General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMedicare for All could save the country $5.1 trillion over ten years
Medicare for All could save the country $5.1 trillion over ten years
"Based on 2017 U.S. healthcare expenditure figures, the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion."
Alexandra Jacobo / NationofChange / News Report - December 1, 2018
According to a new study by economists for the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Medicare for All is not only economically viable, but it could save the United States trillions of dollars.
The new study, released Friday at the Sanders Institute Gathering, outlines seven major aspects of transforming the U.S. health care system along with detailed instructions on how to move us to true universal health care. The report then details universal health care’s impact on individuals, families, businesses and government.
The biggest question about Medicare for All has long been “How do we pay for it?” Well according to Robert Pollin, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and lead author of the paper, “It’s easy to pay for something that costs less.”
The 200 page paper analyzes Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act of 2017 and finds “based on 2017 U.S. healthcare expenditure figures, the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP, without accounting for broader macroeconomic benefits such as increased productivity, greater income equality, and net job creation through lower operating costs for small- and medium-sized businesses.”
https://www.nationofchange.org/2018/12/01/medicare-for-all-could-save-the-country-5-1-trillion-over-ten-years/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
samnsara
(17,622 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)and he got trashed for it... still is by some.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)If this plan is so magical, then why has sanders not gotten this plan adopted in Vermont?
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)It works in the rest of the world. Are we exceptional in this regard?
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)I am not hostile to single payer and in fact I am looking forward to when I can drop my firm's insurance and go on Medicare. All of my law partners go on Medicare as soon as they are eligible.
This study is based on societal savings that are worthless with respect to paying for the single payer program. sanders is careful to never discuss how much his plan will cost tax payers and instead cite worthless studies like the one in the OP. Sanders has utterly failed to convince anyone to adopt his program because he will not tell them how much it costs to run and how to pay for it.
I note that AOC had a very bad time in an interview on CNN with Jake Tapper on this
Here is a transcript of the interview and a discussion of why AOC did not answer the simple question posed to her by Jake Tapper https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html
But again, that isn't an answer on where the money might come from to pay for them. Let's buy into Ocasio-Cortez's case that costs would shrink if the government, rather than the free market, ran things. Let's even say it would halve the costs of the programs that she supports making into law. That's still $20 trillion -- which has to come from somewhere, right?
Tapper is doing an important public service here. He's highlighting the difference between campaigning and governing. The truth is that as a candidate you can be for almost anything because you don't have any responsibility. You aren't in charge of managing the federal budget or reducing our deficit and debt obligations. Free stuff sounds great! But free stuff is almost never free.
Trying to claim that societal savings will pay for a single payer plan in the real world does not work. One has to tell policy makers how much the plan will cost the government and how will the government raise the money to pay for such plan.
I am happy to discuss a single payer plan that is based on facts and not based on magical societal savings
BigmanPigman
(51,591 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)The majority of Democrats are for this. The majority of Republicans are for this.
Where is the Democratic leadership?
Poiuyt
(18,123 posts)The insurance industry is spending a ton of money to defeat single payer.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Poiuyt
(18,123 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)For myself personally, I want to see Medicare for All ... I want to retire early and that's probably the only way I'll be able to do it.
I'm just saying, it shouldn't be surprising that the medical insurance industry is trying to kill it.
And what's best for "the country" ... you have to remember there are a lot of people in the medical insurance industry. They will be laid off and put out of work. That will increase the unemployment rate and cause many more issues down the line. It's not like they're the only ones affected.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,345 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)It sounds so very ... Republican.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,345 posts)Avoiding the disruption of profit streams is not high on my list of concerns. Health care for those who do not have it, is.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,327 posts)That’s a big fucking number.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)whose livelihoods are now decimated because of policy change. Something like 1 in 8 people in the United States work in the healthcare industry. I don't know what percentage of that is in insurance, but it can't be small.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)It's nice to get a good, responsible answer here. Some earlier replies I have gotten were just crap. The "who cares?" type answers will just give fuel to the opposition.
Whenever there is change (and especially change as dramatic as this) ... there will always be winners and losers. We just have to make sure that the human, individual losers are are kept to a minimum and have the most opportunity possible to make the transition.
TexasTowelie
(112,179 posts)Gothmog
(145,231 posts)This program will need sixty votes in the Senate to pass even if trump does not veto it.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)And nothing hard is ever worth fighting for.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Always has been. Always will be.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)What tax revenues would used to fund this program. This study is silent on how to pay for the program. A governmental entity cannot use hypothetical and magical societal savings to pay for this program and will have to raise taxes to pay for this program. What taxes will be raised?
