Has anybody actually SEEN what single-payer or a public option would cost?

[MercutioATC]

Granted, there are a ton of variables...but all I hear is "cost be damned" or "we can't afford it".

A cost/benefit analysis SHOULD be a part of the process...but I haven't seen one.

Forget projections from either right-wing or left-wing third parties. Where is the official cost/benefit analysis?

[mmonk]

1. We can compare by looking at a country that has one.

Canadians spend a lot less per person than we do.

[kenny blankenship]

2. +1

[redqueen]

7. This ^

[DCKit]

47. The next most expensive (France) spends half what we do per capita. $3,500 less.

$3,500 x 300 million would inject over a trillion dollars ($1,050,000,000,000) into the economy via CONSUMERS (not investors or CEOs).

Yes, we CAN afford it. Not having "Medicare 4 All" is insane.

[Wickerman]

3. here's a link

make of it what you will:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/23/746091/-CBO-Analysis:-How-Much-Would-Single-Payer-Cost-%28updatex2%29

[MercutioATC]

21. Good snippets of summaries.

I'm looking for actual cost and benefit data, though.

I do appreciate the link, but I'm a big proponent of the idea that one of our major ills is that we don't think any more, we let others give us summaries of what we should believe. There's some good info here, but I need real data so I can form an opinion. Reading somebody else's summarized opinion doesn't give me enough to work with.

[Wickerman]

41. understood

and I'm a big proponent of letting someone else determine if my link actually contains what they were looking for. Er, well, I am now. I only skimmed it, didn't check it out.

It seem that in this debate there is only opinion to be had, "data" is projections as we are talking future costs.

[TayTay]

4. Close as I could find

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php

[MercutioATC]

23. Same reply as to Wickerman.

Appreciated, but I'm looking for actual itemized data, not a summary.

[asdjrocky]

5. I know how much war costs.

I know what bombers and submarines costs. I know it costs us 18,000 people a year because we don't have everyone covered.

Get my point? I don't care how much it costs. We have the money.

[MercutioATC]

14. That's not good enough for me.

If I'm asked to make a decision whether or not to support it, I want the numbers I need to do a cost/benefit analysis.

You can be sure they exist. We've just not been told of them.

[asdjrocky]

22. Honestly, how much do you think I care if it's good enough for you or not?

You analyze, while the population dies. Have at it.

[MercutioATC]

31. Well, this IS my OP.

Whether people are dying or not, I think it's important to have access to the data necessary to make a reasonable cost/benefit analysis (which was the point of this OP).

[csziggy]

6. Rep. Andrew Weiner asked GAO to do a cost analysis

I think that report will come out when Congress re-convenes.

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,” 10 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-35. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf

More studies on the cost of single-payer:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Half what we pay now, judging by the rest of the world.

[Stinky The Clown]

They have been done ..... by single payer advocates

The overwhelming evidence is that it will cast FAR less than our current "system".

The issue is what gets put into the equation. I am of a mind that we need to aggregate ALL medical costs the country encounters, assume there is NO profit motive, and then do the cost/benefit analysis.

[MercutioATC]

25. Most of us are intelligent enough to do the calculations for ourselves.

All I'm asking for is same data.

HOW much would various benefit levels cost?

HOW much does it cost us to provide various benefits to the uninsured right now?

WHAT would those costs be if these people were covered?


There are a slew of variables here. SOMEBODY has real, unbiased, data. Why don't WE have it?

[Cleita]

9. PNHP and Congressman John Conyers both have studies on what it would

cost and how it could be funded. Website links are on my signature.

[MercutioATC]

24. I just watched 9 minutes of Conyers video.

...which is about 8 1/2 minutes more than any person should be subjected to :)

Again, it's a proposal with a summary......but no raw data.

[Cleita]

32. Go look at the raw data. The whole HR676 bill is linked to from there or

go to Thomas.gov., I believe is the website.

[MercutioATC]

34. That's not raw data...it's muddled spin.

Examples:

From the FAQ: "All Americans will be eligible for health care coverage."
From the BILL: "All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHI Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care."

The FAQ misrepresents the language of the bill. Period.


Additionally, a quick read shows at least a dozen vague concepts in the bill...any of which affects its bottom line cost. It may be a good concept, but HR 676 is more of a vague wish list than enactable legislation.

[Cleita]

45. *sigh* I have to do all the work.

Here is the text of the entire bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.676:

I'm at work so sorry I can't give you more detail.

[Turbineguy]

10. I'm pretty sure the insurance companies know.

That's why they are lying about it.

