Medicare for All

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Medicare for All

Postby KeithE » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:46 am

Yet another study that says Medicare for All proposals saves money while improving health and has 100% coverage of people.

Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.


The following chart breaks out the increased costs and savings of the Medicare for All Act favored by Sanders

Image

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

Both employers and households pay less than they do presently

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S0140-6736%2819%2933019-3

And lives and years lived are markedly increased.

Beyond economic considerations, the paramount objective of a health-care system is to save lives. We projected the life-saving effect that the Medicare for All Act would achieve through the provision of health insurance for the currently uninsured (figure 4). From the prevalence of people without insurance in each age group (0–18, 19–24, 25–34, 35–64, and ≥65 years)55, 60 and the age-specific population within,2 we calculated the number of uninsured people, collectively totaling more than 37 977 297 Americans. Given that uninsured people experience a 40% elevation in age-specific mortality risk,62 we calculated the expected number of deaths in each age cohort if all Americans became insured. We estimated that on an annual basis, universal coverage would save 68 531 lives in the USA. These are predominantly the lives of young people, given that most individuals older than 64 years are already covered under Medicare. Adults aged 25–35 years are disproportionately represented, accounting for more than 9 million of the uninsured. Based on the age distribution of these premature deaths that would be averted and their corresponding age-specific life expectancies, we calculated that universal coverage would save 1·73 million life-years annually.

{underlining mine}

About Lancet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Medicare for All

Postby KeithE » Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:23 am

You may have heard that the cost of Medicare for All is $32T as pointed out by RW pundits (mostly lobbyists for the current medical establishment who are getting large profits). An example from the RW “The Hill” is New study: Full-scale 'Medicare for All' costs $32 trillion over 10 years.

Lead in statement is crafted to scare.
The study from the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund found $32.01 trillion in new federal revenue would be needed to pay for the plan, highlighting the immense cost of a proposal at the center of the health care debate raging in the presidential race.


Quite scary and that $32T is approximately true. But note that that cost is over 10 years. Thus the yearly cost would be near $3.2T. Then note that our current cost is $3.6T a year and will increase with time. The Lancet Study conclusion is that a Medicare for All program would save $450B / year with universal coverage averaged over the next 10 years.

$3.6T/year - $3.2T/year is $400B /year (quite close to the Lancet savings of $450B/year)

Please read $32 trillion for ‘Medicare for all’? It’s a bargain.
A study published last year showing that if Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a comprehensive single-payer system were enacted, it would cost about $32 trillion in new federal revenue over 10 years.

Thirty-two trillion! Many Americans couldn’t even tell you how many zeroes are in a number that grotesquely huge.

What Democrats have done a terrible job communicating is that we’re currently spending $3.6 trillion a year on healthcare. That translates to $36 trillion over the next decade.

But the status quo is actually way worse than that.

The federal government estimates that national healthcare spending will total about $48 trillion over the next 10 years as costs keep going up.

By 2027, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we’ll be spending about $6 trillion annually on healthcare. Total spending over the subsequent 10 years likely will reach a staggering $60 trillion — at least.


It is a bargain! And once more has been demonstrated by the experiences of over 30 countries who have tried various brands of universal, single-payer health care at half the costs.

Do not be deceived by the RW pundits.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Haruo » Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:08 pm

Medicare for All will save money over time. How much remains to be seen, but there's no reason I've seen to think it will cost more than the current system, and there won't be tens of millions of Americans without coverage of any sort and, in many cases, either not getting needed care (and dying younger after more pain and suffering) or going bankrupt getting what they need in the way of health care, in some cases then blocking our ("socialist!") sidewalks. Look at why Rand Paul went to Canada for knee surgery, and extrapolate.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:11 pm

So I'm seeing a 4T cost over all to have Medicare for All. We seem to be about the last first world country in the world that lets insurance companies rob us blind and keep many Americans from having adequate healthcare.

My initial support of Senator Warren was based on a Medicare for All plan and I'm reluctant to support Mayor Pete because he hasn't advocated for that fully. But right now Bernie is running away with the show. This is shaping up to be quite an election season.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6558
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:39 pm

Of course, conservatives who are oppose to this plan love to use the "T" word and leave the false impression that you are going to pay more because your taxes will go up. Except if you go on medicare, you will not have to pay the price of insurance premiums, which include a hefty amount calculated in for paying profit dividends to their stockholders out of money you are paying to cover some of your medical costs. What will happen is that your premiums, anywhere from $750 to $1,250 per person per month, will go away completely, and you will have a payroll deduction from your paycheck for the medicare that will be somewhere around $400 a month. Depending on whose plan is adopted, you would pay a small copay when you went to the doctor or hospital, that's all folks. The amount generated by the Medicare tax would cover medical expenses at current retail profit prices. Further reform of the system, along the lines of removing the profit from hospitals and medical care, still allows for paying professionals their salary and covering operating expenses, all that is removed is the dividend payments, drops the cost of care, saving the consumer more money.

