Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion

cawacko

Member
Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion

What stood out to me about this is Sanders office has not done a cost analysis. Considering how long and hard he's been pushing this plan isn't that something you would think he had done already?





Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion


Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center. That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found.

Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.

"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.

Responding to the study, Sanders took aim at the Mercatus Center, which receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers. Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch is on the center's board.

"If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same," Sanders said in a statement. "This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers response to the growing support in our country for a 'Medicare for all' program."

Sanders' office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. However, the Mercatus estimates are within the range of other cost projections for Sanders' 2016 plan.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-...d-by-bernie-sanders-would-cost-32-6-trillion/
 
Is anyone shocked at this potential UNDER estimate? Of course in liberal loony land, money grows on trees dontchyaknow. They'll just print more. :rofl2:
 
Sanders office does not do that. The CBO does. Of course you can subtract the cost of the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. If we have universal healthcare they can all get care at the same places. If we have universal medicine, you do not have to pay insurance companies for care. So on an indiviidual and corporate basis, that cost is gone.

Medicare for all is not enough. You pay 100 bucks or so a month out of your check and it only covers 80 percent. Serious illnesses or accidents can still result in bankruptcy.

Our taxes pay for public workers like cops , firemen and politicians. They could get the same care we all get and we subtract that cost too.
 
Don's tax cut for the aristocracy could have covered this easily coupled with his military spending socialism bill. But this is all a false "conversation" in america anyway, Obama caved on single payer due to pharma and insurance industry lobbying just as everyone else in our "representative democracy" has, and the party has no plan at all, other than to say, we're not Don. The only time the Democratic Party acts like they care about health"care" is when they're either out of office/power or pushing a Heritage Foundation think tank plan.

Health"care" is like abortion and guns, the power structure needs these issues to remain undealt with and festering to divide the masses with. The rest of the advanced post-industrial world has moved on into the the 21st century. America still clings to a primordial need for human suffering and sacrifice so the poor provide that function for the "superior" amongst us.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
 
Sanders office does not do that. The CBO does. Of course you can subtract the cost of the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. If we have universal healthcare they can all get care at the same places. If we have universal medicine, you do not have to pay insurance companies for care. So on an indiviidual and corporate basis, that cost is gone.

Medicare for all is not enough. You pay 100 bucks or so a month out of your check and it only covers 80 percent. Serious illnesses or accidents can still result in bankruptcy.

Our taxes pay for public workers like cops , firemen and politicians. They could get the same care we all get and we subtract that cost too.

But then employers would not have the lash to hold over their employees.
 
Sanders office does not do that. The CBO does. Of course you can subtract the cost of the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. If we have universal healthcare they can all get care at the same places. If we have universal medicine, you do not have to pay insurance companies for care. So on an indiviidual and corporate basis, that cost is gone.

Medicare for all is not enough. You pay 100 bucks or so a month out of your check and it only covers 80 percent. Serious illnesses or accidents can still result in bankruptcy.

Our taxes pay for public workers like cops , firemen and politicians. They could get the same care we all get and we subtract that cost too.

Dear idiot; they did that in their analysis. They aren't morons like you.
 
Don's tax cut for the aristocracy could have covered this easily coupled with his military spending socialism bill.

This is a lie. The tax cut didn't amount to $32 trillion you willful idiot. The military budget isn't $32.6 trillion you willful idiot.

But this is all a false "conversation" in america anyway, Obama caved on single payer due to pharma and insurance industry lobbying just as everyone else in our "representative democracy" has, and the party has no plan at all, other than to say, we're not Don. The only time the Democratic Party acts like they care about health"care" is when they're either out of office/power or pushing a Heritage Foundation think tank plan.

Obama caved because even the most rabid idiots on the left, excepting you of course, knew it was politically impossible to convince the tax payers that they should dish out $32.6 trillion.

Health"care" is like abortion and guns, the power structure needs these issues to remain undealt with and festering to divide the masses with. The rest of the advanced post-industrial world has moved on into the the 21st century. America still clings to a primordial need for human suffering and sacrifice so the poor provide that function for the "superior" amongst us.

