Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost added $32.6 trillion

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So at what point should there be forced change? $15,000 in premiums and $20,000 out of pocket? $25,000 in premiums and $30,000 in out of pockets?

If Canada can do this at half the cost and have a much higher quality of health care rating then so can the US. And yes the people who are living off the "fat" that is in the medical/pharma system will have to retool just as manufacturing industry personal had to. I see little difference.

a reply to: grey580

Nobody pays $50 for a Tylenol or any other simple over the counter medication. There is a huge discount for self-paying clients. Government agencies and insurance companies pay xx% of a medical bill. So what happens is that hospitals, clinics and private practice doctors CHARGE a crazy amount for expenditures so the percentage that is covered (paid) covers the price of the products used plus the doctor’s fees

In the end, what is paid covers cost of operation and remains profitable when you add up all the plus and minus on what is billed and what is paid after discounts. The “in network” providers for insurance policies/HMO is where there are prearranged agreements in place between the provider and the insurer.

The modern day version of the town doctor working for chickens, eggs and dinner.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
The modern day version of the town doctor working for chickens, eggs and dinner.

Sorry but it's more like the goose that laid golden eggs.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Socialized medicine like in parts of Europe and Canada would be much better. We have too much greed in healthcare and too many people in healthcare that believe they have to run tests that are not necessary. Also people are asking for tests that are not needed. Colonoscopies are not needed unless there are some sorts of symptoms, Most people I know who got them had no problems at all. They are expensive. Yes, if there is a family history of colon cancer, they may be necessary, otherwise they are just a pain in the butt.

We need to go to socialized medicine for at least the basics and many specialists. If people want to purchase additional insurance, they can. We do not have a good healthcare system in this country and it is costing everyone megabucks. It is too profitable when people are sick. On top of that, they need to evaluate the food additives better and stop the nonsense that some good foods are bad for us, foods that actually increase our ability to reason have been considered bad for a while now.

Disagree.

I think we need an overarching insurance to cover catastrophic medical issues. However, we don't need socialized medicine for routine, non-emergency care.

For example, insurance shoudl not be paying for physicals, massages, broken finger nails, etc. People should be able to just walk in to a clinic and get basic medical care for a fair price. We are seeing this now with the growth of urgent care facilities. My son has had a few "emergencies a la splinters" as a toddler and there is a children's focused urgent car center in my town. It is great. We make an appointment online, it never costs more than like $75.00.

Now if you break an arm, yes you go to emergency room and insurance should step in.

The reason healthcare is so expensive is that there is no competition to drive down prices. In addition, the consumer is removed from the purchase decision.

We have proof that competition works to lower prices in that medical services not covered by insurance are usually pretty cheap. Fertility treatments. Plastic surgery. Lasik. The cost of this stuff drops every year with technology and competition because the consumer is incentived to shop since insurance is not typically paying for it.

Think about how much your car insurance would cost if it covered car washes, oil changes, tire rotations, etc.

People have forgotten that insurance is for unexpected events, not to pay for your routine medical care. In addition, if someone is indigent or poor, charity can easily back stop for routine care. Don't liberals always claim planned parenthood provides women's health care and not just abortions?

a reply to: atsgrounded

If Canada can do this at half the cost and have a much higher quality of health care rating then so can the US. And yes the people who are living off the "fat" that is in the medical/pharma system will have to retool just as manufacturing industry personal had to. I see little difference.

I said in the OP I would be for it, I said how I would be for it. I'm not oppose to reform.

But "Canada can do it" isn't an explanation on how we will. We aren't Canada, if we do it, it will not look exactly like theirs.

How do you propose we do it without doubling taxes and crippling sectors of the market which will have widespread ramifications.

The problem with this debate is people either don't think about those questions, or they don't care.

People act like we can give everyone Healthcare without blowback, like somehow the wealthy will absorb it all.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
People act like we can give everyone Healthcare without blowback, like somehow the wealthy will absorb it all.

Why not? They're absorbing your money.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Our current economy is doing great. Unemployment is at an all time low.

Lots of jobs available out there without having to work for companies that scam people.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Our current economy is doing great. Unemployment is at an all time low.

Lots of jobs available out there without having to work for companies that scam people.

There is an estimated 500,000 people who work for health insurance companies scattered across the country. It's easy for you to say they can just get a comparable paying job, not as easy for them to do it.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
People act like we can give everyone Healthcare without blowback, like somehow the wealthy will absorb it all.

Why not? They're absorbing your money.

How? I pay more in taxes than I do towards rich people.

I won't pretend to know what the solution is to the mess known as the American health industry. But I do know that a real, lasting solution won't come from an ideologue like Sanders who has a blind spot the size of Jupiter. There could be concrete data staring Sanders back in the face that says his plan won't work, but he'd shoehorn it in anyway because his perception is all that matters to him and the rest of the real world can go to hell. Having Sanders and his ilk in charge of such a task is as equally deleterious to the state we are in now - if not more so. It's like letting a two year old decide what's for dinner every night. Ice cream, yay!

For the record, I'm not wholly against the medicare for all idea. I just want pragmatic people that aren't afraid to change their viewpoint in charge of hashing out and implementing the plan in the case that it does work out as the best possible solution.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
People act like we can give everyone Healthcare without blowback, like somehow the wealthy will absorb it all.

