Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forum22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, its the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.
...
And, if youre thinking that having the federal government guarantee coverage to all Americans is a big deal, its actually not. The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs. Among other things, it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a wide range of state and local health care programs, along with private insurance for government employees and tax subsidies for private insurance.
...
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
blue cat
(2,415 posts)But what we have now has been fought for tooth and nail so our reality is that MFA aint happening anytime soon. If Trump wins re-election we will lose what little we have.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Thanks for the thread redqueen.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)if things don't go as planned. 3.9% savings are according to the Mercatus Center ($2 T in "savings" vs. the $52 T Warren says it's going to cost).
I'd like to see us get a Public Option running. If it's as good as we think, businesses and individuals will go to it quickly giving us MFA without having to cram it down peoples throats. That action will never pass.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)The future is unknown either way, all you can do is project out from the same set of underlying data.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)...but also that it covers everyone, and that it covers things that are typically not covered today. Those benefits have value, too.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)can't afford coverage -- by expanding Medicare/Medicaid or increasing subsidies to ACA -- or scrap the whole system and start over when we can't even count votes in Iowa, ensure integrity of voting, almost undermined the whole ACA by screwing up the Exchange system, or go from Warren projecting the cost of MFA before Nov 2019 at $3.5 T per year to $5.2 T (a 73% increase) when her team finally took a closer look.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
redqueen
(115,103 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Can't speak for others but it's not my first point of reference for democratic policy ideas.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)because that is how those "studies" save money.
Price controls always fail, more quickly for particularly onerous ones that impose the burden of significantly lower income on a substantial, highly educated subset of the population. It won't happen, so opinions masquerading as studies are not relevant
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
redqueen
(115,103 posts)For reference, here's a link to the analysis you're framing as "opinion"
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Just the title of that "study" tells us that it introduces no new data and no new analysis.
It doesn't find new information, it regurgitates previous analyses which can have no real world data to support them.
Thousands of economic analyses have shown the productivity of workers will increase under socialism. That didn't make it true.
It will be too late when the hospitals start filing for bankruptcy.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
redqueen
(115,103 posts)JFC
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)it is a regurgitation of prior economic analyses that contradict all real world data of supply and demand.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the level of rates is a concern.
Interestingly, when Medicare first began, the rates paid to doctors were based on what they charged in the previous year. Docs got smart and started increasing their charges so fast that the government had to impose rate settings.
Worse, hospitals were basically paid whatever their costs were, there was no reason to control costs. Then, Medicare went to paying a set amount depending on the patient's diagnoses (there were adjustments if the patient's condition resulted in unexpected costs). Hospitals had to start firing staff in the early 80s and cutting back to stay within those set rates.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)that it buys but in a free society cannot require anyone to continue to supply those services.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)This is something I have found confusing, when people toss out these huge numbers about what MFA will cost. If it's the total cost, without adjusting the other side of the ledger for the costs that will come down (i.e. MFA *replaces* existing health costs), then it's not a fair assessment at all. The number that matters is how much MORE it will cost the government compared to continuing the way we are. Or based on articles like this, maybe how much LESS...? Or maybe the ambiguity is that you need to compare, not just the total costs, but how much of those costs come out of which pockets?
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden