Bernie is lying about the real cost of M4A

[dansolo]

He keeps referring to the 30 trillion number, but that is the estimated amount of INCREASED government spending. He is taking the amount of increased revenue required to pay for it, and he is making it seem like that is the total cost of his plan. The real cost is really the $30 trillion, plus what is being paid now by the government (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, VA). What makes matters worse, it that he uses the total cost estimates when he describes the current healthcare spending projections, giving the impression that there will be far more significant savings.

[oasis]

1. Bernie has some bigtime explaining to do in tonight's debate. Look

for Bloomberg to put the squeeze on him.

[DanTex]

2. No he's not. And regardless of how you spin it,

it costs less than the status quo.

[Recursion]

3. There is literally no way to deliver care for 25 million more people for less money

Like, it is literally impossible and it makes us sound stupid when we say that. We need to stop with the nonsense here. Treating more people simply doesn't cost less money.

[DanTex]

6. Peer reviewed studies like the one in Lancet disagree.

But maybe you should write a furious letter to Lancet and get them to retract that study based on your opinion.

[Recursion]

7. No, they don't. They say it's cheaper per person, which it is

Nobody has ever said it's cheaper in aggregate

[myohmy2]

11. then...

...how do most other modern industrialized countries do it?

...and cheaper...

[Recursion]

16. By paying their doctors half of what ours make. It's not really a mystery

If we had the will to do that we wouldn't even need Medicare for all; we could just afford healthcare to start with.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. That's not true in Canada, it's true in the US.

And in the US, many managed care plans cram reduced fees down providers throats. That is one of the main reasons Imnever went into private practice. The average fee for psychotherapy was $100/hr, but most managed care plans only paid $50-75, and you can’t ask clients to pay the difference, as that is insurance fraud, and you could lose your license and go to jail.

Don’t go making broad generalizations on things you’re not informed about.

[Recursion]

60. I am informed about this. US physicians make twice the OECD average

And the US spends twice the OECD average on healthcare. This isn't exactly a mysterious line to draw there.

Speaking of balance billing, I'd sure like to hear whether or not Sanders's plan allows it, along with whether or not providers are required to accept it and private insurance forbidden to duplicate it...

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. The US spends twice as much on healthcare due to insurance company PROFITS

And administrative costs, not doctor’s pay.

[Recursion]

64. Oh, God no. If only it were that simple

If insurance profit were the problem we could have fixed it years ago.

Start here. The big culprit is outpatient procedures (that is, doctors). There's a ton of blame to go around, but saying "the problem is insurance company PROFITS" isn't even close to right. Total private insurance profit is about $25 Billion, which isn't even a rounding error in our total health care spending.

[DanTex]

15. That's simply not true, and I have no idea why you would think that.

All told, the study concludes, a single-payer system akin to Sanders’s plan would slash the nation’s health-care expenditures by 13 percent, or more than $450 billion, each year. Not only that, “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/20/lancet-medicare-for-all-study/

[Recursion]

17. Because I read the actual study and not a journalists' summary of it

They don't account for the currently underserved population in the calculations. They price the treatments currently provided and a similar level of treatment for the currently uninsured. Nothing for those who have insurance but skip treatments because of money.

[DanTex]

20. The actual study concludes that it will save the US money.

So I doubt that you read it. Maybe you disagree with the study’s methods in which case, like I said, you should write Lancet a furious letter.

But this study, and others, find that single payer reduces overall cost.

[ancianita]

42. +1

[JGug1]

22. Letter To Lancet

The poster will need *22* copies of the letter, one addressed to the conservative think tank that also found immense savings if we have Medicare For All.

[Voltaire2]

8. So the better just let them die?

Was that your point?

[Recursion]

10. No, better to acknowledge it's going to cost money to treat them

People keep pointing to studies that show that we could deliver the healthcare we currently deliver for less under Medicare For All, which is no doubt true. But the reason we want to get universal healthcare is so that we'll be providing the treatments we aren't providing right now, to the 25 million uninsured and 40 million underinsured.

[JGug1]

24. Providing Best Medicine To Everyone

Recursion: Medicare for all means that everyone would have access to the same medicine that I have with Medicare. The studies done, all 22 sited at The Hill, report the same thing, immense savings.

[JackInGreen]

4. And dont let em tell you different

I'm sick of hearing that oligarchs need their money so damn the rest of us.

