candidates.

Note: The piece has been updated from a previous version to reflect the author's interpretation of the DSA platform instead of a "five-point description."

Paul Roderick Gregory is a professor of economics at the University of Houston, Texas, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a research fellow at the German Institute for Economic Research.