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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates [View all]
The Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center today released analyses of the costs of Sen. Bernie Sanders domestic policy proposals, including single-payer national health insurance. They claim that Sanders proposals would raise the federal deficit by $18 trillion over the next decade.
We wont address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free.
We outline below some of the most glaring errors in the Holahan analysis (which served as the basis for Tax Policy Centers estimates) regarding health care spending under the Sanders plan.
more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html
We wont address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free.
We outline below some of the most glaring errors in the Holahan analysis (which served as the basis for Tax Policy Centers estimates) regarding health care spending under the Sanders plan.
more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
117 replies, 16550 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (35)
ReplyReply to this post
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates [View all]
melman
Sep 2017
OP
That says "industry funders are Cigna and Pfizer", it doesn't say how much. Plus...
George II
Sep 2017
#46
At least yours is reasonably current, not six years old, and has no mention of Cigna or Pfizer...
George II
Sep 2017
#87
Wait...Keynsian ecomomics is now a hall-mark of "the conservative wing of the Democratic party?"
Expecting Rain
Sep 2017
#61
How did you do that? I typed out the breakdown of their funding below (sans last two, got tired!!!)
George II
Sep 2017
#36
If the information being provided is inaccurate, it would sound that way. But...
George II
Sep 2017
#59
But if a corporation touches anything, it becomes impure! Unless it has been blessed of course
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#113
Your link provides no evidence of significant funding. No dollar amounts, and no corporate donors
pnwmom
Sep 2017
#68
It doesn't sound like Himmelstein is just picking numbers to fit his preference.
dgauss
Sep 2017
#13
The ACA is a renamed "Romney care" that the GOP called Obamacare to play to the racism
guillaumeb
Sep 2017
#45
No, the ACA is the ACA, nicknamed "Obamacare". Has nothing to do with Romneycare except...
George II
Sep 2017
#47
Most countries do it with multi-payer system, some of which use private insurance companies to
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#97
Obama also said that it would not be wise to go directly to Single Payer from our current system
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#98
He did. He also pushed for a public option, which a couple Senators killed.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#102
I guess that he didn't actually think it was the "only moral, fiscal" solution.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#104
it's a "rabbit hole" to point out that the ACA has its origins in a Heritage Foundation proposal?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#89
Do you folks forget that between Reagan and Bush (not sure which, probably the first) were...
George II
Sep 2017
#65
I really don't. It connected the ACA with Presidents Reagan and Bush, which occurred almost....
George II
Sep 2017
#72
When people go see the doctor for checkups and get regular dental care
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#52
And someone who doesn't understand that when you pay for something with cash
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#88
And a Single Payer System isn't going to magically create more health care spending.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#91
"People do worry about their health and they will use more care if it is free"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#96
Actually, the increase in the number of people using health care is a cost issue in implementation
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#108