[BeyondGeography]

13. The political problem is most people have no idea what their insurance costs

Employers pick up 70 to 80 percent of the tab, so when you talk about savings in the aggregate, it doesn’t compute for the average person. My policy costs $1,100 a month but the cost to me is $280 a month. Is MFA going to beat that? Under Warren’s plan it would but I’m a supporter and don’t find her pay-fors to be realistic. The thing I snort at every time is the idea that pay will rise as employer HC costs go down. That would reverse 50 years of corporate behavior in the shareholder values era.

My heart goes out to both Bernie and Warren on this one. Capitalism does need an overhaul and health care is Exhibit A. We are asking too much of individual politicians to put this weight on their shoulders. Until the Democratic Party stops taking money from pharma, insurance co’s and private hospitals, and unifies around a single approach to taking profit maximization out of health care, we are going to turn round and round on the issue and cave every time the FUD campaigns kick in.

[Recursion]

19. It still floors me every time somebody claims that

No, our employers are not going to just magically add the money they were spending on insurance to payroll.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. They will have to when the minimum wage goes up nt

[MontanaMama]

56. You're correct. Most employers will not

add the money they were spending on insurance to payroll. My husband and I own two small businesses. We pay for health insurance for staff that wants/needs it and doesn’t get it through their spouse. It’s the largest outlay of cash monthly that I have other than payroll. I don’t have anyone on staff making less than $22 an hour except for a part time kid in college who works around 8 hours a week and he is at $18 an hour...most of them are at $25+ an hour. Our employees get comp time, paid vacation, company matched 401K among other benefits...like bringing their dogs to work, Etc. If I end up not having to pay for health insurance, I will reinvest in our business...pay our mortgage down...a million other things.

[JudyM]

77. Our democracy is in the ICU and triage will only be effective if we get big donors the hell

outta the room.

[BeyondGeography]

78. Yes

[Happy Hoosier]

45. That may EVENTUALLY be true...

but how that total cost is paid for matters. What does it mean to ME as an individual? How does he recover my employers share? I can tell you his payroll tax is less than what their current contribution is for me. WHo makes up that money? And what recourse do I have if his M4A plan is goddammed mess for a few years (as it 100% will be).

I have been involved with a number of large scale project over my career, and NONE of them have launched without a hitch. This "jump off the cliff" approach is exactly what I'd expect from a man with no experience actually implementing anything. It's fucking madness.

[George II]

59. No it doesn't. If that was true surely you can direct us to where....

....we can see exactly what it will cost and what the current cost is.

We keep hearing it will be cheaper, but there have been NO numbers published that will show us definitively.

[empedocles]

9. BS seems more trumplike as time and exposure go on.

[Celerity]

18. [phone]

[dalton99a]

30. The similarities are eerie

[NurseJackie]

72. I know so many lies on top of lies. Smoke and mirrors.

Built on a foundation of more lies. Underestimates in cost, overestimates in savings, pretending as though the net INCREASE is the ACTUAL COST. Disgusting.

[TheRickles]

12. A new study from Yale disagrees with you, Dan

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/17/1919887/-Yale-Study-Medicare-for-All-saves-450-Billion-and-68-000-Lives-Annually?utm_campaign=trending

M4A saves $450 billion and 68,000 lives annually. Decreased administrative costs with no money siphoned off for CEO's profits are only part of the picture. Please check it out.

[dansolo]

55. That study doesn't refute anything I said

Current estimates place expected costs to run about 48-50 trillion over the next 10 years. Take away the 4.5 trillion that the Yale study claims, and you still end up with a number that is much higher than 30 trillion.

[MisterFred]

14. Sanders' math holds up.

We Americans (not the government) are spending 3.6 trillion a year right now. And that's going UP.

Medicare for all IS cheaper.

[JGug1]

21. Savings From Medicare For ALL

OK, trash Sanders if you want, though I don't think it is helpful. IF you care about the truth, Google "The Hill/Medicare for all." *22* studies all arrive at the same conclusion: Medicare For All would save an immense amount of money. Even a study done by a right wing think tank found immense savings.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

[redqueen]

26. Thanks for posting this. nt

[The Wizard]

31. Since insurance companies will be removed from the equation,

people will really be able to see the doctors they want to see. Not in network will no longer limit choices since all doctors will be in network.

[knightmaar]

23. Medicare for all will save all of you a lot of money

You realize it works out cheaper, right?

Once you remove:
a) the profit
b) the administrative cost of trying to refuse your claim

We have it here in Canada.
No way in hell would I trade it for the crap shoot you have.