ZX86
(1,428 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)that the majority of Americans should have elected if they wanted this?
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Nobody is going to vote for you on issues and policies you don't advocate for.
erronis
(15,257 posts)They'd have to go out and find a real job.
I hear the agricultural sector is really ripe for some good hands since someone has clamped down on workers from down south.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)That we are going to trash all that because we have something Better! Can’t explain how we pay for it. Can’t tell you what your cost will be.
But trust us! It will be better!
Yeah, that’s going nowhere.
Expand the now popular ACA to to create a universal healthcare system. Make for profit insurance illegal. Keep the employers on the hook. Raise income tax rates in a progressive manner to the top bracket being 70+%. Finally, cut our ridiculous military spending. That we can do.
Worked in France. Can work here.
Muskiteer
(34 posts)Cheaper, better and full coverage for everyone. This has been documented and explained over and over and over again.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And you did not even address my point. You really think the Americans with what they see as good healthcare are going to give it up for an unknown?
We both know they are not.
Using the ACA to achieve a mixed system like many Western European countries while keeping the employers on the hook actually has a chance of passing.
Even assuming single payer is better(which I do not agree) Americans with healthcare will vote against it.
There are better paths to universal healthcare than Medicare for all.
But don’t get me wrong. Medicare for all vs what we have now. No brainer. Medicare for all. But there a better and easier to achieve ways to reach the goal we all have.
We finally have a popular ACA. Use it!
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)No source of revenue are identified in this study. I found it to be very sad and weak
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Because there is no way to throw out all employer funded health plans and make it work.
Which is why the French plan of a mixed system with employers still on the hook and the government pitching in the difference is the way forward. You know, like the ACA.
But the acolytes of Medicare for all and certain candidates are bound and determined to make support for Medicare for all a litmus test. They will snatch victory away from us unless challenged.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Societal savings are good but these savings are not tax revenues and cannot be use to pay for this program.
If this plan was really so magical, then sanders would have been able to get this plan adopted in Vermont. So far sanders has failed to get anyone to strongly consider this plan because he has no way to pay for the plan
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Especially those who get their health care from their employer.
If the Democratic Party proposes a system that removes employer healthcare we will rightly be swept from the field.
But many European systems use employer based healthcare as one of the foundations of universal healthcare.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)The study projects savings to society based on some aggressive assumptions. These societal savings are not governmental tax revenues and cannot be used to pay for this program. How will this program be paid for?
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)If the employer health care is a better value than the medicare plan, employers are welcome to keep it. Many will, as a competitive advantage in attracting talent.
Turbineguy
(37,329 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)single payer option for all who want to sign up for that? Seems to me both systems are far more similar than otherwise.
Btw, what WOULD be covered under this system that would actually not be Medicare (for all) but is merely called that? And that should be a good thing, one hopes. My husband and I are on Medicare. Each year we pay:
2 Medicare part A policy premiums, purchased from the free market using for-profit providers and products.
2 Income tax charges on Medicare part A.
2 Medicare part B supplemental insurance policies, purchased from the free market using for-profit providers and products, because bills not covered under part A would break us.
2 Medication policies because Medicare doesn't cover, purchased from free market, using for-profit providers and products.
2 Dental policies because Medicare doesn't cover, purchased from free market using for-profit providers and products.
2 Vision policies because Medicare doesn't cover, purchased from free market using for-profit providers and products.
That's 5 for-profit policies we pay for under Medicare for each of us, or 10 for the two of us.
Don't go away yet! We also have to pay DEDUCTIBLES, COINSURANCE, AND COPAYS on these policies.
Read the fine print, Muskiteer. And if I were you, I'd wonder why we should want to destroy the ACA we already have safely in hand, proven good, proven supported by a large majority of Americans, and ready to build on, and instead switch to this untested pig in a poke that hasn't earned trust and support. I can see no honorable reason to do this in the face of Republican determination to permanently destroy all national healthcare systems and believe it's mostly a partisan political gambit to draw votes.
Muskiteer
(34 posts)With a single payer Medicare for All system we can eliminate all of those expenses you must pay now including deductibles and co-pays.
Would you like to read some links that demonstrate how this will actually work? Don't just accept any anti-single payer propaganda as gospel.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)And unless you mean a Medicare Advantage policy, which replaces both Part A, Part B, and sometimes including Part D, it isn't purchased from a private insurance carrier.
