Sally C. Pipes is president and chief executive officer of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a San Francisco-based think tank founded in 1979, where she is also the Thomas W. Smith fellow in health care policy. Prior to becoming president of PRI in 1991, she was assistant director of the Fraser Institute, based in Vancouver, Canada. She is a frequent contributor to major news sources, including the bi-weekly health care column “Piping Up” for Forbes.com. Pipes is a prolific author on healthcare trends and policy, including “Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer,” “The Truth About ObamaCare,” and forthcoming “False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All.”
More About Sally Pipes
The taxing power of Congress, which the Supreme Court cited in validating Obamacare, could create better reforms if the law is repealed.
Sally Pipes, the renowned health care expert and president of the Pacific Research Institute. Pipes has a way to replace Obamacares expensive government health care bureaucracies with a market-driven system.
Think of his health plan as a federal HMO.
Last week, a House of Representatives subpanel overwhelmingly approved a measure to repeal a key component of President Obamas 2010 health reform bill. The full House and Senate must ratify the subcommittees vote and scrap the Board from the books. If they dont, Americas seniors could face the prospect of government-rationed health care.
The Food and Drug Administration plan to revoke approval of the drug Avastin for the treatment of advanced breast cancer is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to more and more rationing under the government takeover of health care.
An interview with Sally Pipes.
An interview with Sally C. Pipes and Mark Levin of Fox News.
"Sally Pipes, president and CEO of PRI and PRI’s health care expert, discusses the future of single-payer health care, which is shaping up to be a hot political issue in the 2020 presidential elections. She also talks about the future of single-payer in California, especially now that both houses and the governor are hoping to eventually bring it to the state."
"They should be careful what they wish for. Single-payer systems have failed everywhere they've been implemented, from the United Kingdom to Canada. Americans who fall for single-payer's promise of "universal health coverage" at lower cost will instead find themselves facing long waits for subpar care."
"Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more."
"Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2017 Medicare for All bill (S.1804) would guarantee exceptional care to all Americans while reducing health spending by $5.11 trillion. At least that's what a new study from researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute, which is co-directed by Professor Robert Pollin, claims. Sound too good to be true? It is. The study's assumptions are completely unrealistic. Medicare for All would be a disaster for patients and taxpayers alike. An analysis from the Urban Institute pegged the cost of Sen. Sanders' 2016 plan at $32 trillion over 10 years in new federal spending. And Charles Blahous at the Mercatus Center analyzed his 2017 bill and estimated it would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years, after accounting for lower administrative and drug costs."
"Harris's healthcare plan aims to be a kinder, gentler form of Medicare for All. But it would still put the government in total control of the country's health insurance sector—and deprive more than 217 million Americans of the private insurance coverage they currently have."
"Medicare for All may play well in the Democratic primary. But it'll be a liability during the general election, when health care promises to be among the most important issues for voters. At next week's presidential debate, we'll see if Democrats can get wise to that reality."
"Medicare Part D is one of the government's only successful entitlement programs precisely because it relies on private-sector competition. Adjusting the program could lead to higher premiums for beneficiaries and fewer new therapies. Let's hope the White House and Congress find a smarter way to offset the cost of any budget deal."