Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years [View all]Gothmog
(179,495 posts)133. Because I live in the real world and I also know how studies like the one cited in OP are prepared
I used to be a college debater and I know now studies such as the one cited in the OP prepared. It seems that there are some fairly aggressive assumptions used in this study and I doubt that these savings will be realized in the real world. There is a reason why sanders has totally and utterly failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in the real world which is that policy makers cannot us magical or theoretical savings to pay for a program.
Prof. Krugman and I treat the so-called societal savings the same way that we both treat the magical economic growth that is supposed to be generated from GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders plan isnt just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
GOP tax cuts are not magical and never pay for themselves.
If you want this study to be taken seriously in the real world, then sanders needs to stop selling books and try to get his magical plan adopted in Vermont. We need proof in the real world
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years [View all]
guillaumeb
Dec 2018
OP
By that logic, European healthcare systems should employ lots of insurance company workers and
Doodley
Dec 2018
#202
This type of nonsense is now just fodder for ignore. I am so over small minded short sighted spew
tymorial
Dec 2018
#105
Its not 3% and its not 20% and insurance companies cannot "declare certain things are costs"
grantcart
Dec 2018
#111
I've noticed along with co pays and deductibles I am being charged with "facility fees"
Autumn
Dec 2018
#129
You have it reversed. If they don't spend the 80% then they have to rebate the difference
grantcart
Dec 2018
#122
I didn't mean to blame the patient... only that for profit preys on that sort of thing
KentuckyWoman
Dec 2018
#50
Supported Medicare-for-All - actually MediCAID-for-All - since about 1980, as right thing to do.
Hoyt
Dec 2018
#10
No question, but that is built into the 14%. The study assumes the system is transformed.
Hoyt
Dec 2018
#16
Unfortunately this study is an oversimplification. Many who read these studies....
George II
Dec 2018
#18
That is correct. Medicare Advantage is VERY affordable (my wife and I each pay $25/month), but....
George II
Dec 2018
#21
The only fixing I see that Medicare needs is to provide full coverage, not just 80%, but...
George II
Dec 2018
#27
That article doesn't mention Medicare once, and the Pentagon is rather infamous...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#87
So in your view, the government is incapable of running things efficiently?
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#89
There is no "evidence as applied to Medicare" because a big part of Medicare is administered....
George II
Dec 2018
#92
I have further questions, is this problem unique to the United States?
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#90
The study proposes a 3.75% national sales tax as a possible way to fund the $1,000,000,000,000
lapucelle
Dec 2018
#112
What I missed was the specifics of the vague plan. So, is there anything proposed on how....
George II
Dec 2018
#120
That's ridiculous. The sales tax is collected (or not) by the merchants.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#148
Bizarre. A sales tax is a sales tax and a value added tax is a value added tax.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#154
Lol. Your own link contradicts how and why you jumped in to this silly subthread asserting....
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#157
LOL-they are both taxes on consumption and both taxes are eventually paid for by the consumer
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#158
And the regressive nature of the tax is that it's based on consumption (however one may define that)
George II
Dec 2018
#161
A sales tax has been determined to be the most regressive tax possible, except for a poll tax....
George II
Dec 2018
#159
I don't know where you are, but in the four states in which I've lived (NY, NJ, OH, CT)....
George II
Dec 2018
#160
We have one percentage for the state tax but there are different tax rates for local taxes
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#172
Actually based on studies done for the ACA, it costs 13% less for the govt to do
cbdo2007
Dec 2018
#167
You are using facts concerning a study that is based on very aggresive assumptions
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#175
What does Medicare for All have to do with Native American Genocide or Slavery?
red dog 1
Dec 2018
#40
I worked for almost 50 years, never had a problem changing jobs because I was trapped by healthcare.
George II
Dec 2018
#145
While I support medicare for all there are significant errors on the percentage
grantcart
Dec 2018
#46
Then sanders should stop selling his book and go work to get this plan adopted in vermont
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#118
I understand some of the savings will come from funeral costs of those with inadequate...
George II
Dec 2018
#69
All the comparisons are with countries that have a fraction of the population of the US....
George II
Dec 2018
#81
That actually makes no sense, any insurance system is more cost effective...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#86
Yep. That's the most asinine argument against single payer that gets thrown around.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#150
Those who wrote the plan and are pushing it should explain how it works and is paid for....
George II
Dec 2018
#85
The biggest fault in the ACA is allowing individual states to implement it differently....
George II
Dec 2018
#98
True, but your going to have to abolish Federalism or find a way to Federalize the ACA...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#102
One of the issues is I think it still allows for age based discrimination...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#123
true single pyer would be better but medicare for all is a decent starting place
questionseverything
Dec 2018
#124
Strengthening an already existing system rather than start from scratch is common sense to me.
betsuni
Dec 2018
#103
Yes. It would cost a business $11k per employee per year. They pay that or more now.
KWR65
Dec 2018
#66
And increased taxes should be less than Americans currently pay for insurance premiums.
guillaumeb
Dec 2018
#68
Unfortunately every time it gets down to specifically stating how the plan would be paid for and....
George II
Dec 2018
#95
Because I live in the real world and I also know how studies like the one cited in OP are prepared
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#133
I know it's two years old, but the third paragraph in your link is very interesting.
George II
Dec 2018
#135
Hell, you can't even get them to do something about climate change...
Ferrets are Cool
Dec 2018
#106
Single payer was not on the ballot but protection of pre-existing coverage was an important issue
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#146
The French system has non profit insurance companies people can choose from
GulfCoast66
Dec 2018
#171
sanders has cited the study cited in OP to justify his magical plan and has failed to get it adopted
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#192
Don't forget the overall savings of funeral costs for people who have inadequate healthcare!!
George II
Dec 2018
#193