General Discussion

SunSeeker

(58,088 posts)

137. Exactly. Then we could attract people who actually want to heal people instead of be rich.

Tue Jul 31, 2018, 12:46 PM

Jul 2018

I remember reading a psych profile of various professions, and it determined the average doctor is more into money than the average CEO. You would think doctors would share the same nurturing psychological profile as nurses since they are in the same field, but nope.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion [View all] SunSeeker Jul 2018 OP

Study funded by Koch brothers unc70 Jul 2018 #1

As soon as I saw the word libertarian I saw it as a very biased study... WePurrsevere Jul 2018 #5

So what is the correct cost figure? Got a link? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #18

The article at the link goes into more detail, not just showcasing the $32.6 figure pazzyanne Jul 2018 #95

Yes, other outlets have analyzed the study, everyone from Wonkette to Think Progress. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #97

Reading the article at the link brings in the weakness in the $32.6 trillion pazzyanne Jul 2018 #100

Well of course. But to get those savings we need to raise taxes. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #102

The answer to the question lies in a study that puts together a full picture pazzyanne Jul 2018 #103

I agreee. We need a neutral study, otherwise this Mercatus study fills the vacuum. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #106

What cost do you think is more accurate? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #6

If study says it cost $30 trillion u can b sure overall we save $40 trillion because onit2day Jul 2018 #80

Simple economics: SCantiGOP Jul 2018 #84

This needs to be compared with what folks are paying now. greymattermom Jul 2018 #2

It's more than we pay now, because we have drastic underservice Recursion Jul 2018 #3

Then a logical, rational comparison would factor underservice in... KY_EnviroGuy Jul 2018 #121

100% agree with that last sentence Recursion Jul 2018 #122

Exactly. That is why I think it is a deal, because I do take that into consideration. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #4

Yep. And include the costs PoindexterOglethorpe Jul 2018 #20

I'm retired, but paid zero for my medical when employed. Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #45

All the healthy living only partially protects you mythology Jul 2018 #60

True. If far, everything wrong treestar Jul 2018 #64

Yep. I'd say genetics is 1/2 the battle. Lifestyle & luck being the rest. 7962 Jul 2018 #71

True. I've been lucky. But I've ALSO tried to be healthy. Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #75

Don't forget the extra coverage we pay for... Delmette2.0 Jul 2018 #57

It might require some sort of "liability limits" in order to pass JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2018 #7

Well, MY study says it'll cost $3.87. TygrBright Jul 2018 #8

I'm going with Bright jodymarie aimee Jul 2018 #9

What do you think is the correct cost figure? Got a link? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #19

We do need our own current study to counter this one. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #13

I think this study is definitely wonky. mwooldri Jul 2018 #72

Don't forget one of the costliest: luvtheGWN Jul 2018 #83

Many of the most expensive hospitals are now "non-profit" erronis Jul 2018 #90

I learn so much from reading Wonkette (seriously)... helpful analysis here: renate Jul 2018 #10

Yup. Like I said, even at $3T a year, it is a deal. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #15

So, more people would be covered at lower cost gratuitous Jul 2018 #24

"Other countries" already are Socialist. lagomorph777 Jul 2018 #39

Actually, the industrialized world... paleotn Jul 2018 #110

The maximum individual rate in B.C. is $84 monthly lamsmy Jul 2018 #11

Well, that's in addition to the taxes they pay to finance the system. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #17

California has more people than the entire country of Canada. Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #49

That's another reason universal coverage is cheaper - prevention lamsmy Jul 2018 #65

I disagree about the jobs. AllyCat Jul 2018 #74

That figure is a substantial amount of the entire networth of the usa. miyazaki Jul 2018 #12

US net worth is about $124T, if you just count assets and assign $0 worth to the actual humans. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #21

weeeeeee! making up numbers is fun! unblock Jul 2018 #14

Do you have a link to a study that gives a lower figure? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #16

+100! KPN Jul 2018 #104

That's 1/7th of the current GDP that's kind of a strange number uponit7771 Jul 2018 #22

It would be 16.8% of our GDP. That is high compared to other single payer countries. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #27

+1, It's because the doctors Pharmaceuticals in hospital groups charge outrageous uponit7771 Jul 2018 #30

Right! Doctors, nurses, health care administrators KPN Jul 2018 #107

Whats wrong with working people getting raises? fescuerescue Jul 2018 #117

Nothing -- if other workers are also being KPN Jul 2018 #118

HMmm fescuerescue Jul 2018 #141

Consider the source matt819 Jul 2018 #23

Exactly. sandensea Jul 2018 #32

Bingo. Not to mention that the current overall cost of Medicare KPN Jul 2018 #108

Of course: Koch "studies" ALWAYS omit the cost savings part of the analysis. lagomorph777 Jul 2018 #25

Well, they did include costs saving, but low-balled them. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #33

Odd that the headline didn't say "Medicare For All Projected To Save $2 Trillion" lagomorph777 Jul 2018 #38

It is hard to quantify the value of a saved life, so it appears we just give it $0. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #43

A human should at least be worth the average value he/she adds to billionaires' pockets. lagomorph777 Jul 2018 #47

Yea and just think of the hundreds of thousands workinclasszero Jul 2018 #93

That's what we're paying ALREADY sandensea Jul 2018 #26

Exactly. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #29

"what the tax increases will be and be prepared to justify them" vi5 Jul 2018 #28

Some actual numbers dpibel Jul 2018 #31

Full of trump The Liberal Lion Jul 2018 #35

Thanks. What do you think is the correct cost figure if not $3.26T? Got a link? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #36

