Jump to content

Bernie's ‘Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says


Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

 

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.

 

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/study-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6-trillion?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it all have to be free? Why can't it have deductibles and copays, but with a reasonable out of pocket max in place? Bernie's plan will result in over utilization which won't improve health outcomes. We can have universal care without his plan, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Why does it all have to be free? Why can't it have deductibles and copays, but with a reasonable out of pocket max in place? Bernie's plan will result in over utilization which won't improve health outcomes. We can have universal care without his plan, right? 

 

Wasn't that basically the ACA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is $300 billion less than the existing system costs rate-payers, however. So even a conservative think tank admits that single-payer is cheaper.

10 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Why does it all have to be free? Why can't it have deductibles and copays, but with a reasonable out of pocket max in place? Bernie's plan will result in over utilization which won't improve health outcomes. We can have universal care without his plan, right? 

 

What would you define as over-utilization? People going to their doctor when they have the flu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

That is $300 billion less than the existing system costs rate-payers, however. So even a conservative think tank admits that single-payer is cheaper.

 

What would you define as over-utilization? People going to their doctor when they have the flu?

I would consider that over utilization unless you were old or immunocompromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

I would consider that over utilization unless you were old or immunocompromised.

 

I can see both sides of it, but I think most Americans would agree with you. But I also think that Americans' views of what 'proper' healthcare is is skewed by the crappy current system. I had a bad throat cold/infection and it turned out to be really bad strep throat, and I was given antibiotics. All of this was free. I was sick for over a week, but it would have been longer without the antibiotics. I rarely use antibiotics, but this was pretty bad. But it was all free and I am glad I did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Millions don't have any form of insurance(let alone affordable insurance), and put off getting necessary or even prudent health checkups at all primarily due to cost. Some of whom end up going to the ER with far more serious problems, at a far more serious cost.

 

But we're worried about over utilization. Top kek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Millions don't have any form of insurance, and put off getting necessary or even prudent health checkups at all primarily due to cost. Some of whom end up going to the ER with far more serious problems, at a far more serious cost.

 

But we're worried about over utilization. Top kek.

I can be concerned about everyone getting care while also caring about the costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know people with (crappy) insurance who don’t go to the doctor when they should because it’s still too expensive. I think an universal care system would instantly see us with a massive shortage of medical professionals. But waiting a few weeks for care instead of forever seems like a decent trade off for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I know people with (crappy) insurance who don’t go to the doctor when they should because it’s still too expensive. I think an universal care system would instantly see us with a massive shortage of medical professionals. But waiting a few weeks for care instead of forever seems like a decent trade off for a lot of people.

 

Doctors' offices already deal with juggling making people wait if they're just scheduling something on-urgent (e.g. a routine physical), and squeezing people in same-day if they need to be seen because they're sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s nice to see the Koch bros recycling 

 

Quote

That $32 trillion number the CNN folks are tossing around comes from an analysis of the Conyers bill, which is basically a placeholder — it's only 30 pages long, which for bill texts is like an executive summary of an executive summary. If we get to single payer, the Conyers bill won't be it. Nevertheless, Republicans have seized on the $32 trillion number to scare people into thinking that Democrats want to raise their taxes some insane amount ("When you look at the majority of House Democrats, they support a single-payer, $32 trillion bill backed by Bernie Sanders," says Sean Spicer). But if we're going to spend $49 trillion under the current system, and single payer would cost $32 trillion, doesn't that mean we'd be saving $17 trillion? Congrats on all the money you'd be getting back!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-single-payer-health-care/

 

cant wait for July 2019

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

I am UTTERLY SHOCKED that GMU's Koch-funded Mercatus Center would come up with an estimate at the upper end of the range.

 

UTTERLY SHOCKED.

 

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

 

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

Doesn't Bernie's plan cover everything including dental and vision?  If so, that's dumb.  Just include actual healthcare.  Leave the periphery services like dental and vision to the private market and insurance. 

 

I believe dental, vision, and hearing are included in Bernie's plan.

57 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Wasn't that basically the ACA?

 

Not really. I was suggesting if we go the single payer route, we could have affordable copays and deductibles to help prevent over utilization. Apparently this is unacceptable to many here, even though many other universal healthcare systems around the world do feature copays and deductibles.  It really shows the uncompromising nature in this country. There is no compromise. 

