Study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. government trillions.

Medicare (introduced in 1965) costs 100x more than they anticipated back then. Government always grossly underestimates the cost of new programs.

But I'm sure they have it right this time.

 

The study explicitly does find savings. They're pointedly generous in their assumptions to make the point: the American health system is expensive. Even if it were slightly cheaper, as under this proposal, converting all private expenditures to public spending is a huge lift politically in terms of generating the tax revenue to replace private insurance premiums.

That doesn't mean single-payer is more expensive. It means our system is very expensive.

 

"You think medical care is expensive now? Just wait until it's free" .... P.J. O'Rourke

 

All I can say is please read the actual report....all of it. It is all in there, the "savings" in some areas, but in the end the overall cost of the system it too much.

If that doesn't work for you here is another link to the Urban Institute, which is a left leaning group that also did a study on the Healthcare for all. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/what-would-it-take-make-single-payer-health-care-reality
This is their full report. https://www.urban.org/sites/default...The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf
They also said this in their report. "Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here."

Yes there are some savings in small areas, we have to look at the overall cost and not cherry pick the savings only, and Texas Republican is correct. The Government never estimates correctly on longer term costs, they are always way under what it actually costs.
Two groups and two states have done the research and determined that Healthcare for all is not feasible.

 

BS, when it says it would save the government a amount and the next sentence is that the budget would nearly be double it is obvious horse crap put out by some body who either doesn't understand either English or math. He never mentions the country only the government.

 

A plan that would cost trillions will somehow save trillions ONLY because Obamacare which is currently still on the books, is slated to fail. Heck, privatization would save trillions as well - know why? Because Obamacare is so bad, ANY alternative would save trillions ._.

 

I have read the report. Table 2 has a line for "Currently projected national health expenditures (NHE)" and another showing "NHE under M4A," every year for 2022 to 2031. The latter is consistently lower, meaning the nation spends less on health care under the Medicare for All proposal they modeled.

Whether or not it's "too much," in the Mercatus study our health system costs less under single-payer than under the current structure.

Single payer doesn't save the government anything. It converts private spending to public; by definition the government spends more on health care. The point is that total spending is comparable or lower, meaning in the aggregate we as a nation save money.

 

You say you read our posts, but you didn't mention my main point which was about copying the Canadian healthcare system. In British Columbia they pay for their healthcare out of provincial income taxes plus a monthly premium. The highest premium for two that relates to my income for 2017 is the top bracket, and that covers all adjusted income over $42,000, and that premium for two is $150/month.

Now, Canadian income taxes:
Tax brackets in British Columbia...

$0 – $38,898: 5.06% $38,898 – $77,797: 7.7% $77,797 – $89,320: 10.5% $89,320 – $108,460: 12.29% over $108,460: 14.7%

For 2017, on my taxable income I paid federal tax of $6,453
My state tax was $2,447
Total tax: $8,900

For my taxable income, Canadian federal tax would be $5,750
Canadian provincial tax for B.C. would be 2,222
Total tax: $7,972

Tax difference: US tax was 11.6% more than it would be in Canada.

So, lower taxes in Canada and another $150/month for healthcare premium for two. How much do you pay each month for your healthcare?

I think this blows the notion of national healthcare costing more than what we have. Now, google "healthcare cost per capita by country" and look through the links and you will see that the US pay BY FAR the most for healthcare, and if you read studies on outcomes you will see that the US has the worst outcomes of all OECD countries...... FOR 25% TO 50% MORE COST!

 

We have some "features" in our healthcare system that other countries don't have and which raise our costs sky high. They regulate their pharmaceutical industry and the costs they may charge. They have government-run medical equipment distribution. They have physicians and other medical professionals on salary. The list goes on and on. Hospitals are regulated and room rates and medical procedures are much less than ours. That is why I prove my point by saying that if we copied the Canadian system, top to bottom, and got the per capita cost they get, but then if we were to add 50% more expenditure to ensure that we have the best system in the world, we would still find our costs to be 25% less than they are now.

Just changing how healthcare costs are paid isn't enough.

 

This, just like the CBO budget is a projection. And note that it projects these savings due to the lower costs of non-brand name drugs, etc. Which generally are seen as effective. However, one of the big problems that this *projection* doesn't take into consideration is that not all men and women are made equal.

Some people are terminal, others are ill, and others still are healthy. This very fact is why the ACA didn't work, and it's why Medicare for all won't result in these savings either. What will happen in reality is that costs will go up by virtue of heavy demand, restricted access of medicine and eventually market saturation as the entire citizenry is adapted into 'the plan'.

We should learn from the ACA. A bigger, badder ACA isn't a solution it's a hatchet.

 

And such is never a good idea. The government is already in charge of My healthcare through the VA and it sucks balls.

 

I know of no conservative that says or thinks that, and I know a ton of conservatives.

 

Using those figures you provided, my wife and I would pay more for health insurance than we do now. We are in that "over $108,460" bracket, and we have employer-provided health insurance. It is valued at about $12,000 according to the W-2. It is a benefit that is a part of the salary package. If we were to convert to the Canadian system, that benefit would go away, and we would pay around $22,000 for our health insurance. And there are a lot of people who make a lot more than we do, and so those people would be paying a lot more than us. As you might imagine, this creates political resistance to the idea, and I suspect it is the real reason CA dropped the idea.

