General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolitifact backs up Sanders numbers on Single Payer. It would save families $5,800 each year
Snip> So, oddly, our calculation produced exactly the same amount of federal health spending -- $1.38 trillion a year -- as Sanders own estimate for his single-payer plan.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/how-expensive-would-single-payer-system-be/
Snip: But, he argues, people would save money since they would no longer have to pay monthly premiums or deductibles. A family of four earning $50,000 would save more than $5,800 each year.
Snip: Businesses, meanwhile, would save more than $9,400 annually since they would no longer have to pick up their share of workers' health insurance premiums.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I mean DUH.. if people pay something in 'taxes' for health care.
Obviousfuckingly they will NOT be paying insurance premiums ALSO for health care.
Nothing quixotic about that is there.
I will not even ASK why certain people seem to leave out this inconvenient fact...
Thank you.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Glamrock
(11,781 posts)But he gets none of the vitriol for putting single payer bills forward year after year. Transparent idn't it?
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)Introducing a Bill that has no chance of passing, and THEN doing nothing significant to try to get it passed isn't worth attention.
Glamrock
(11,781 posts)at least you're consistent.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Getting hard to tell now days.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It doesn't even try to back up Sanders' estimate. The question(s) they are answering is this:
We wondered whether Trump was also right on his cost numbers. However, we werent sure exactly what he meant. Did he mean that single-payer health care would cost more than total revenues -- what the federal treasury "takes in" every year? Or did he mean only that it would cost more than what the federal government already spends on health care?
So they took Sanders estimate and compared it to what the government takes in for total revenue and what the government currently pays towards health care. It absolutely isn't saying whether or not Sanders estimate is correct. I don't see how you could possibly have misinterpreted the article as answering the question of whether Sanders estimate is correct.
Actually on further reflection, the Politifact article shows how implausible Sanders' numbers are. The government currently pays about 1.38 trillion for health care covering about 158 million people. Sanders' estimate is to pay that same 1.38 trillion, but covering 324 million people. That math doesn't add up.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)It's been an ANSWER to the inevitable question about "what about the tax increases"? But the single-payer message has been "everyone deserves health care"; true, but ignoring the fact that most people already have it.
KentuckyWoman
(6,666 posts)323.1 Million people in the US. - Assuming we don't gain any population over the next 10 years - We will - so the per person will be less.
These figures include the current demographic that is covered under Medicare because it averages out over the entire population.
$4271 - Cost per person at $1.38 Trillion a year
$8666 - Cost per person at $2.8 Trillion a year
Contrast to Medicare as it stands - disabled - elderly - expensive demographic
These figures do not take into account the cost sharing of premiums.
$9990 - spent per person on Medicare in 2015
$11200 - spent per person on Medicare in 2014
$12000 - spent per person in 2012
Taking into account Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies to hospitals, R&D costs to various entities etc, the US government spent $3.2 Trillion on Medical Care related expenses in 2015. PLUS the costs associated with employment of Federal Employees and Active and Retired Military. That is more than single payer is projected to cost to cover the ENTIRE POPULATION.
The math works. Don't let them kid you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People will go "wooooo free health care" and then schedule amputations, transplants, and sex reassignment surgery they don't need just because they figure, hey, it's free!
joanbarnes
(1,715 posts)Would gladly pay that amount (or less!) into Medicare for all and know the coverage I might eventually need would be provided. I am sure EVERYONE else feels the same.
George II
(67,782 posts)...any details about how it's funded, i.e., taxes?
On the surface there may be immediate "savings", but what will be the ultimate impact on taxes?