[MercutioATC]

26. Possibly, but they're not releasing any real numbers either.

I think we should ALL be demanding real numbers. Not summaries and cherry-picked scenarios, but actual empirical data.

[seafan]

11. See this thread:

Here's a good attempt at cost analysis for Single Payer:

[MercutioATC]

27. Mist useful link so far, but still based on second-hand data.

Why can't we just get a true accounting of what things cost now and what they would cost either through single-payer or public option?

[seafan]

33. Right now, we're waiting on the CBO cost analysis report from August on Single-Payer.

The other answer to your question is that Big Insurance/Big Pharma don't want us to know how much less expensive Single-Payer is. And the lapdog MSM make sure we don't hear about it.


Rep. Anthony Weiner: 'The CBO is performing a cost analysis of Single Payer over the August recess.', August 10, 2009

[MercutioATC]

35. I'd love to read that request.

The accuracy of the analysis will be, at best, limited by what they actually asked for.

Judging by what passes for "comprehensive" legislation these days, I'm skeptical.


Still, It'll be interesting to see what the CBO comes up with.

[flyarm]

12. what is the cost in human life without it??????? eom

[MercutioATC]

13. Immaterial.

That alone is not enough of a reason for its implementation.

I don't suspect this is the case, but if we simply can't afford it then we simply can't afford it.


That's not my point, however. I'm asking how we as individuals can be expected to make a decision when nobody seems willing to provide a cost/benefit analysis (or, preferably, hard data that can be used to generate a cost/benefit analysis).

[Romulox]

16. Please define "can't afford it", and reconcile this definition with our military expenditures

and Wall Street bailouts.

Thanks!

[MercutioATC]

18. Let me readthe multitude of info people have responded with and I'll be able to better answer.

[ipfilter]

19. It's a little more complicated than saying

"we can't afford it". If the Government were funded solely by tax receipts alone then we are insolvent anyway. The government spends far more than it receives in taxes. That shortfall is made up by selling bonds, in the form of US Treasuries. As long as investors and countries the world over are willing to invest in US bonds, we can afford it.

Look at it this way. My compensation is reduced because of the large premium my employer must pay for my health insurance. If those premiums were reduced I would have leverage to have my pay increased. If this expense were translated to income I would pay more federal tax on that income. More tax collected means more ability for the government to leverage up by selling more debt.

I'm not an economist and I'm probably missing a lot of things and wrong on all points. However, we need to get away from thinking "our tax dollars" are being spent on such and such because "our tax dollars" are actually being used to pay the interest on the public debt.

If I'm totally wrong please feel free to correct me.

[MercutioATC]

29. I don't think you're "wrong", I just believe there's more to the argument.

...and, regardless, it's not the argument I'm addressing at the moment.


I just want a real accounting of the costs. No summaries, no hypotheses, no spin. Just numbers.


SOMEBODY has them, why do we not have access to them?

[flyarm]

28. Immaterial..as long as it is not "YOU"...EOM

[MercutioATC]

36. "Immaterial", as it pertains to this discussion.

The OP addressed having data for a cost/benefit analysis.


The fact that people are dying is immaterial to this specific issue.

[MercutioATC]

15. THANKS FOR ALL OF THE RESPONSES!

I'd like to be able to reply to everybody right now, but you've given me a lot of reading to do. Gimme a chance to absorb some of this data, and I'll be better able to respond.


Again, thanks :)

[mmonk]

17. If you seek a stern reply, here is one from Dave Lindorf:

http://dlindorff.mayfirst.org/?q=node/351

[MercutioATC]

30. Good summary, but still with an agenda.

What I believe we should all be demanding (and what I'm looking for) is the raw data.

Lindorff has some pretty solid (at least, by his measure) claims. All I'm asking to see is the raw data upon which his assumptions are based.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Recommended... this should be part of the discussion. n/t

[marmar]

37. Thom Hartmann just mentioned one....I didn't get the figure, but....

.... the study showed that a Medicare-style public option would save XXXXX (a really big amount, maybe another Hartmann listener can recite it?)

[MercutioATC]

38. Again, that's a number based on a conclusion based on an agenda.

I just want raw data that will tell me things like "Providing preventative care to the 45 million uninsured (under a specific benefit definition) will cost $XXX. The estimated savings (based on cited non-partisan empirical data) of providing preventative care in terms of addressing medical issues befire they become more difficult (and more costly) to treat is $XXX."

We don't need somebody ELSE'S conclusions. Give us the data and let us form our own.