One way to overcome that political resistance might be to explore a different route to the same outcome, and that would be universal employer-provided health insurance. Statistics show that most people not on Medicare or Medicaid already have employer-provided health insurance, and so this would simply be an expansion of what is already true for most people. And, the funding would come from work and business, not the government.

Seth

 

That formula is asking Nancy Pelosi and her husband to pay $147,000 for their health insurance for every million they make.

 

Why can't individuals just pay for their cheaper premiums by mailing in a check to the gov?

Such a great product should save the people so much money that they will gladly pay out of pocket for their principles. Then they can pocket the savings and be happy, right?

 

So your health insurance would cost an undisclosed additional amount in Canada when you add together all your contributions to that expense. And your cost for two would be about $1,830/month you say. Do you currently have copays? Do you have any supplemental coverage?

You said you're in the "over $108,460" bracket. That wording suggests that you were not referring to taxable income. That could make a difference for you.

I didn't see where you take into account lower income taxes in Canada. But your number of $22,000 more for coverage in Canada would seem to be comprised of the premium of $150/month PLUS $1,680/month but since you said it would cost $22,000 for your health insurance (about $1,830/month), it looks like you applied the entire 14.7% tax in Canada to healthcare costs. Question: what is your top-dollar tax bracket now? In Canada it would be 14.7%. So exactly how did you get to your number of $22,000 for healthcare costs in Canada? I need to know your method. Numbers are unnecessary at this point.

Most people have taxable incomes that are less than $108,000, even in California. And I think you made the mistake of attributing your entire Canadian income tax to healthcare costs.

How would universal employer-provided health insurance replace Medicare to apply to retirees? What about the self-employed?

And as it stands now, employers are trying very hard to get out from under employee benefits expenses. They are putting the burden on the backs of the worker to the extent they can with defined contribution plans paid all or mostly by the employee, and changing to part-time workers to end benefits altogether. (And the increased openings for part-time work to replace full-time jobs has significantly increased job openings BTW.) So I don't think universal employer-provided health insurance is going to happen.

 

I can't tell if you think this is good or bad. Are you saying that, given a choice, everyone and society would be better off if they could get and pay for products and services from the government rather than from private enterprise?

 

I would prefer to not tie people to a job to get their health care. Instead of giving companies a big tax write off give it to individuals, Set it ups so that everyone who buys insurance from a given company is in the same pool. Let every insurance company that sells health insurance compete on a level playing field in all states.

 

Why do you single-out Pelosi? What about Trump? What about Issa? Pelosi's net worth is about $140 million. In 2012 Issa's was about $464 million. Michael McCaul's was $143 million. Pelosi's was $88 million in 2012. Vernon Buchanan's was higher than hers. So I'm seeing some bias.

But regarding your claim that Pelosi would have to pay $147,000 for health insurance, you made 2 pretty egregious errors. You applied the top bracket to the entire $1 million, which gives you a presumed total federal tax, and asserted that the whole thing would go to health insurance costs!

That is exactly what I suspected you did in your last post to me and you have two major errors in that again as you did in your previous post to me. One being the assumption that the entire federal income tax goes to healthcare costs. And then there is the calculation error.

The way to calculate income taxes using tax brackets (and you may actually know this but just had a "lapse") is in this case to...
1) subtract $38,898 from the $1 million (giving $961,102 to work with)
2) multiply (38,898 - 77,797 = 38,898 ) $38,898 by 7.7% (giving $2,995)
3) multiply (89,320 - 77,797 = 11,523) $11,523 by 10.5% (giving 1,210)
4) multiply (108,460 - 89,320 = 19,140) $19,140 by 12.29% (giving $2,352)
5) multiply the rest ($961,102 - (77,797 + 89,320 + 108,460) = 685,525) $685,525 by 14.7% (giving $100,772)

6) and add that ($100,772) to the sum of the tax bracket taxes (2,995 + 1,210 + 2,352 = 6,557) giving a total tax on $1 million of $107,329 which is an overall tax of 10.7%.

Of course these two errors renders both your posts invalid.

 

Are you talking about a financial product like insurance or the end product of actual medical care? This is about the former, in that the question is about how best to finance our health system. There are pros and cons to this approach.

 

I am confused Kode... I looked up the total expenditure of health costs in the United States, and it is $3.2T per year. That's ALL costs currently. How is having a program that costs exactly the same per year saving money?

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...endData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html

 

And it will provide unicorns that hand out lollipops, and little fairies that fly your medication directly to your home.

 

Do we trust you or the trust fund trustees who say it will be broke by 2026?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...cd314c-68cb-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

 

What does this mean?

Unlike in previous years going back decades, none of the trustees — three Cabinet members and the acting Social Security commissioner — attended the report’s release at the Treasury Department.

 

The annual reckoning of the stability of the nation’s two largest entitlement programs amplifies earlier warnings that both are unsustainable over time. It also urges Congress to revise the programs to ward off the shortfalls soon to “minimize adverse impacts” on the tens of millions of elderly and other vulnerable people who rely on the government help.

The new report’s forecast for Social Security is comparatively undramatic. It says that the trust funds that pay benefits to retirees, workers’ survivors and people with disabilities can, taken together, be expected to remain solvent until 2034, unchanged from a year ago.