[TCJ70]

27. I'm all for M4A...but I don't think that statement can be said for everyone.

It'll probably be cheaper for me since I currently drop over $1000/month for our family plan. But I sit next to someone who only pays $50/month for an individual plan. They will definitely pay more out of pocket for M4A than they currently do. It'll be cheaper overall, but not for everyone in every situation. It can still be the right thing to do while acknowledging this reality.

[knightmaar]

33. $50 per month?

For what? With what deductible and co-pay?

Sure, young people who are making more than the $29000 cut off will pay more, maybe, than $50/month.
But they'll get rid of co-pays, deductibles and wondering if the insurance company will actually pay.

[TCJ70]

36. It's an HMO and an amazingly good deal...

...the plans themselves, theirs and mine, aren't bad, but mine costs 20x more than theirs because I have a family to include. I've never had an issue with them paying anything.

[knightmaar]

46. Nice. I guess there are good versions.

I don't know all of the complexities of American health care, just the stories I get from my relatives who live down there.

Does that mean the employer is paying for some of it?

[TCJ70]

49. Yeah. In our case the employer subsidizes the same amount for each of our plans...

...the family plan just costs that much more. One thing I’d like to see in any M4A or equivalent plan is for that subsidy to be required to be paid to the employee. It’s technically compensation but I don’t trust businesses not to pocket that extra.

[Gothmog]

25. Sanders plan to pay for proposals does not add up

Link to tweet

[Progressive dog]

28. The cost doesn't matter to Bernie,

he is trying to buy votes, but he's smart enough to know his fantasies can't be paid for and won't become law.

[lutherj]

29. Here's What 22 Separate Studies Found: Medicare for All Would Cost Less Than the For-Profit Status Q

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/02/24/heres-what-22-separate-studies-found-medicare-all-would-cost-less-profit-status-quo

[oldsoftie]

35. And to accomplish that, everyone needs to contribute, like in europe.

None of the current candidates have any proposals that include that. And none have legitimate plans that will raise the needed funds. Even with military cuts

[lutherj]

48. In other words you admit that the OP is bs, and now you're trying

a different tack. Sanders said in the last debate that taxes would increase, and Warren has a detailed plan for everything. You are essentially saying that Americans are too stupid to understand a net savings.

[oldsoftie]

50. No, the candidates think WE are too stupid to see thru the false promises.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY to make this work. We refuse to accept this, even though every other country that has what we want has accepted it for decades. And they make it work.
It will NOT work under the "Only the rich pay" method. Even accounting for increased tax revenue (offset by savings), there is still too much money that is never taxed.
We need a VAT. Period.

[lutherj]

65. So even though the rest of the OECD all have it, and the US currently pays DOUBLE the OECD

per capita average (which includes both individual out-of-pocket expenses — premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. — AND government outlays like VA costs and Medicare, and is the leading driver of bankruptcy in the US), and the candidates admit that they will raise taxes to pay for it, nonetheless it’s all “false promises” that luckily you and the American people have the wisdom to see through.

Reverse Trump’s obscene tax cut for the rich. Reverse Bush’ s obscene tax cut for the rich. Stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Start taxing companies like the 60 of the Fortune 500 that pay no taxes — Amazon, IBM, Halliburton, GM, etc. Raise the minimum wage to get people who work full time jobs and haven’t had a pay increase in 40 years off public assistance. End the endless wars which are just a hog-feed trough for the military industrial complex. Cut the “defense” budget in half which will knock us down from having the biggest “defense” budget in the world to . . . oh wait, we’ll still have the biggest “defense” budget in the world. Cancel student debt which will inject a trillion dollars into the real economy. Invest in infrastructure which will create tens of thousands of well paying jobs and inject even more money into the real economy. Invest in the Green New Deal and start living up to our Democratic heritage (the New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Poverty), start giving young people a reason to feel hopeful about the future and a reason to show up at the ballot box, and which will create all kinds of new jobs and opportunities and inject all kinds of new money into the real economy and maybe even save the planet.

The only “false promise” is the status quo that Americans don’t want to vote for anymore.