I have 10 people on our school's current health care plan. Monthly, we pay $6,500.00 on $9,890.00 worth of premiums with the employee paying the balance in a payroll deduction. I could offer all of our employees a full reimbursement for the cost of their medicare, or just add it to their salary check each week if we had medicare for all.
Sandy
 

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Haruo » Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:02 pm

So far, I am not seeing any basis to the notion that Medicare for All will cost a taxpaying citizen more than the current system, despite the fact that it will also cover the nontaxpaying ones. I can't see any solid reason (except a profound love of "shareholders", perhaps based on the injunction to love our enemies). I would be thrilled if William would leave aside his flippancy for a few minutes and address this question seriously. Speaking to that longed-for version of William, William, what is it that you see as a reason to believe that Medicare for All (I don't care if you use the Bernie version or Warren's as a benchmark) will bankrupt the nation and/or cost the average taxpayer more than the current system's hodgepodge of payment schemes? Assume that you are addressing real live Christian brethren, human beings, literate and capable of basic arithmetic. I for one will look seriously at whatever arguments you adduce, and while I don't promise to agree with your reasoning, I will assume that you too are a real live Christian brother, human, literate, and numerate, and that the arguments you put forth are ones that you, at least, find compelling.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:23 pm

KeithE wrote:...we’re currently spending $3.6 trillion a year on healthcare.
How does this break down? What does it mean that we are spending $3.6 million per year? Is the government spending that much? Government and private citizens together? What are we getting for that number?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:44 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
KeithE wrote:...we’re currently spending $3.6 trillion a year on healthcare.
How does this break down? What does it mean that we are spending $3.6 million per year? Is the government spending that much? Government and private citizens together? What are we getting for that number?


Its a good question. But I do know that way way more is spent on healthcare for me and my family than just a decade ago far outpacing inflation. And, while we are spending more than double what it used to cost our benefits are not nearly as good. The whole US healthcare system is one big scam.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6558
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Haruo » Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:41 am

Yes, Robert put a very important question very clearly there. Keith?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Sandy » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:13 am

Rvaughn wrote:
KeithE wrote:...we’re currently spending $3.6 trillion a year on healthcare.
How does this break down? What does it mean that we are spending $3.6 million per year? Is the government spending that much? Government and private citizens together? What are we getting for that number?


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... 00/530355/

The collective "we" is what is spent by Americans on their healthcare each year. That includes insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. self-pay, share plans, prescription drugs, the whole thing, an average of $11,000 per year per person. There are multiple breakdowns from different sources online, quite a complex system.

https://www.dividend.com/dividend-stock ... healthcare

Not sure that information is comprehensive in terms of providing an accurate breakdown of where the dollars go, but some of the yields, drug delivery and manufacturing, health care plans and medical research, are unusually high which supports what Sanders and Warren are saying. Given that medicare dollars also pay profit dividends when they go to for-profit providers, and you get a pretty good idea of how much money out of that $3.6 trillion pays profits, not for care, and answers the question of "how will you pay for it?" For the most part, we or our employer if they provide the insurance, will trade off an average of $800 a month in premiums for a $400 payroll deduction to pay for medicare. So we, or our employer, saves $400 a month on the premium and we save more because there would be no deductibles, co-pays ( or minimal co-pays) or other charges.
Sandy
 

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:27 am

My thought is that to create Medicare for All, there will have to be a lengthy transition, either starting with people under 30 or over 60. The transition will take some time to create a workable system. The idea that this can be done in one or two steps doesn't really allow for consideration of the logistics. Once the initial group is drawn in and the system works, then it could be expanded upward or downward in 5 to 10 year age blocks. I love the idea, but no one is talking about the practical side of how to bring it into reality.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7700
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Medicare for All

Postby Haruo » Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:35 pm

How do taxes play into the 3.6 Trillion? I mean, just because we don't have health insurance/care for all, we do after all have lots of government owned and run hospitals (including most of the large VA system) that are paid for by all taxpayers even though some of them provide a tremendous amount of care to uninsured persons.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron