New Study - "Medicare for All" to Cost $ 32-TRILLION ( 10 Years ) WOW ! WOW ! WOW !

[umbarch64]

Unless and until we stop playing partisan political games with this issue, there WILL be no comprehensive solution.  Let's try this on just to help define what it is that needs solving:  

Given: 

-Every person living and yet to be born will experience a health care issue during the period they remain alive, bar none.  That circumstance has held true throughout recorded history and is currently true.  

-Barring unforeseen medical advances, the above circumstance will remain true in the future.

-Individuals who cannot fully recover without medical assistance will require fully effective medical treatment possible at the optimum time...else the individual will be damaged and possibly die. 

-That circumstance will remain true from the time an individual is conceived to the time they are pronounced finally dead. 

-All circumstances, directly and indirectly affecting an individual's health and/or well-being, cannot be controlled by the individual and becomes a function of a society that can contol those circumstances. 

-Individuals throughout recorded history and before have assembled together for common purpose of acheiving together what is not possible individually.  delegating control of those factors to society. That is commonly described as a benefit.

-Members of the society each must assume responsiblity for duties and obligations participation in benefits.   Benefits and responsibility must be established and agreed to prior to legislation into law. 

[Tom5678]

we are still stuck with an out of date 19th century FOR PROFIT healthcare system, which means profits first, and for the shareholders, everyone and all else secondary. Think of how much we could have saved had we already had Medicare for all going for some years. It will not be cheap initially, but I think it's the right way to go. We are the only holdout . It's time!

[mickstuder]

---

@GailL1 wrote:

I am post ALL of this AP article so that everybody can see all the Experts and their  credentials on these numbers and the $$$$ range agreement between them.

AP - ABC News : Study: "Medicare For All" Projected to Cost $ 32.6 TRILLION

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

Jacob Lew, Charles Blahous, Thomas E. Perez

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.

Sanders' staff found an error in an initial version of the Mercatus report, which counted a long-term care program that was in the 2016 proposal but not the current one. Blahous corrected it, reducing his estimate by about $3 trillion over 10 years. Blahous says the report is his own work, not the Koch brothers'.

Also called "single-payer" over the years, "Medicare for all" reflects a long-time wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans.

The idea won broad rank-and-file support after Sanders ran on it in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Looking ahead to the 2020 election,

Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a "litmus test" for national candidates.

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.

Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.

After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.

So Are The Democrats Gonna GonFor It????

Inquiring Minds want to know -

---

Gail

1. How Much Does Medicare cost the Government Every year?

According to the Kaiser Foundation in 2017 that number was 702 Billion and Medicare is primarily a program for Ameican Retirees 65 and over

Source - https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

2. How many Medicare Recipients would want or be able to survive without Medicare Coverage?

I know I couldn't - why would all Americans not want that same peace of mind

Gail

Your own article claims the spending on Medicare for all would be 2 - 3 Trillion a year - it seems to imply that would be in addition to the 3.5 trillion we are already spending - is that True?

1. How Much does the USA spend on Healthcare for All Americans each year? Remember this figure includes PROFIT for Insurance Companies - Fraud by Drs Hospitals Pharmacies

Well according to a Article in the Atlantic Magazine the USA spends 3.4 Trillion for all Healthcare in the USA

Source - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/how-we-spend-3400000000000/530355/

Gail

Much of the problem here appears to be a claim that the USA spends 50% of it's 3.5 Trillion Budget for Healthcare on only 5% of the population

When you add that information to the Equation - the issue isn;t necessarily just about the Costs of Healthcare but the Cultural Moral Social Religious Expecatations

As the Technology continues to get more sophisticated - we will soon have the ability to not only Genetically Engineeer Humans to Maximise Life Expectancy well past 100 - we currently already have the Technology today to sustain a human life almost indefinetely

We can keep a 100 year old persons heart going with a defribillating Pace Maker - we can breathe for them on a Repiratory Ventilator - we can cleanse their blood and urine with machines - we can replace all thei joints with metal ones - we can grow new body parts

You can make all the WOW WOW WOW Headlines you want

But until we decide some of these Cultural and Social Issues it's all Gobbleygook and Showboating

If we are already spending 3.5 Trillion a year with some of the poorest outcomes in the World like being in last place in Maternal Morbidity and we aren't even covering all Americans

Spending roughly the same amount or perhaps double? on covering everyone - but cutting out the worthless but obcenenly expensive profit for Health Insurance Companies who are only actually spending everyones premium payments on a small amount of really sick people with the rest I'm guessing the other 50% going into Shareholders and CEO pockets

I think even with my admitedly naive and over-simplified snapshot of what currently exists - any initiative that moves us towards coverage for everyone on a national basis under one Federal Administrative Agency cutting out all the nonsense regarding cross-state borders - out of network groups etc

Yeah I think looking at Medicare for all is a worthwhile exercise

[Soosie]

GOPerLords are getting those obscene PROFITS and want to continue to do so and will so long as their base wins elections.

@scout.........I don't see your data to back up your comments. I am so curiouos to know who the GOPerLords are as well.

[Olderscout66]

What GOPers have "overlooked" is that we are currently on track to spend over $40 TRILLION in the next decade to get healthcare that is WORSE than that obtained by citizens of 36 other countries for less than half the price we'll shell out.

The actual estimate for "Medicare For All" is around $2.5Trillion each year, less if we get rid of Republicans and NEGOTIATE prices with providers like every sane Nation already does.  That is the information you should compare with our CURRENT annual health care spending of $3.3 TRILLION that gets us the 37th best outcomes for TWICE what the second most expensive system costs.

Our system in #1 in PROFITS FOR PROVIDERS, and #37 in RESULTS for consumers.

GOPerLords are getting those obscene PROFITS and want to continue to do so and will so long as their base wins elections.

Democrats would like to move America into the 21st Century and provide excellent,  affordable health care for ALL our citizens, not just those who can afford it at outrageous prices.

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.

[GailL1]

I am copying / pasting ALL of this AP article so that everybody can see all the Experts and their credentials on these numbers and the $$$$ range agreement between them.

AP - ABC News : Study: "Medicare For All" Projected to Cost $ 32.6 TRILLION

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

Jacob Lew, Charles Blahous, Thomas E. Perez

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.

Sanders' staff found an error in an initial version of the Mercatus report, which counted a long-term care program that was in the 2016 proposal but not the current one. Blahous corrected it, reducing his estimate by about $3 trillion over 10 years. Blahous says the report is his own work, not the Koch brothers'.

Also called "single-payer" over the years, "Medicare for all" reflects a long-time wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans.

The idea won broad rank-and-file support after Sanders ran on it in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Looking ahead to the 2020 election,

Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a "litmus test" for national candidates.

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.

Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.

After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.

So Are The Democrats Gonna Go For It????

Inquiring Minds want to know - I need to make some financial plans for my taxes if we are headed in that direction.