[oldsoftie]

67. Um, when you "cancel" someones debt, someone else LOSES. Its not money just sitting there.

Anyone owed loses their money. Of course the govt student debt would just be tossed to the National Debt. And no one ever seems to care about that. Even getting rid of the tax cuts wont pay down the debt.
As for the military, there are ways to cut. But there are 3 superpowers in the world. Most countries are going to align themselves with one of them. Reducing our footprint in the manner a 50% cut would require would result in OUR influence in the world being reduced as well. China & Russia are already expanding throughout the world; especially China. They dont have to worry about what the people back home think. If we let the world, for the most part, be controlled by those two, we will become irrelevant. And then it wont matter WHAT programs we want.
As for the "biggest defense budget in the world", when measured by GDP, the only TRUE measurement, we arent the biggest NOW.
The Green New Deal is a joke as proposed; especially when China & India are increasing their coal powered facilities by the hundreds. No one in Congress is going to vote for forcing people to change their existing homes. Too many couldnt afford it. But them i guess that, too, will be paid by the trillions raised by these fantastic revenue projections.

I'm all for increasing the minimum wage. GRADUALLY. Instantly doubling the minimum wage will result in a LOT fewer jobs immediately. How does anyone not see that? 1/2 the fast food jobs will be replaced by kiosks; its already started in some cities.
Have at it, but 4 more yrs of trump is more dangerous than anything we DONT do. Beating him should be the focus instead of throwing out a dozen programs that'll cost 60 trillion.

[lutherj]

70. Thanks for the Republican talking points.

[oldsoftie]

71. Those are called "facts you dont like"

Not "republican talking points".
Refute them if you think they're incorrect.

[lutherj]

73. I will when I get off work. You really going to stand by that

GDP argument??

[oldsoftie]

74. Of course. The only accurate way to compare is % of GDP

Do you think a dollar in the Us is equal value to a dollar in russia? China? Do you even trust the numbers they release? China is building entire ISLANDS for gods sake. Do you think chinese military members are paid similar to US forces? Do you think russia or china pays military labor & materials costs the same way the US does? Come on, man.

[totodeinhere]

32. Calling the front runner for the Democratic nomination a liar is not a good look. n/t

[TwilightZone]

51. You must have missed the six months Biden was ahead.

Or the brief period when Warren was the front-runner and appeared to have momentum. Or when it looked like Pete was going to be competitive in the first couple of states.

It may not be a good look, but it's nothing new and it wasn't a good look when Sanders supporters were saying it about the other three, either.

[totodeinhere]

61. That's why we all need to stop it and come together if we are going to win in November. n/t

[oldsoftie]

34. Totals for everything he wants to do is around 60 trillion. And it'll never happen.

[cstanleytech]

37. In the end medical care is going to always come down to the money.

Personally I think medical care for everyone is a great idea however to pay for it everyone is going to have to chip in to pay for it as it cannot be truly free as the people that work in the varies medical fields need to eat and pay their bills.

[gab13by13]

38. Let's talk turkey and not conjecture,

I talked with over 100 people in Canada about their health care, not a single one said they would trade their health care for ours. As a matter of fact, most of them laughed at me.

Anyone know what the #1 cause of bankruptcies is in the US? M4A would eliminate that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. You are the one distorting the truth

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/22/multiple-studies-show-medicare-for-all-would-be-cheaper-than-public-option-pushed-by-moderates/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/22/medicare-all-simplicity-savings-better-health-care-column/4055597002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/20/lancet-medicare-for-all-study/

The overall national healthcare expenditures would decrease, and average annual out of pocket expenses per household would drop, and EVERYONE would have healthcare, unlike all other plans except Warren’s.

The only people financially impacted would be the 1% and insurance company stockholders- there’s even a provision in Sanders’ plan for severance and retraining for those administrative insurance workers put out of work.

[LAS14]

43. How about "mistaken" or "wrong" instead of "lying." "Lying" plays right into Russia's hands. nt

[DarleenMB]

44. You all seem to forget

that Medicare is an INSURANCE program. It is NOT free. My monthly MEDICARE premium is now $144. Sure as hell beats the $500+ per month I had to pay to Blue Cross Blue shield when hubby retired and I lost my insurance through the railroad. then there's the ~$40 per month I pay for the drug benefit and the ~$200 I pay for part whatever it is that covers the 20% Medicare doesn't pay for. Still cheaper than private insurance.

So to say the government is "paying for" Medicare is a bit disingenuous. They take my premiums and MY MONEY pays for health care for everyone in the program. That's how insurance is supposed to work. All that money is NOT supposed to wind up in the pockets of the CEO's.

