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: Medicare for all would cost more than what we are paying now. We need to stop avoiding this fact. [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)135. Here's a few studies showing that's not a fact at all.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
June, 1991 General Accounting Office
If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage (Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States, 90 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-90. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf).
December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office
If the nation adopted [a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicares rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved. (Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicares Payment Rates) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7652/91-CBO-039.pdf
(snip)
June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute
In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program.
August, 2005
The National Coalition on Health Care
Impacts of Health Care Reform: Projections of Costs and Savings
By Kenneth E. Thorpe, Ph.D.
This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over $1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans. The other scenarios would be improvements over the status quo, but would not reduce costs as dramatically or provide the same high-quality coverage to all.
If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage (Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States, 90 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-90. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf).
December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office
If the nation adopted [a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicares rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved. (Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicares Payment Rates) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7652/91-CBO-039.pdf
(snip)
June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute
In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program.
August, 2005
The National Coalition on Health Care
Impacts of Health Care Reform: Projections of Costs and Savings
By Kenneth E. Thorpe, Ph.D.
This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over $1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans. The other scenarios would be improvements over the status quo, but would not reduce costs as dramatically or provide the same high-quality coverage to all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
268 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
Medicare for all would cost more than what we are paying now. We need to stop avoiding this fact. [View all]
Recursion
Nov 2015
OP
And you have lots of new job openings for nurse, medical technicians, etc. Seems you ...
Scuba
Nov 2015
#32
Really? Because I'm pretty sure we're conversing on the Internet, funded originally by DARPA
Recursion
Nov 2015
#98
And the Internet is a very good example of money spent on defense returning to the economy
Recursion
Nov 2015
#232
Well historically the military and religion have been the two biggest drivers of it
Recursion
Nov 2015
#250
And, in fact, the compulsion in Canada isn't just economic but legally explicit
Recursion
Nov 2015
#22
You seem to know very little about how costs are managed in American health care settings.
Scuba
Nov 2015
#36
Gah! No, we don't pay for everyone's medical care. You're sticking your head in the sand here
Recursion
Nov 2015
#148
Please cite your source for the claim that "Medicare pays 80% of what private insurance pays."
Scuba
Nov 2015
#34
As I said, the thread hasn't ventured into costs vs. charges, nor into DRG's. Nor into ...
Scuba
Nov 2015
#107
Per capita we are ALREADY SPENDING twice what other countries pay to cover everyone
eridani
Nov 2015
#244
That is the goal, but that's not going to *save* us money. It's going to *cost* us money.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#94
If we can spend a trillion dollars on a war of choice, I don't really care what we spend
Vinca
Nov 2015
#6
It doesn't have to be Medicare as it exists now. It can be anything that we want it to be.
Vinca
Nov 2015
#16
Higher taxes on the wealthy would very much help. And I agree with your suggestions, BTW.
CTyankee
Nov 2015
#20
The status quo of US imperialism is clearly not negotiable to the establishmentarians.
ronnie624
Nov 2015
#52
Then it's clear the government doesn't work "for" the people. But we already knew that.
Vinca
Nov 2015
#105
Please cite your source for the claim that "about 8% of debt discharged in US bankruptcies is for ..
Scuba
Nov 2015
#37
I advocate for Medicare for All, including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health care.
Scuba
Nov 2015
#10
I don't believe your numbers will stand up to scrutiny, but I haven't the time (or inclination) ...
Scuba
Nov 2015
#38
Don't forget to factor in that those already insured should no longer be paying premiums + Medicare
yellowdogintexas
Nov 2015
#39
People who must be treated for severe illnesses because it was not caught early
loyalsister
Nov 2015
#226
I'm assuming that because unreimbursed emergency care is about $500 million per year
Recursion
Nov 2015
#24
No it does not. It saves lives, and dramatically improves the quality of life. It COSTS money.
eridani
Nov 2015
#239
A lot of preventive care doesn't pay for itself. I look at Canada's numbers, for example.
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#127
Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance
Downwinder
Nov 2015
#25
What are you talking about? It's the exact same pool as private insurance has now
Recursion
Nov 2015
#172
Government control of healthcare is the ONLY way to lower costs. We have to do it soon
librechik
Nov 2015
#31
Why were my not-for-profit insurers never noticeably cheaper than my for-profit ones?
Recursion
Nov 2015
#116
Because what's driving costs is the mix of uninsured/underinsured plus low-paying government,
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#118
Does this take into account the advantages of combining risk pools and premium differences?
