LA Times: $32 trillion for 'Medicare for all'? It's a bargain

[Gravitycollapse]

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-14/medicare-for-all-cost

They cite 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.

...

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.

...

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.

For the next time you think M4A is too expensive. Remember, it’s the more affordable option.

[CentralMass]

1. K&R

[DanTex]

2. Exactly. The media trying to scare people always leaves out the cost of the current system.

[LonePirate]

3. But you can't put a price tag on choice!

Surely giving people a choice is worth more than saving tens of thousands of lives and improving the lives of millions, either directly or indirectly.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread Gravitycollapse.

[MoonlitKnight]

5. It's costs less

And works better.

[HerbChestnut]

6. Yep.

[stopbush]

7. The issue isn't the cost. The issue is who pays the cost.

It’s simple: a vast number of Americans get their insurance thru their employer. Employers currently SUBSIDIZE the cost of their employees’ insurance. In many cases, employers pay 100% of their employees’ premiums. In other cases, the employee pays a monthly premium, but that premium is much lower under their employer-provided plan than it would be were they buying their insurance as an individual on the open market.

Under MFA, you are asking these employees - many of who currently pay $0 a month in premiums - to pay an average of $135 per month PER FAMILY MEMBER for insurance. That is a tough sell, no matter how you slice it.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. That's simply not true. Employers are not "subsidizing"...

They are paying you less to cover the cost.

There are multiple ways to fund M4A, all of them result in reduced cost to Americans.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[stopbush]

12. Whatever. I have had jobs with a six-figure salary where my employer

covered my family’s insurance premiums 100%.

If that was “paying me less” I didn’t notice.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Not noticing something doesn't make it less real.

You think the company paid for your benefits out of the kindness of its heart?

In a profit driven system, the cost of your health insurance was deducted from somewhere else. And it sure wasn’t from the profit margins.

[mr_lebowski]

9. That hardly sounds like an insurmountable issue ...

One way or another ... the employers keep paying what they pay now. Just to a different entity.

Boom. Done.

At my work the people would be doing backflips if they could insure their whole family at $135/person.

It's more like $1500/month to add your wife and one child here, cause employer helps only with the employee, and ours is a very nice plan.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. +1

[stopbush]

13. Why would employers do that when they have no power to pick the plan they

want to offer their employees?

What happens when the government demands an employer’s cost per employee rises significantly? Job cuts, that’s what.

[mr_lebowski]

16. Ummm ... because it's (been made) the law?

A huge swath of 'plans' were drastically changed or eliminated when ACA was enacted and we didn't all lose our jobs.

Health insurance rates go up EVERY YEAR, and we don't lose all our jobs.

Employers will simply have to pay a % of employee pay (or something along those lines, maybe a flat number) into MFA just like they currently pay into UI, SS, and Medicare now.

And that will be LESS in all likelihood than what they are paying insurance companies.

And they also won't have to deal with a lot of friggin hassles. It's not a small task 'picking a plan' every damn year for your employees.

BTW, afaic, fuck 'employers picking our plans' ... what, they have some God-Given right to do that? I don't stipulate to that idea whatsoever. It's just 'tradition in this country' ... nothing more.

[Midnightwalk]

18. I wish that was the message

Your employer continues to pay and out of pocket is 135. Or even monthly cost is 135 with small deductible could sell.

First time I’ve seen it put that way.

Gravity is saying but you’ll get that money as a raise. Maybe meaning the difference, but I also hear to get employers completely out of the loop.

Others say yeah taxes will go up but you’ll come ahead in the end. That one kills me as a marketing strategy. Promise pain for eventual gain.

I get that there are some who argue against single payer but I’m not one of them. I just think the current message sucks to the point we could lose.

Figure out a way to promise benefits with no or little pain and people would go for it. Your proposal comes close but somehow that isn’t the answer in these threads.

If it sounds like I think Americans need a dumbed down message, that’s because I do.

Personally I think going after eliminating union and employer based insurance in the first round of reforms is a bit crazy anyway. The pools should be big enough that we don’t need the extra numbers to make the numbers work out. Let the employers push workers into a national plan because it is cheaper. Or let workers decide to save money by picking it.

But if a message like yours adds up, that could work too.

[mr_lebowski]

19. Don't mistake my arguing on behalf of an aspect of MFA as arguing that's it's a political winner

Esp. in this election ...

Cause I'm NOT doing that.

I feel the exact way you iterated in the end of your post overall.

I'm a "Start With a Public OPTION" guy. Let the government COMPETE with the private business model. Let people CHOOSE it. We do this with the Post Office, and many other places in the economy, so it's NOT A FOREIGN concept.

Note the highlighted words. These are important parts of the needed messaging

That said ... in order for MFA (or similar single-payer) to ever happen, employers will have to continue shouldering a similar burden to what they do now with private insurers. Period. Public is never going to go for it if employers are let off the hook entirely and taxpayers carry the whole thing. Not happening.

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Golly all the hand wringing.

Fun factoid learned when as a Health and Welfare Board Person back in the day.

Our Teamster Local always relied on experts to give us info before taking on Management. Dollars well spent for results. When it came to Health Insurance coverage that expense is a reduction in Hourly Wages and that is fact,but,what are the off sets. Our Accountants and legal Beagles had all the info and probabilities as well as several scenario's that as a Board Member we could expect during the next Contract period of time for all our Members.

Fun Fact,when considering any changes for the benefit for our Membership the real Accounting fact stands out,it takes approximately 18 months to do what is called a Cleanup in any Medical issues with in any given group. And that includes Dental,and Vision care as well as first dollar coverage for any and all Health relate issues. After that time frame,we found we could reduce our Dollar Costs with our Insurance Brokers because we had the hard data.

Bottom line,once a family knows they don't have to go broke for health related issues,they become healthier and overall Family Structure Strengthens.

And if our Nation goes to a Singly Payer,well,a small tax will have to be used to off set those first year and half of getting the Country Healthy.

[Quixote1818]

15. Simple adding and subtracting. K and R

[dansolo]

17. This article is full of falsehoods

I don't understand why these lies keeps getting repeated.

First off, the $32 trillion is NEW spending, which must be added to what the government is currently spending on healthcare (first lie). Next, they take the $3.6 trillion number and assume no increase over the next 10 years to get the $36 trillion number (second lie). Then they take the projected estimates and compare it against the false $36 trillion number to make it seem like there is this huge discrepancy (third lie).

Keep in mind that even that $32 trillion number will most likely be much higher.

[Gravitycollapse]

20. You misread even the simple facts I excerpted. Recommended reading again.