[redstatebluegirl]

76. I just signed up for medicare a part D and a Medicare supplement.

In total it cost me about 320 a month, which is about 90 dollars less a month that I am paying right now for my insurance now that I have gone part time at the end of my career. I am still planning to work part-time until the end of my project which is winter of 2021 if my health holds up. But I am amazed at the amount of young people who think that medicare is free and covers EVERYTHING, it does not.

The thing I am most scare of is long term care. I had a condition that made getting ltc insurance when it first came out impossible, I tried numerous companies and they would not touch me. So if I end up in a nursing home I will be destitute in a matter of 18 months or so. That is one thing everyone needs to look at.

If I was 30 years old I would buy a policy for myself and my parents while they are still insurable.

[LAS14]

47. How about "I don't think the facts support Bernie's estimate of the cost of M4A."

In an earlier response I suggested replacing "lying" with "mistaken" or "wrong." But I think, if we want to be sure we don't turn into the irrational, hateful style of the Trump contingent. We're better than than that!!!

[uponit7771]

52. Sanders says he will create 20 million new jobs so that crushes everything / sarc

[Tweedy]

54. It is not possible to lie about an unknown

Health care costs came down significantly in every country that implemented a plan like M4A.

Medicare's administration costs are already lower than any plan currently in existence.

Ergo, we know the overall costs will come down should we implement a M4A system.

We do not know how much those costs will decrease. We do not know how long it will take to see those benefits (it took the Swiss eight years to see the savings, for example).

This is not a lie. It is an unknown.

We do know it will be cheaper than what we are doing now. We also know it would save us even more by keeping people alive (& contributing to the system).

[dansolo]

66. We do not know that it will be cheaper

Even if Bernie's plan was passed exactly as written, there is no guarantee that it will be cheaper. First off, the studies all assume that the payments would be equal to the current Medicare fee schedule. You do realize that is negotiated separately, right? And regarding the Administrative costs, remember that a lot of the Medicare administrative costs are offloaded to the supplemental insurance providers. If Medicare covered everything, it's administrative costs would be much higher. And even if we assume that it will be cheaper individually, the number of people covered will go up, meaning that the total cost may be higher.

[Tweedy]

69. We do know

History shows us so. Removing, or severely limiting profit, & claims adjusters from the health care system brings down the overall cost & results in better health outcomes in every country that has already done this without exception.

No country has seen an increase in costs after the initial influx of ill patients who could not previously receive care.

Let me repeat that again: every country that has removed, or severely limited profit in the health care system has dramatically reduced cost after the initial period. The Swiss saw their costs drop the fastest; it took 8 years. The Swiss kept private insurance, but made profiting illegal.

Every country saw improved health outcomes following the change. Our health outcomes are abysmal comparatively and getting worse as the GOP defunds planned parenthood (was a primary provider of prenatal care before the GOP decided to take it out, because power) & works to undermine the ACA.

We have already taking a step forward with Obamacare so some of our desperate folks have received the care they need. Obamacare was bringing down costs & had prolonged the life of Medicare before the dufus in Chief started mangling it. That was a very fast turn around, but the cost benefits were not as high as countries that took, or severely limited (the Netherlands) profit out of the health care system.

Medicare's administrative percentage will not increase simply because things are added. Medicare administrates itself cheaper because it is neither in the game to make a profit, not to spend $$ finding ways to deny care.

Medicare also administers a plan for the oldest, sickest population among us cheaper than anyone else in the world does. You just have to love our American government workers, if you look at the facts & don't let your head be turned by vested corporate interests.

Finally, Senator Sanders' plan as written is too light on details to analyze. Yet, he is eliminating private insurance and history tells us there is a large cost benefit from doing that.

Conversely, Senator Warren has released a detailed plan. While we wouldn't save as much during her transition period, anyone who thinks we could implement a change this massive in 24 hours is living in a pipe dream.

[George II]

58. He also doesn't factor into account the number of people who will lose their jobs, the cost...

...of "safety net" programs for them, their retraining, relocation, etc.

He also doesn't account for the fact that less people will become doctors, medical and pharmaceutical research will drop precipitously, hospitals and labs will close, and on and on.

[oldsoftie]

68. Oh, dont worry about all that. It'll ALL be taken care of with all the new tax money from the rich!

Or so i'm told.

[corbettkroehler]

75. Facts Versus Opinion

Here's what the people who actually crunched the numbers, because it's their job, had to say about Sanders' performance last night. I'll take scientists' word over that of a desperate candidate who left Nevada without winning a single new delegate 10 times out of 10!

Link to tweet