Washington Post-New CBO analysis could torpedo Medicare-for-all proposals

[Gothmog]

A new CBO analysis of single payer plans is due out today.

Link to tweet

Here is a link to this CBO analysis

Link to tweet

From the CBO

Costs.

Government spending on health care would increase substantially under a single-payer system because the government (federal or state) would pay a large share of all national health care costs directly. Currently, national health care spending—which totaled $3.5 trillion in 2017—is financed through a mix of public and private sources, with private sources such as businesses and households contributing just under half that amount and public sources contributing the rest (in direct spending as well as through forgone revenues from tax subsidies). Shifting such a large amount of expenditures from private to public sources would significantly increase government spending and require substantial additional government resources. The amount of those additional resources would depend on the system’s design and on the choice of whether or not to increase budget deficits. Total national health care spending under a single-payer system might be higher or lower than under the current system depending on the key features of the new system, such as the services covered, the provider payment rates, and patient cost-sharing requirements.

This analysis will come up in the future discussions of proposed plans

[BruceWane]

1. In other news.....

....water is wet.

Of COURSE government spending would increase under single payer! SO WOULD GOVERNMENT REVENUE.

Are they not factoring in the fact that much of the amounts currently paid to insurance companies would basically be re-routed?

[Caliman73]

2. No shit? Really? A government administered system would increase government spending?

The media is likely to "torpedo" the Medicare for All proposals if they insist on covering it like a horse race. Right now the cost of healthcare is put onto employers for about 85% of the population with costs shared between employers and employees. Tax payers pick up the costs of Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for low income and disabled people. Then the ACA with a combination of subsidies and individual payments picks up some. There are still millions of people who are either uninsured and who likely forgo care, and there are those who get emergency care who cannot pay the bill and it is either absorbed and redistributed to the rest of us, or the patients pay and don't eat or don't pay another needed bill.

If we go to any kind of universal, government administered program, of course healthcare spending will go up. It will go up because expenditures will be a lot easier to track because it is coming from one source.

The question should be, will that spending ultimately improve health, quality of life, and outcomes for people over what we have now? Can the system be used to bend the cost curve back down? and ultimately is it a better system compared to what is happening now?

The CBO deals with numbers and government spending. It is good to get that analysis but there is more to health care than just, which system shows the most spending by the government.

[riverine]

3. bump this - I love the analysis by Charles Gaba

He is the best on the topic.

[Buckeyeblue]

4. I'm surprised corporate America is not pro-single payer

Most corporations spend quite a bit on healthcare as a benefit. If they didn't have to offer healthcare, they could save significantly, even if the had to pay a tax into the single payer system.

[MichMan]

5. Sort of depends on what the tax is doesn't it?

Unless all private insurance is banned, many employees will still expect something better than MFA

[Gothmog]

6. Washington Post- CBO Reality Check

Link to tweet