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

This, right here. Having a mish-mash of different state regulations, as another poster said increases paperwork and overhead by 25-30%, creates unnecessary buearcracy and cost. Streamlined and effeciency doesn't mean it needs to be run by the government. It just means getting the best product for the money, and last time I checked, toilet seats don't cost $10,000 a piece. In the federal government, they do.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/10/senator-demands-answers-pentagons-10k-toilet-seat/

 

"Exactly the same"? I think you didn't track back to see exactly what I was saying to FAW. It goes back to post #74 where we were discussing Canadian healthcare costs.

 

Be aware that a huge part of the exceptionally high costs we pay for healthcare relates to other cost than simply how it is paid for: private vs. public. There is, for starters, the unregulated costs of drugs (10% of total), the unregulated costs of medical equipment and delivery of it (2% of total), private unregulated hospital costs (32% of total), physician and clinical services (20% of total), other costs including dental and personal care (12% of total). That comprises 72% of our medical insurance costs, so there is plenty of saving possible there, too. Then there is poor preventative care adding to the costs.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statis...onalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

 

Their study doesn't say a word about how much it will raise my personal costs, lower my access or eligibility for government regulated therapeutic innerventions

 

The cost for 2 adults without children is $11,381, that's $5690.50 per adult or $474.20 per adult per month in higher taxes to pay for Government "free" universal health care. Right now my employer pays $465 and I pay $64.

 

In Oregon there has long been an effort to create a Medicaid for all type system. Prior to the ACA, all Oregonians could buy into the Oregon Health Plan. On some of the ACA plans, they are little different, in terms of service, from the Medicaid program. Still, there are ongoing efforts to achieve a statewide system.

It has been long predicted that if all the money now being spent on private health insurance were to be funneled into a single system, that health care for all Orgonians could be achieved.

The greatest stumbling block has been those large corporations who self insure. Without their participation, the system can't be realized.

The cost savings come in part by economy of scale and a standardized and streamlined process. The greater part comes in organization. In Oregon the term they use is coordinated care.

At its core is the idea that medical providers are paid, in part, on outcomes. And it is spread out over the entire system. Thus if one has a medical problem they go to their primary care provider. Depending on the diagnosis the patient will then be referred to the appropriate specialist(s). The computer data systems are linked which makes communication between providers easy. It is a process that is working well.

One of the things that has become overwhelmingly evident is that the use of physical therapy can greatly reduce pain and the use of pain killers. The system wins by not having to spend so much on pain medications, the doctors win by earning more money from the better outcomes, and the patients win by avoiding addiction problems and by living a life without pain.

In any case I think that the reported cost of a Medicaid for all system is kind of deceptive on the part of opponents of such a system. If one takes into account the amount now spent on private insurance, both by individuals and employers, and if all that money were instead put into a nationalized payer system, Medicaid for all is easily affordable.

 

It would only save us trillions if Trump were to come out and say that it would, because Trump is the messiah and his word is gospel.

 

A. If it's for "all" the Repubs will fight it.

B. If the medical and drug corporations lose a penny the Repubs will hate it.

 

Interesting, especially since in British Columbia in 2013 a $60,000 taxable income for two would owe a total income tax of $11,603. So how in hell does the healthcare payment of $11,381 come out of that? In 2013 the average (not median) income in Canada was $48,179, - https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/how-much-money-are-we-earning-the-average-canadian-wages-right-now/

And the total tax on $48,179 in B.C. in 2013 would have been $8,092 - https://calculatorscanada.ca/income-tax-calculator/

In British Columbia, which is about at the Canadian average for taxes, the 2017 B.C. provincial premium for healthcare for 2 adults with average income was $622/year. - https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/premiums/rates

Using Huff's insurance cost of $11,381, that leaves a cost of $10,759 to be paid out of an income tax of $8,092.

So Huff's numbers are making no sense.

And here is another check on the reliability of that Huff article. It says "Canada's health care system is the developed world's most expensive universal-access health care program after adjusting for the age of the population (older people require more care)."

"Most expensive"? Really? Google "per capita healthcare costs by country for 2017"

Here's one - https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd

"The Fraser Institute is a Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity. It has been described as politically conservative and libertarian."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute

 

Yes, I did misunderstand the figures. I thought they were for health care only. I admit the mistake. Let's save the income tax debate for some other thread, some other time.

What I'm trying to figure out is what the Canadian health care system costs people in Canada. It's not easy.

I found this ... https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html

and this ... https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-...erage-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114

and this ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...alth-care-in-one-post/?utm_term=.af298b68deba

and this ... https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research?id=19060

Here is a quote from the first one, published in 2013 ...

The second link, from 2015 ...

From the third link (2012) ...

And from the fourth link ...

Yesterday at work, I noticed something was wrong with my left eye. Although I've never had any problems with it before, I self-diagnosed it as a possible torn or detached retina. I was able to see my regular opthamologist that afternoon (who confirmed my diagnoses), and he referred me to a specialist that I saw this morning. She did some laser work, effectively "welding" my retina to where it belongs. This all happened in a span of 24 hours. This is covered my our employer-provided insurance. Yes, there will be a co-pay, but I have no complaints. The insurance will pay for most of it, the treatment was top-notch, and there was no waiting.

I have to go now. Talk to ya later, neighbor.

Seth

 

Why does it have to be paid with taxes?
Why can't individuals just send in a premium check to buy this wonderful insurance product? It will be so inexpensive and the product will be so good that the people will gladly pay and smile as they pocket all of their savings.

 

I tried suggesting this the other day, but it seems that without our taxes being used to pay for their medical care, the lefties just aren't interested in saving money.

Weird how that works.

 

Exactly.
They're not interested in saving for all.
They want savings for themselves.
They want to pay progressively so that their neighbor is forced to subsidize them because he makes more

 

I read that earlier and commented on it in post #235. Take a look at it. The number cannot work. So the article is not reliable. No, it's bogus actually.

That is a reprint, basically, of Huff's Fraser article. Bogus.

That article is based on GDP. That doesn't tell you the cost of the program that is paid by the people.
Try this: https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd
Or this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...st-countries-spend-most-health-care/75771044/
Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Or this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html
See. They aren't really so hard to find if you're looking for what the system costs the person.

And if you want data on the per capita cost of both public and private insurance by country, here it is:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/

Yup. Fraser bogus data as I showed in post #235

I'm sorry to hear about your eye! But I suspect you mentioned it for a reason. If so, was it waiting times?

 

I haven't had time to look at all the links. I'll try to do that tomorrow. But yes, the waiting times, the top-notch technology and care, and the no-hassle, seamless assumption of this expenditure by my insurance company. It's hard to be convinced to change when something works this well and when the care is so immediate.

 

Were it not for decades of US warmongering to impose 'democracy' (note inverted commas, suggesting the hope being that such beneficence might result in some oil from the grateful nations? lol) on countries that don't effing want democracy, plus the jaw-dropping national debt, the US could afford to provide free healthcare for all of its citizens. Hold that thought.

 

It costs 32 Trillion...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...r-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare

 

I have a finance degree and econ master's, but all the assumptions aren't listed. Everything I know about econ says this is a statistical manipulation. Also, the linked piece is terribly written. Payback models need to have expense and benefit included. Are we to assume the same value of product? Seems like propaganda to me.

 

Well, it actually produces 50% of all medical innovation that the rest of the world uses.

 

I also know many conservatives. And almost to a person, they feel that while it might be tragic, its not their problem,.

 

I know I know I know

and idiots claim theyre saving money

 

Yes, please check the post and its links.

Regarding "when something works so well". Looking at only your own experience can be as misleading as looking only at your own high income and then declaring that the US has no wage problem. It's necessary to examine trends and statistics and studies. If you have enough time someday there is this one on outcomes:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf


But for those with less time, there are these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0011_health-outcomes

https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/health-outcomes-report-cards-by-country/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/...-far-worse-than-other-comparable-nations.html

 

I am even more confused. You didn't write post #74.

The Medicare for all thing will cost an estimated $32.6T over 10 years, or about $3.2T per year, but we know that isn't real dollar numbers anyway. Anyway, currently, the US spends $3.2T per year. How is spending the same amount of money saving money? Please explain that to me.

 

I had post #74 in mind because FAW quoted me in that post. My post is #16. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Well that certainly explains why Trump is mad at the Koch brothers. Thanks. Was wondering why he would deliberatly alienate such a hugh donor.