- "Income tax charges on Medicare part A." Really? Since no part of Medicare is considered "income", I don't understand what you could possibly mean by that.
- "Medicare part B supplemental insurance policies...…" OK. Then you don't have an Advantage policy because you can't have both an Advantage policy and a supplement. The law doesn't allow it and you shouldn't need both. So we're back to why and how much you have to pay for Part A.
- "Medication policies......." Do you mean Medicare Part D?
And you failed to mention the Part B premiums that most everyone has to pay. And that, also, is not purchased from a private insurer.
In short, what you have posted is very confusing indeed.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)Millions are currently uninsured.
Insurance costs for most are over $10k for a family per year, just for the insurance.
If a family happens to actually use the insurance, add on several more thousand per year.
As pointed out by the OP, as a society, we could save Trillions.
None of this does not mean we can't improve Medicare at the same time. Maybe some of the Trillions we save can go to do that.
ACA is probably the best we could have gotten at the time. It does not me it is what we should settle for.
My question back to you - why do you want to keep a massive private bureaucracy in business, inefficiently warping the marketplace. Overhead for private insurance costs many times what the overhead is for medicare.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)at least some who are skeptical that we'll ever see it.
I fall in the Public Option crowd as the easiest way forward. If Medicare is good as we think for younger folks, people will gravitate to it quickly.
Previous thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11497483
Muskiteer
(34 posts)Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
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 there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how
The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes
Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed
dpibel
(2,831 posts)do you not understand? That's Krugman's current position, regardless what he said in 2016.
We already pay for the total health care spending in the U.S. That's what "total spending" means.
If we cause all of that spending to be done by a single payer, it doesn't change the amount. Just the spender.
Well, it does change the amount. Because you subtract the administrative, PR, advertising, and profit that now goes to the for-profit insurance providers.
So the total amount goes down. Which is what Krugman says in the quote you helpfully provide.
Yes. Taxes go up. But premiums go down.
To keep saying, as you do, "HIGHER TAXES!!!1!!", ignores the "lower premiums" part.
I'll grant you this: If employers no longer had to pay insurance premiums for their employees, there is little chance, absent regulation, that they would pass those savings along to their employees. But that really can be dealt with via regulation.
The simple fact remains: The per capita cost of health care in the U.S. is double that of most other countries in the developed Western world. And those other countries that have cheaper health care all have some sort of highly regulated coverage that is not based on for-profit insurance companies skimming 20 percent off the top.
This is not about "societal savings." It's about the fact that every other industrialized country in the world provides better health care at a lower cost. It's not "societal savings." It's just plain dollar savings.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Societal savings are not tax revenues. If all of the aggressive assumptions contained in this study prove to be accurate, tax revenues wil not go up. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for this plan
I note that sanders is careful to never say what taxes will be used to pay for his magical plan which is why sanders has utterly failed to get even Vermont to consider this plan. If you want to get this plan adopted, then tell us how it will be paid for.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)I honestly do not understand what you do not understand.
The money is already being spent. We spend $X trillion per year on health care.
A meaningful amount of that goes to overhead and profits for insurance companies. A meaningful amount of that goes to pharmaceutical companies that charge more for their products in this country than in any other country.
If you subtract those amounts from the total, how can you not come out ahead?
I do not know if you are engaging in intentional sophistry, or if it is just an accident.
When you say, "what taxes will be used to pay for this magical plan," what really do you mean?
Let's try this: Let's say each year I pay $10,000 for health care (that's insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, whatever). That comes out of my pocket, whether directly or in the form of premiums my employer covers.
Now, let's say the government takes over administration of all those costs.
The bastards raise my taxes by $10,000 a year.
But because I no longer have to pay the premiums, deductibles, copays, and whatever, my expenses go down $10,000 a year.
As I said above, if my employer has been paying the premiums, then we'd need to make sure that the savings got passed along to me, rather than fattening my employer's bottom line.
But why am I supposed to be angry because my taxes went up?
It's a net zero. I used to pay $10K a year to an insurance company and to providers. Now I pay it to the government for the same purpose.
In reality, I'll come out ahead, because...well, that's what happens in every other civilized country in the world: The per capita cost of health care is lower than the U.S., usually by half.
Again: You say only, "Taxes will go up!" You do not acknowledge the offset that occurs because you are no longer paying the same money for health care.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Coincidentally, falling gas prices cause you to spend 200/mo less on gas for your car. You might not even notice the gas decrease, but you will assuredly notice that $250 power bill, even though your net spending hasn't changed.
