The eye-popping cost of Medicare for All

[dpibel]

132. You keep saying this. Can you tell me what you mean?

It's an honest question.

I have seen you say this before in MFA discussions: "Societal savings."

What do you mean by that?

Because my baseline on this is pretty simple: The outlay for medical care in the U.S. is already right around the projected price of MFA. The scary MFA number is $34 billion in a decade. The current aggregate spending in the U.S. is $3.5 trillion a year or more.

So the only real question is who administers the money: The government or private insurers.

Somebody sometime may have projected some savings from MFA. I can't answer for why they did that, although it seems likely.

If nothing else, you have to admit, I hope, that eliminating profit and excess administrative costs would automatically save about $90 billion a year.

So it seems to me you are arguing that there will be some inexplicable vast increase in the cost of medical care in the U.S. under MFA which is not offset by "societal savings." But my question is: Why would we spend more than we are already spending? The projections say we won't.

Again, this is just my best guess. Because you state with great certainty that "societal savings" won't solve the problem.

I'm just not getting what the problem you see is.