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#33
But it seems incomplete to not account for the added income created by adding healthy...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#88
What does the risk pool have to do with this? We're talking about outputs, not inputs
Recursion
Nov 2015
#92
Healthcare is inflexible, you cannot shop around except for some elective procedures...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#129
You do realize that most poor people don't get proper dental treatment because its too expensive?
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#154
How many of them went in there to get crowns, implants, bridges, etc.?
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#164
I have no idea, but those procedures were listed so I assume it was non-zero
Recursion
Nov 2015
#233
Yes there would, either in the form of increased taxes, most likely under FICA, or as a separate...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#124
Doesn't pass the smell test. We already spend the money for those services now, plus CEO bonuses
GoneFishin
Nov 2015
#41
No. We don't. 90 million people are going without medical treatment that they need.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#69
The ship has already sailed on pretending it can't be done. Unfortunately for those who profit from
GoneFishin
Nov 2015
#140
No, we don't. We haven't been. At least third of the population just gets basic care.
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#128
Some individuals will pay more and get less. On the whole, there will be more security. Less risk.
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#133
True, but it's interesting to note that countries that have adopted universal health care--
eridani
Nov 2015
#179
In a medicare for all program would doctors still need malpractice insurance? n/t
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Nov 2015
#58
No, because it's government-operated healthcare. Which is not the same thing as single payer.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#100
Other countries provide malpractice insurance at 1/10 of what our providers pay.
eridani
Nov 2015
#245
Yup. Also government healthcare funding means only punitive damages need to be covered
Recursion
Nov 2015
#246
I think you are right about cost and need to change Medicare a bunch. Doesn't mean we shouldn't go
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#82
actually it wouldnt, if you are talking about actual Medicare the way it is today. first of
still_one
Nov 2015
#83
Thanks for the correction, my comment still hold though. A younger age demographic should reduce
still_one
Nov 2015
#108
"fairy dust", I love it... Also, not every doctor will accept Medicare. The reimbursement
still_one
Nov 2015
#134
interesting. Then the short fall would need to be made up with increased taxes. This is really
still_one
Nov 2015
#122
I was specifically addressing the title of the OP, not single payer or universal healthcare which
still_one
Nov 2015
#109
Though just to be clear, the calculations in my OP were not based on HR 676, just on literally
Recursion
Nov 2015
#113
You points are good, and there is no doubt it would require an increase in taxes. There was a lot
still_one
Nov 2015
#119
Thanks for the accepted vernacular. It would have to be paid for with increased tax dollars, and
still_one
Nov 2015
#114
Yes, I figured the payroll tax would be about 15-17%. That doesn't include SS taxes, which must rise
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#117
Please explain why we have the highest PER CAPITA health care costs in the world.
GeorgeGist
Nov 2015
#138
All excellent catches. I knew there was a mound of horseshit burried amongst the weeds but chose
GoneFishin
Nov 2015
#142
Bernie Sanders has a plan to pay for it. A .1% tax on financial transactions
riderinthestorm
Nov 2015
#141
Ironically we have a plan that would work nationally, that Sanders has strongly supported: FQHCs
Recursion
Nov 2015
#173
Canada's poverty rate is 9% and ours is 14%. Their Gini is 32 and ours is 41.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#158
Did you ever think that having the health-care system we do is one of the largest
polly7
Nov 2015
#162
Except it wouldn't magically reign in costs -- Medicare pays way too much as it is.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#175
Plenty of other countries have universal health care. Very few have single payer.
Recursion
Nov 2015
#190
Because Medicare already does that and pays twice as much for the same procedure as you do
Recursion
Nov 2015
#215
You fix that only by some degree of control of the purse, either single payer and forcing providers
TheKentuckian
Nov 2015
#267
No kidding. Read the link, it has a long list of countries that have SINGLE PAYER
Matariki
Nov 2015
#196
The towns and counties. But government-operated healthcare is not "single payer" to begin with
Recursion
Nov 2015
#229
It may surprise lots of people but Medicare Part B cost $104 a month, the average SS is $1200 a
Thinkingabout
Nov 2015
#217
The single payer bill already submitted to congress was calculate to cost 15 trillion over 10 years.
RichVRichV
Nov 2015
#218
And I don't think we should change the VA, particularly (I was just throwing that out as a response)
Recursion
Nov 2015
#241
Yep. The eye-popping tax increases needed is why Vermont abandoned single payer.
SunSeeker
Nov 2015
#256
Your entire argument rests on a shaky foundation: the belief that 50 million don't get any care.
lumberjack_jeff
Nov 2015
#263