In other words societal benefits are more or less invisible but a new $400 monthly medicare bill would very visible, even if it were to be completely offset by societal savings, which seems extremely unlikely.
That's the problem.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)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
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 there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s 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 identify how the plan will be paid for. A government cannot spend magical savings and can only use tax revenues. The study identify societal savings which are nice but which are not tax revenues
The real world is a nice place. Magical savings are nice but cannot be used in the real world. sanders has utterly and completely failed to get his magical plan adopted anywhere including Vermont. sanders is careful to never tell anyone how he would pay for his program and cite amusing but worthless studies like the one in the OP. No governmental entity have accepted sanders plan because it would need a large raise in taxes.
The real world is a nice place.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)That is so relevant to this discussion. Thanks for including.
If I am spending $10k per year on insurance, and I can stop paying that and instead pay $8k per year toward single payer, whether that be through taxes or a direct payment to the government, I'm pretty sure what I am choosing. People are not as stupid as you want to make them out to be.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)There is no way to tax just people who save money under this proposal. Such a tax structure does not exist in the real world
sanders is very careful to not state how much his magical plan would cost the government or how he would pay for it which is why sanders has failed to get this plan adopted anywhere
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)I think we can get pretty close.
First, I am talking about a public option version of "single payer", just so we don't talk past each other.
If you want to keep your insurance, you can. If you want to buy "Medicare for all" you can do that too. My guess is the public option will be so significantly cheaper, it will devastate all but the largest employer plans, but that is different discussion.
If you don't buy a plan, the public option will be assigned to you, and you will be taxed its cost. Just like with the ACA, if you are at certain income levels, some or all of this will be subsidized.
There will need to be some reform to Medicare, primarily the law restricting Medicare from negotiating its own drug rates. You would also be eliminating or rolling medicaid into the program - it would become superfluous at that point - with the dollars spent on it going into the pot to subsidize the poor enrolled in Medicare.
So, if you would prefer to call this an expansion of the ACA, fine. Just so long as Medicare (or some other single-payor government entity), as a far more efficient entity/program, is allowed to take on anyone (and everyone is forced on it by default). And maybe the best mechanics for that is to issue everyone a medicare card and start taxing them. If you want to opt out with private insurance, you can (but maybe you still get taxed some or all, just like they do with schools).
So, yeah, I think that this will approximate taxing everyone based on their receipt of services, with the poor getting subsidized, just as they are now. You can personally choose to spend more if you want.
Will it result in higher costs on a per-family basis? Only if you want to spend more. The savings of eliminating the private insurance toll-takers should easily offset the cost of the newly insured who can't afford to pay full rates.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)If the Democrats get control of the Senate and POTUS, that has always been a viable mechanism to move toward improving the ACA. A full single payer plan will not work without massive tax increases.
I like incremental changes and a public option would help a great deal
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Then again. Thank you. Im to lazy to explain this stuff to people who will not believe it anyway. But as long as DU remains a fact based community we can start discussing actual solutions to our healthcare problems. Medicare for all is not a solution.
Look to France for a workable solution using the ACA as a good starting point.
elleng
(130,905 posts)(especially the 'He's not a Democrat' gang.
area51
(11,908 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,179 posts)I doubt that will be the case and I expect that there will be some type of government oversight. It would be an abdication of oversight by the government to allow that to happen.
Then let's say that it does occur. Physicians will gladly approve almost every procedure and approve every test because the revenue will go to either their colleagues or employers. There will be zero incentive to push down the cost of providing treatment and no checks and balances to prevent unnecessary care. Fraud will run rampant in the system. Does a 90-year-old that is home-bound actually need knee-replacement surgery? It's the equivalent of writing a blank check.
Yes, I can understand why this plan would be ideal for the PNHP--more customers, more procedures, reduced liability insurance costs. What's not to like from the PNHP perspective?
dpibel
(2,831 posts)Truly. In my 16 years of membership here, I'm not sure I can think of a more cynical post than this one.
I have to believe you know nothing of PNHP. It's been out front for years trying to get health care for everyone.
I'm going to believe you've never encountered this group before and are just shooting from the hip.
Really. You believe that in, for instance, Canada and Great Britain, doctors are forever putting new knees in 90-year-olds?
Or do you just believe that American doctors are that much more corrupt and venal than all the other ones?