Hmmm... dpibel Jul 2018 #55

That PNHP link does not give anything recent, and no total cost figures. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #85

OK dpibel Jul 2018 #98

This is one of those things The Liberal Lion Jul 2018 #34

I agree it's a litmus test of our humanity. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #37

All talk of 'how much will it cost' is meaningless, unless compared to how much it costs NOW. TrollBuster9090 Jul 2018 #40

Please apply Supply-Side thinking bucolic_frolic Jul 2018 #41

+1000! KPN Jul 2018 #111

Tax Sugar Grease Oil And Processed Food To Pay For All Of It PaulX2 Jul 2018 #42

Since you are eating perfectly what are you going to die from? former9thward Jul 2018 #73

Old Age PaulX2 Jul 2018 #79

It is probaby been a hundred years since they stopped putting "old age" former9thward Jul 2018 #82

All projections are irrelevant right now. Hortensis Jul 2018 #44

This might help with your "confusion" Blecht Jul 2018 #46

So it appears Thinkprogress accepts the numbers from this Mercatus study. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #51

As you've pointed out (and asked for) several times here, we need out OWN number. Until then.... George II Jul 2018 #48

What? And live in a civilized country? Turbineguy Jul 2018 #50

If that was funded by the Kochs, then it's not true. nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #52

What do you think is the correct cost figure? Got a link? nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #54

I'm not an actuary. But I have common sense. A Koch brother is on the board of that co. Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #63

Until we are able to present another, more neutral study's cost total, Mercatus fills the vacuum. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #112

I'm afraid so. This study will rule the roost during 2020 campaigns. Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #120

Assuming noting else is cut from the budget,.... Joe Nation Jul 2018 #53

Taxes increase; premiums and copays decrease dpibel Jul 2018 #66

Smoking gun: Liberalagogo Jul 2018 #56

It's a pretty good estimate. We spend $3.3Trillion yearly for health care, with a lot of uninsured Hoyt Jul 2018 #58

Yep. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #101

One thing I noticed different in the article: Premiums Honeycombe8 Jul 2018 #59

Does it cover... Chris Studio Jul 2018 #61

The Kochs... Downtown Hound Jul 2018 #62

Then how does the UK do it so cheaply? mwooldri Jul 2018 #67

UK doctors start at $55K and max out at $90K Recursion Jul 2018 #94

Most people would not be happy to pay "just" $14K more for a family of three pnwmom Jul 2018 #68

Exactly. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #89

That's why many people on medicare have supplementary insurance tymorial Jul 2018 #91

I agree. The entire system has to change. Also, a key part that you haven't mentioned pnwmom Jul 2018 #92

Oh yes indeed. Absolutely tymorial Jul 2018 #114

I just had that happen myself. Our major insurer pnwmom Jul 2018 #115

Has your physician worked with your pharmacist? tymorial Jul 2018 #119

Thanks for the compounding pharmacy idea. My pharmacist has tried to help me, pnwmom Jul 2018 #123

It depends on the pharmacy and your insurance. tymorial Jul 2018 #124

Thank you -- this is good advice for my other prescription. With this one, unfortunately, pnwmom Jul 2018 #139

Your high blood pressure medication could still be compounded tymorial Jul 2018 #142

Thank you, tymorial! I just checked and goodrx DOES cover my med. pnwmom Jul 2018 #143

Thanks idahoblue Jul 2018 #69

Fake news! nt elmac Jul 2018 #70

Why would anyone give any credence to a study from a rightwing think tank? procon Jul 2018 #76

Apparently Think Progress gives it credence. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #87

BTW, Bernie gave the study credence: SunSeeker Jul 2018 #136

and yet that same study says it would save us TRILLIONS each year 0rganism Jul 2018 #77

Yep. But to get those savings, we need to increase taxes. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #88

Agreed. They say we now spend 15-20 of our GDP. That comes to between 3 and 4 trillion c-rational Jul 2018 #99

Exactly. Then we could attract people who actually want to heal people instead of be rich. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #137

a transaction tax on wall street would take care of most of the costs elmac Jul 2018 #78

Please don't use Trump's language. This is not fake news. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #96

How much would we spend on healthcare if we did NOT do Medicare for all? Yavin4 Jul 2018 #81

Health Care Abuse yellowwoodII Jul 2018 #86

With a value added sales tax the people who shop alot pay the most. The people shopping applegrove Jul 2018 #105

Increase spending, but save money too. It's the net that counts. Plus quality of life counts too. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2018 #109

Yep. nt SunSeeker Jul 2018 #113

Medicare doesn't pay everything for everyone radical noodle Jul 2018 #116

Sadly, a lot of people dont lnow this. tymorial Jul 2018 #125

Obviously not... radical noodle Jul 2018 #129

Universal medicare would give cost certainty to hospitals DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #126

You can pay $30,000 MichMary Jul 2018 #127

Yes, that is a problem. Our doctors are different. They expect to be wealthy. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #131

Interesting. ehrnst Jul 2018 #128

I don't know of any Dems praising this study. Did Bernie praise this study? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #130

Yes, Bernie praised this study. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2018 #132

... SunSeeker Jul 2018 #133

.... ehrnst Jul 2018 #134

Is this "thank you" what you are referring to? SunSeeker Jul 2018 #135

Every other social democracy can do it but not this country? BSdetect Jul 2018 #138

It's all a matter of priorities, and ours are pretty screwed up right now. SunSeeker Jul 2018 #140