[ZombieHorde]

39. Not all costs are monetary, hard to put a price tag on people's lives. nt

[haele]

40. The problem with your question is it doesn't identify which cost/benefit analysis -

or if you're including all -
BTW, a proper analysis would be cost/benefit/risk. The initial and subsequent costs of implementing a program or process, the benefit of implementing a program or process, the risks (or additional costs down the road) involved with not implementing a program or process.
There are several different cost/benefit/risk analysis to be made with going with single payer or staying with the status quo -

1. You have the federal government revenue and outlay cost/benefit/risks that a CBO report would be involved with. What affects the government and deficits, revenues, etc...

2. You have the actual health care cost/benefit/risks. These are the effects to the citizen, the taxpayer, the employer and to medical entities, from the insurance providers to the actual medical providers. That's you, your doctor and the medical service facility, your pharmacist, and whatever vehicle by which the money is spent to provide this interaction, be it Medicare, your own savings account, or United Health Care $100K a year "Platinum" service that covers anything you might want done for your health or for your ego.
Even this category can be split between considerations of effects on actual health care and the different health care payment vehicles that are available to the citizen.

3. You have the community health cost/benefit/risks. These are a bit harder to quantify, because the metrics include issues such as physically employable residents in a community, needed charitable outlays (aid to elderly or indigents, community sponsored low income or emergency health clinics), worker productivity, public mental illness, and addict/criminal behavior, as well as public health infrastructures. These statistics require a great deal more interpretation than the others; assessing how public health outlay affects the criminal activities of addicts or the incidence of charitable provision of in-home care to the sick or elderly can be subjective - the viewer may not see how medical treatment or a halfway house/shelter may lower domestic violence, burglary and assault incidents in a community; instead, the viewer may see those as "law and order" issues rather than community health issues.

The three have some influence on each other, but are usually viewed separately as there are sufficient differences of focus - and it would take a long, involved white paper (with lots of charts!) to adequately address the whole issue.

Haele

[Spazito]

44. Excellent response, imo! n/t

[SoCalDem]

42. Actually, we just need to grow up and pay what it costs.

People buy "stuff they can't afford" ALL THE TIME, and yet they find a way to afford it..

Our country has gotten used to doing things on the cheap and narrow, and look where its gotten us...

Had we done this back when we were solvent (1950-1964) we would be "affording" it all just fine by now..

Our country acted like a teenager..just blowing through wads of cash on stupid things, and ignoring the most important...our national health..:(

[librechik]

43. My long time understanding of it is that the cost is just about exactly

the same as the tax cut for the rich, which sunsets in 2010. Which is one reason the cost of the bill will be offset down to 300B over 10 years.

[hunter]

46. It will cost as much as we are willing to spend.

Currently the insurance companies are not so much concerned about costs as they are about maximizing the volume of their revenue streams. They don't care about the high cost of medicine so long as someone is willing to pay the fare. Thus far increasing medical costs have only increased the volume of their revenue stream.

Most medicine is inexpensive. Vaccines, generic pharmaceuticals, doctor visits, minor medical procedures, mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, prenatal care and ordinary births are relatively inexpensive. Any functional nation can support these.

At the next level of complexity are procedures and drugs that have moderate costs yet greatly extend both the quality and length of life; things like chemotherapy, carefully monitored diabetes treatment, AIDS drugs, cardiac surgeries, etc. These are affordable by any developed nation.

Most failures of the U.S. healthcare system are attributable to the exclusion of people from the health care system until their medical conditions deteriorate to the point they seek care in the emergency room (especially for diabetes and substance abuse!), "defensive" medicine, and the obscenely high costs of drugs and medical care that do not demonstrably improve people's lives.

There is nothing unique about the United States that we cannot glean useful economic information from any first world nation with a single payer or public option. Until we have universal health of some sort, with subsidized care for those with lower incomes and catastrophic coverage for all, we can't really call ourselves a first world nation.

[rustydog]

48. We are paying for uninsured and underinsured people NOW!

That is why we need to revamp the entire thing. Of course insurance companies don't want change, their "death panels" deny coverage to tens of thousands of people and have killed scores through their denial of coverage effectively stopping treatment and getting filthy rich on the backs of policy holders.

[MercutioATC]

49. I completely agree...

...but that doesn't answer my question.

I've heard the arguments both for and against it (both real and imaginary). I've heard that we can't afford it, that it will cost the same, and that it will cost less...and they've all been in the form of summaries that don't detail specific options and their individual costs and benefits.

What I want to see is actual raw data, without viewing it through the lens of somebody else's biases and assumptions.