TexasTowelie
(112,179 posts)If you truly don't believe that the medical community isn't going to look after their own first, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Furthermore, if the medical providers on the committee don't approve of a treatment plan, then what is going to prevent that physician from retaliating against the other members on the board? These are human beings after all, and doctors are just as apt to play those games as anyone else. I can easily see where a patient will be denied treatment because of the politics among board members. Or do you just believe that American doctors are that much less vindictive than other Americans? It would be foolish to believe that the physicians won't participate in those type of games.
I also have the benefit of watching politics in my own community where the hospital, the doctors, and the EMS each staked out positions to protect their own interests with the final outcome resulting in the hospital going bankrupt and closing. The taxpayers were stuck with additional costs when they had to purchase new ambulances to transport the patients 30 miles away and the doctors lost since they no longer could provide services in the local hospital. It was a lose-lose-lose situation for all three parties and it was an even bigger loss for the community since there was no ER or a place for routine procedures. I've been waiting for three years for a colonoscopy because of the infighting among the providers of medical services in the community. Does that make you understand why I'm cynical?
Understanding human nature and cynicism can be a beneficial trait. It prevents people from doing foolish things. I was in pre-med classes with the current group of doctors who are at the height of their medical careers. I also have a brother who is a respiratory therapist and a sister that was a RN so I'm well acquainted with the medical field. While the PNHP may be trying to get health care for everyone, it would be ridiculous to believe that they aren't serving their own agenda also.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)Why can all the other countries in the industrialized world control medical costs but it is impossible in the U.S.? How is it that in all the other countries, the medical community doesn't "look after its own first," but surely would in the U.S.
It's a pretty simple calculation.
The per capita cost of medical care is lower in every single other industrialized country in the entire world.
Either you believe that there is something unique about the morals and motivations in the U.S. or there is something wrong with your analytic.
Perhaps it's worth considering that it's easier to game the system and to create the kind of problems you're describing when health care is a piecemeal, checkerboard system. Much easier to carve out fiefdoms if you can play one insurer off against another.
Bottom line: The U.S. has a unique, and uniquely dysfunctional system, and it costs more, and produces poorer results, than any other system in the industrialized world.
TexasTowelie
(112,179 posts)because there are the bean-counters that control those costs. The health care consumers in those countries also have less access to the medical marvels of technology than in this country. So while the per capita costs are lower in those countries, what trade-offs are involved such as longer wait times for procedures and more exploratory surgery because of the lack of medical technology?
This article from five years ago indicates that Canadians also have their own health care crisis:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html
It appears, that the other countries that you are touting as being exceptional have their own methods for controlling health care expenses, ranging from government bean-counters, to the intervention of the private market, and finally limiting access to technology. In other words, you get what you pay for (or what the insurers can be convinced to pay for).
I've had two CT scans in my lifetime--one was for a back-related issue while the other was an abdominal scan. I was able to have both CT scans done at facilities that were less than five miles from my home. In addition, I was able to get a brain MRI at the hospital about 15 miles away. All of those tests were done within a short time frame after I saw my PCP (less than 2 weeks). I'm grateful that I was able to have those tests performed since they relieved some anxiety about possible medical conditions, but I suspect that those tests wouldn't have been performed in other countries.
Finally, I don't see the answer to my question about what can be done to control the costs of medical care according to the PNHP plan other than a question why can other counties do it when we can't? Another whataboutism is all that I could glean from your reply.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)This study cites societal savings that are not tax revenues. These savings may be nice but these savings cannot be used to pay for this program. Taxes are the only thing that a government can use to pay for a program and these studies do not identify how much taxes will have to raised
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)an investment scheme. We have enough investment schemes in this country, and we need a health care system.
The “public option” will continue to separate the sicker/high risk people from the lower cost folks. It’s these ***markets*** that are the problem with health care financing.
enid602
(8,616 posts)We are really going to need that savings, as the loss of government revenues caused by Trump's new tax bill make it mathematically impossible to fund the Medicare program we already have.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)The OP describes savings that society may realize if the aggressive assumptions in the study are accurate (and that is not likely) and these savings will not result in additional tax revenues. sanders has utterly failed to get his magical plan adopted in any state including Vermont because sanders will not say how he will pay for this program and cite sad but amusing studies promising societal savings.
In the real world, a government cannot spend societal savings. Governments are limited to spending tax revenues and borrowings. I would love to see how sanders would pay for this program
I would just feel better if we could reverse Trump’s tax bill. I don’t understand why Democrats aren’t concentrating on that.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)