54 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

That is $300 billion less than the existing system costs rate-payers, however. So even a conservative think tank admits that single-payer is cheaper.

 

What would you define as over-utilization? People going to their doctor when they have the flu?

Over utilization would be going to the doctor over things that they don't need to go to the doctor for. Putting a copay in the policy helps prevent this because the patient at least has some type of cost by visiting the doctor. This doesn't mean I favor bankrupting families.

 

30 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

better take than the “omg $32 trillion” headlines

This study is similar to the Urban Institute's estimate. I linked it above. The AP said in the original article that other studies have shown similar results. Secondly, yes it saves money overall, but it shifts the costs to the Federal government which would require a massive restructuring of the tax system. You think that would be easy or even remotely politically realistic? I want a real solution. Our healthcare system sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps we should have a population wide insurance pool, which can then leverage it's buying power to keep costs in check, while eliminating administrative overhead (including advertisitng, profits, and stupid high private sector health administration salaries).

 

People can't afford a $400 emergency today with our insurance system of "personal responsibility" and real income hasn't moved in decades for the bottom 90% of earners. A "reasonable" deductible or copay for one is a choice between medical care and other necessities for another. Don't forget we have a higher level of poverty than other Western countries you try to compare to.

 

We're the wealthiest country on the planet. It's a fucking joke that we can't give everyone a fairly robust form of health insurance or care. 

 

36 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I know people with (crappy) insurance who don’t go to the doctor when they should because it’s still too expensive. I think an universal care system would instantly see us with a massive shortage of medical professionals. But waiting a few weeks for care instead of forever seems like a decent trade off for a lot of people.

I think initially we would see some waiting, but once the backlog of 'people who had been putting off necessary care' is taken care of, waits will come down. It will vary from state to state, because some states are better than others when it comes to uninsured and under insured rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Doctors' offices already deal with juggling making people wait if they're just scheduling something on-urgent (e.g. a routine physical), and squeezing people in same-day if they need to be seen because they're sick.

 

No doubt. But imagine the 50+ million or so uninsured/underinsured now have something that gives actual affordable access. The capacity for care needs to increase in a major way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

No doubt. But imagine the 50+ million or so uninsured/underinsured now have something that gives actual affordable access. The capacity for care needs to increase in a major way.

This needs to be addressed by increasing the number of medical professionals. There needs to be more mds, dos, pas, and nps. This will require a lot of coordination between state and federal government and university systems. There are tons of qualified individuals turned away from all of these schools every year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

This needs to be addressed by increasing the number of medical professionals. There needs to be more mds, dos, pas, and nps. This will require a lot of coordination between state and federal government and university systems. There are tons of qualified individuals turned away from all of these schools every year. 

 

There are also tons of foreign born medical professionals who can’t get licensed in America without returning school, often for years of additional schooling. We need better processes to vett the educational and professional backgrounds of these folks and get them licensed.

 

We probably need more medical vocational schools as well. 2 year programs that get folks job ready at graduation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

This needs to be addressed by increasing the number of medical professionals. There needs to be more mds, dos, pas, and nps. This will require a lot of coordination between state and federal government and university systems. There are tons of qualified individuals turned away from all of these schools every year. 

You know what would be a great source of medical professionals?  Graduates of foreign medical schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

You know what would be a great source of medical professionals?  Graduates of foreign medical schools.

I'm all for it, but I'm for ending what amounts to medical professionals artificially squeezing the supply of qualified people domestically as well. I favor both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant savings on administration and drugs costs, but price would go up due to demand?

 

So, the cost of healthcare would be significantly lower, but because more people would want it, they would arbitrarily raise prices, because they can.

 

’Merica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

There are 3 types of single-payer 'concern trolls' — and they all want to undermine universal healthcare

 

1.  The nuance troll: ‘We need more details!’

2.  The deficit troll: ‘How do you pay for it?’

3.  The feasibility troll: ‘What about the GOP?’

On 2., it is a legitimate question and anyone that doesn't think so doesn't understand that this is several fold more than the unpaid for DoD increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...