General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the General Discussion forum).
(sorry for damn Newsweek all-caps headlines)
https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862
The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings. The research, which was published Saturday in the medical journal The Lancet, also found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.
"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americanswhich includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Alison Galvani, an author of the study and researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek.
Overall, the new research anticipates annual savings of about 13 percent in national health care costs, while providing better health care access to lower-income families. According to the study, about 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, while an additional 41 million people do not have adequate health care coverage. Taken together, about 24 percent of the total population does not have health care coverage that meets their needs.
"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," the authors wrote in the study.
The authors also noted, as Sanders often does when discussing Medicare for all, that health care expenditures in the U.S. are "higher" per capita "than in any other country."
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)No thanks.
Nature Man
(869 posts)which wouldn't be taken from you anyway.
Gawd.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)with insurance with that kind of pettiness isn't going to work. It's just an insult-fest. An absolute disaster.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)It is odd how many people suddenly have 'amazing healthinsurance'. Odd. On average individual health insurance premiums are over 4000/yr, include a deductible of at least 1500, have copays that can add several more thousand dollars to your costs, come with byzantine network restrictions than can dump unexpected and sometimes financial catastrophic bills onto people, and require constant attention due to routine denial of coverage.
But on the internets everyone has 'amazing healthinsurance. You did mean insurance right? This has nothing to do with actual healthcare, other than being able to afford to access it.
drray23
(8,759 posts)many of us work for places with excellent healthcare. I have no copays, no need to have referrals to see specialists, no requirements for a designated healthcare provider, no deductible and my employer pays most of the premium. I pay $192.00 per month for it.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)That is the point.
Oppaloopa
(956 posts)Years ago I was friends of a man who paid 1500 per month for Health insurance since he was self employed. You are the rare exception.
berksdem
(921 posts)health insurance company and our insurance is garbage. consider yourself lucky...
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)nobuddy
(215 posts)amirite?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Insulting 150 million people with insurance is not going to work.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)insurance?
Odd.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)They are happy with their insurance. All you have are insults for people happy with their insurance. Now you have to push the other alternative fact -- trying to pretend that everyone hates their insurance.
Blue_playwright
(1,620 posts)The same as Congress via Fed Blue. Id happily give it up for Medicare for all. I want those people to have health care!
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)Until it's not!
LonePirate
(14,367 posts)edhopper
(37,370 posts)As I transition from regular insurance to Medicare, I will keep all my providers.
What will be taken away?
Perseus
(4,341 posts)You don't have copay?
Can you go to any provider, or only those in the plan?
Do you have limits in the coverage?
Does it include Dental? When I say dental I mean not limited to just "teeth cleaning"
If you have dental, does it cover braces, and other procedures that may be needed, such as surgery, etc.?
Is your insurance given to you by your employer, and can you stay on it if you switch jobs?
Will your insurance be available when you retire and still your employer pay what they pay for you?
I have to assume that your insurance pays for preventive medicine?
There are many other questions that could be asked, but if you answer yes to all of the above then of course you should keep it.
Last thing, with what Sanders and Warren are proposing you would not loose this wonderful insurance.
samnsara
(18,767 posts)...my existing healthcare has dental....and medicare doesnt pay for everything so you need to buy a supplement as well!
CousinIT
(12,541 posts)That would be the ideal situation. (just IMO).
However, I think too may Americans are too used to the abuse of the for-profit healthcare system and won't go for it, one reason Sanders would get pummeled by the Trump cult & others.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)Insurance should be borne by all who are at risk; those who have no risk should not have to bear a share of any catastrophe the insurance covers. Those without homes need not have home insurance. Those without cars need not have car insurance. Who should be excluded from health care?
All people need basic health care. The current system excludes by profiteering. Your existing health insurance costs include paying for a huge, upside-down pyramid of overhead and profits. This is the reason "dental" and "vision" are artificially split from ordinary health care -- to maximize revenue.
Where a need is universal among citizens, we, eventually, get around to a universal solution. This has happened with national defense, public highways, public education, etc. It is time we addressed the universal need for health care as a nation. We are not hyenas fighting over the scraps tossed to us after the new robber barons take the best for themselves.
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)The people who say they shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for public schools because they don't have any children!
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)We all pay for solutions to universal needs -- from national defense to health care. The difference is that we're all paying for all health care, now, plus an enormous for-profit overhead while at the same time millions get far too little health care.
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)BTW That "study" is accessible by registering at the Lancet. It bases the savings by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals by 17.4% and of drugs by 40%. It gives "rationales" for doing so. The doctor and hospital reimbursement is "justified" because that's what medicare pays. The drug price is justified because that's the average of what the rest of the world pays.
I wonder why the British have to ration drugs if they get them so cheaply.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/07/591128836/u-k-hospitals-are-overburdened-but-the-british-love-their-universal-health-care
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)Do doctors have to pay an outrageous amount of money for malpractice insurance? Do they have to pay an outrageous amount of money to go to college and medical school? If not then they might not be so upset about 17% less in reimbursements.
ashredux
(2,928 posts)It is unrealistic that any legislation could be passed as Bernie has suggested.
In the end, universal healthcare for all Americans is the goal. But youre dealing with a major sector of our economy and you can only move it along a few steps at a time.
The affordable care act took a big swipe and changed many of the basic tenets of healthcare in America. We need to continue with the ACA and build up on it so that everyone has the option if that is what they wish to do
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)It's really that simple.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,732 posts)sl8
(17,110 posts)Copy the offending text, go to https://convertcase.net/ , paste the text, and press the button with the capitalization scheme you want. I use the "Title" scheme for post titles.
IronLionZion
(51,271 posts)bookmarking for later
Auggie
(33,151 posts)I know. I'm one of those people.
That's with a $9000 yearly deductible, BTW.
Bring on Medicare for all. The current plan is a rip-off of the self-employed.
bucolic_frolic
(55,144 posts)and that includes all that make part of their earnings from marketing health insurance. So while the overall idea is popular, there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences, and some of that fallout will trickle down to small towns and small insurance agencies.
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)The horse and buggy industry suffered. When computers were invented, Smith-Corona went out of business. It's called progress. If you work in the insurance industry, I'm sorry. You just might have to find another job. If you work in the coal industry you might need to retrain to build or install solar panels or wind turbines.
bucolic_frolic
(55,144 posts)and I don't work in the insurance industry, is that the trickle down affects families and popular opinion on a local level, which may impact the ability of the legislation to be enacted, and may have political fallout for Dems in marginal districts.
snowybirdie
(6,687 posts)doesnt, necessarily, make something true
JudyM
(29,785 posts)Threads concerning the Dem primaries/candidates are restricted to the Dem Primaries forum. Ok to repost there if youd like. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=9260