Another pile of moronic bile from the champion bloviator. You seem to be quite full of it.

The notion that Government run healthcare is a good idea can only be expressed by dullards who have the economic wisdom of a lemming. In dumbfuck land, where you wallow, being a dependent ward of the State and living with RATIONED health care is a good idea. You really are too stupid for words.
 
But then employers would not have the lash to hold over their employees.

You just make up your moronic bullshit as you go don't you shit-for-brains? No one is forced to work anywhere in this country. At least not yet and not while the Fascist morons on the left keep losing elections.
 
Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.

I request that you put up a peer-reviewed study from a non-partisan source, preferably published in a refereed scholarly journal. .
A "libertarian think tank" report pre-determines the result they want from the report.
"Cost estimates" can be calculated about a billion different ways, and can be intentionally and misleadingly skewed by someone who has predetermined the conclusion they want the report to achieve.
 
This is a lie. The tax cut didn't amount to $32 trillion you willful idiot. The military budget isn't $32.6 trillion you willful idiot.



Obama caved because even the most rabid idiots on the left, excepting you of course, knew it was politically impossible to convince the tax payers that they should dish out $32.6 trillion.



Another pile of moronic bile from the champion bloviator. You seem to be quite full of it.

The notion that Government run healthcare is a good idea can only be expressed by dullards who have the economic wisdom of a lemming. In dumbfuck land, where you wallow, being a dependent ward of the State and living with RATIONED health care is a good idea. You really are too stupid for words.

If america chooses to stop subsidizing our aristocracy and the endless positive feedback war machine, we could invest in our society. We simply choose not to. Everyone knows this including you.
 
No it won’t. Pay doctors like the local veterinarian and drugs capped at the cost of a candy bar. And fuck off russibots. You live in a shithole nation
 
I request that you put up a peer-reviewed study from a non-partisan source, preferably published in a refereed scholarly journal. .
A "libertarian think tank" report pre-determines the result they want from the report.
"Cost estimates" can be calculated about a billion different ways, and can be intentionally and misleadingly skewed by someone who has predetermined the conclusion they want the report to achieve.

You're free to not accept their study. Find a study in which you like the pricing better.

This is from the article:

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
 
You just make up your moronic bullshit as you go don't you shit-for-brains? No one is forced to work anywhere in this country. At least not yet and not while the Fascist morons on the left keep losing elections.

You failed to address the point again as per usual.

As for fascism, at the core of fascism is nationalist Darwinism and racial and/or disenfranchised outgrouping coupled with corporate state control of the political and economic system.
 
You're free to not accept their study. Find a study in which you like the pricing better.

This is from the article:

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.


The fact that every other civilized country on the planet has figured out how to pay for universal health care is all I need to know that this "Libertarian Policy" report is intended to do one thing, and one thing only -- to provide a hysterically alarmist conclusion that would make it seem like universal health care is crazy talk, and we cannot possibly even begin to be able to afford it.
 
The fact that every other civilized country on the planet has figured out how to pay for universal health care is all I need to know that this "Libertarian Policy" report is intended to do one thin, and one thing only -- provide a hysterically alarmist conclusion that would make it seem like universal health care is crazy talk, and we cannot possibly even begin to be able to afford it.

Like I said there are other studies out there. You can attack Libertarians but it doesn't change what it will cost to implement this program.
 
Like I said there are other studies out there. You can attack Libertarians but it doesn't change what it will cost to implement this program.

And you can't change how fucked up and predatory our system IS. Oddly, it's the same position our industrial ruling class is in, in trying to pretend ours works for society.
 
I request that you put up a peer-reviewed study from a non-partisan source, preferably published in a refereed scholarly journal. .
A "libertarian think tank" report pre-determines the result they want from the report.
"Cost estimates" can be calculated about a billion different ways, and can be intentionally and misleadingly skewed by someone who has predetermined the conclusion they want the report to achieve.

Cost is just part of it.

You want docs to put it on cruise control? Go with Medicare for all.

Then take a number and wait.
 
Back
Top