Why not? They're absorbing your money.

How? I pay more in taxes than I do towards rich people.

Companies. And they DO get your money. Healthcare is an essential. And you're being raped by the industry.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CriticalStinker

As usual they are looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
When the titanic was sinking, the water wasnt really the problem. The big fricken hole in the boat was the problem.

We need to fix the medical system not the insurance system. We can never afford to pay the for profit hospitals.

Actually the middle-men are the problem.

When you have someone who stands between you and the person who sets the price to make that price affordable, whether it be government or insurance (in this case), the for profit person prices into their pockets, not yours.

So the insurance companies and government have much deeper pockets than you and I ever could, and when more people stand behind the middle-men than stand on their own, the market pricing skews in that direction rather than toward the pockets of the individual. If there were no government programs like Medicare/Medicaid or insurance companies and health care providers in the current for profit market continued to charge the way they do, they'd go out of business because nowhere near enough people could pay for their services to keep them afloat.

The market would have to correct to a pricing system people like you and I could better afford.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
People act like we can give everyone Healthcare without blowback, like somehow the wealthy will absorb it all.

Why not? They're absorbing your money.

How? I pay more in taxes than I do towards rich people.

Companies. And they DO get your money. Healthcare is an essential. And you're being raped by the industry.

I don't pay a dime. Work pays for my Healthcare and health savings account. Anything not covered by health insurance, my account will cover.

Sure I'd make more without those perks, but I worked hard to get them.

So if the system gets changed overnight, I'd likely pay more taxes, and have a worse plan.

Unless it was changed wisely. But with the current tone of the disenfranchised, I could see it just getting flipped on its head with the middle class and wealthy taking the hit.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

They’re not paying for the research just the product. Big difference.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm skimming the Mercatus analysis now. (here in PDF)

If you look at table 2 (page 7), you'll see the numbers they're working with. Estimated personal healthcare costs for 2022 are $3,859 billion currently (CMS). Under M4A, there's an estimated $10 billion decrease. Total NHE is estimated at $93 billion less under M4A in 2022.

Here's what I'm taking away from this.

Looking at the CMS numbers (what the analysis uses as the baseline) here:

Under current law, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.5 percent per year for 2017-26 and to reach $5.7 trillion by 2026. While this projected average annual growth rate is more modest than that of 7.3 percent observed over the longer-term history prior to the recession (1990-2007), it is more rapid than has been experienced 2008-16 (4.2 percent).

And looking at the numbers in Table 2 of the Mercatus analysis which puts the fed funding at $5.712 trillion in 2026 under M4A, it looks to me to be a net increase of a few billion a year in NHE and we'd be expanding health care greatly.

I don't think people realize how much money we're currently spending on healthcare. According to CMS, it's about 18% of GDP now. Saying M4A would increase the federal budget sounds scary but this is money that's already being spent. Instead of paying premiums and out of pocket expenses, the money would be paid in taxes. That's a given.

I guess I just don't find this particularly alarming. The upshot seems to be that projected costs savings from lower prescription drug costs, lower payments to providers and decreased administration costs, won't be quite enough to offset the increase from expanding coverage.

What I think is potentially damning for the Sanders plan re this analysis is that it doesn't curtail the existing trend in 4-5% per year increase in health care expenditures but on the other hand, it doesn't appear to me (unless I'm missing something) to add much to them at all while simultaneously insuring something like 30 million additional people and boosting coverage for tens of millions more.

Of course, then you have to consider what it means for the quality.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the analysis. If the case would be just a few billion dollars a year, that is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

As I said in the OP, I'm not oppose to this kind of reform, however I don't like the tone of many behind this plan just raising taxes. I would rather a luxury tax on unhealthy consumables pick up the slack.

I agree with your point about being curious about quality. The only other thing I'd be concerned about would be what would the market do after such a transition.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Should we have allowed the firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities to stay in business just because of how many people worked for it?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Should we have allowed the firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities to stay in business just because of how many people worked for it?

That was a ponzi scheme company and had far less employees. (not even in the same ballpark)

But for the record, you're just saying 500,000 people can go kick rocks?

Part of universal medicare would also have to be the regulation of prices. This seems like a hit piece that is probably financed by those that would benefit from status quo, meaning insurance providers and the medical industry, makers of expensive machines and so on.

What would HAVE to happen is the standardizing of prices, both medicine, care, all services, pharma and machines. No reason for medication to cost a 100 to a 1000 times it does somewhere else, even a neighboring country -- this is exploitation. No reason for an MRI to cost 10 times it does in another country.

All of this adds to that multi trillion cost but that is because everything here is overpriced. Those who lobby against universal care only do it because they will lose money. All those prices would start getting under control and over a decade or so would most likely equalize with those in other countries.

Many insurers in USA would go bankrupt or would have to merge with each other to survive or move into other markets.

I would guess the actual cost of universal healthcare, when prices are handled, would be many times less than that. Otherwise, how do you think other big capitalist countries do it?

It's possible, it's just not possible at our prices.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Keeping a system that is defective for the sake of keeping the jobs that are in part making it defective is lunacy.

Taxes WOULD GO UP and PREMIUMS WOULD DISAPPEAR. And a side effect would be everyone is covered and EVERYONE would pay into it when purchases are made.

As anything in life change is hard, and made harder when ever $$$ involved.