Medicare for All is cheaper: Multiple studies say M4A is more cost-effective than a public option

[alwaysinasnit]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the General Discussion forum).

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/medicare-for-all-is-cheaper-multiple-studies-say-m4a-is-more-cost-effective-than-a-public-option/

Two new studies found that the Medicare for All plan proposed by candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., would cost less than the public option proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden and other moderates in the Democratic primary.

Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg have repeatedly argued that the Medicare for All proposal would be too expensive. They have instead proposed a public option or “Medicare for all who want it,” which they argue would be more fiscally sound.

“Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ plan “would cost more than the entire federal budget that we spend now,” Biden claimed during a debate earlier this month, which PolitiFact rated as false.

Biden has repeatedly demanded to know how Sanders plans to pay for the proposal. Sanders has repeatedly said it would be paid for by tax increases that would cost far less than the premiums, deductibles, copayments and other costs that Americans already pay. The United States spends more than $10,000 per year for every man, woman and child’s health care, far more than any other nation.

Snip...

[Grasswire2]

1. I saw something earlier tonight saying that Yale University had validated Bernie's plan.

When people ask how it will be paid for, refer them to Yale, eh.

[alwaysinasnit]

2. Not just Yale, but Harvard too.

[Midnightwalk]

3. Just read it

I’m not an expert but there are a few things that I wonder about. Thanks for motivating me to read it. I’m just thinking out loud and sharing thoughts.

The 600 billion dollar a year savings sounds like a when fully implemented number. I’ve heard of a 5 year phase in, is that right? I think I’d do that arithmetic as 5*0.6 + 5*0.3 = 4.5 trillion. Anyone else like arithmetic?

Maybe that matches that other study that said 450 billion a year. Maybe the 2nd study did the 10 year math based on the final saving number.

600 billion seems high for insurance overhead which is ( i think ) 18% because of medical cost ratio. They get up to 18% of what they pay for not 18% of 3.5 trillion. Just saying I don’t know what else they are assuming is part of the bill. Not putting bad connotations on assumptions.

There are arguments on how much of that 18% is savable. There will still be overheads but they should be a least half as much. Maybe we can’t get all the way to 2.2%.

I’ll agree that single payer would make it easier to get savings. Makes perfect sense because the more is spent using the government discount the greater the multiplier. That is buy in means more people are paying more. Total national cost is higher.

Savings like the 600 billion a year or whatever it turns out to be are not the same as paying for a program. We can only use the part of the savings which is captured as revenue. For example if we basically take corporate premiums as new taxes we get to use all that savings. If we tax it at 50% we get half.

That boils down to a person or company saving money on premiums isn’t the same as paying for medicare for all.

The criticism of buy in for not achieving the same savings is off on the intent. Buy in isn’t trying to get the same savings and as fast. The reasons for buy in are to attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Largely in my opinion to improve our odds in the general. Other reasons too but already a long reply.

[JudyM]

4. Locking

Alerted on for being in the wrong forum. Ok to repost in DP only.