Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1016
Views

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

1,016 Views
Message 101 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@

 



 

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

 


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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 


The way I understand it, mickstuder - and I am having to go from 2016 data - is that the $ 3.3 Trillion we spent on health cost in 2016, covers everything, except for the VA Healthcare system.

CMS did a detailed analysis of everything back in 2016 and it is also historical.

CMS - The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) - DATA

 

This data is done by tables in total and then by specifics.  The total page covers these things to add up to the 3.3 Trillion in Health Expenditures in 2016.

National Health Expenditures                                                      $ 3337.2

  • Health Consumption Expenditures                                                               $ 3179.8
    • Personal Healthcare                                                                      $ 2834.0
    • Government Administration and net cost of Health insurance       $   263.7
    • Government Public Health Activities                                              $     82.2

Investment                                                                                                                $   157.4

 

Within these categories, it covers all these things:

National Healthcare Expenditures 2016 Highlights

 

Each of the tables and the pdf data give info about this aggregate above.

Table 1 is the totals which I have posted above for 2016 - sorry if it does not line up exactly due to this sites formating options - did my best.

Table 2 is by type of expenditure

Table 3 is by source of funds

and so on . . . . .

 

This PDF document within the data is pie-charts showing THE NATION’S HEALTH DOLLAR ($3.3 TRILLION), CALENDAR YEAR 2016: - WHERE IT CAME FROM

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealt...

 

The only thing I see missing is the VA Healthcare system and I believe that is because it is a separate entity, separately funded - it is also not covered within any "Medicare for All" plan.

 

Yes, your statement here is TRUE EXCEPT IT IS NOT JUST MEDICARE - it is all of our health care spending - out of pocket, insurance premiums dental bills etc.

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?

 

These cost analysis of the "Medicare for All" HR676, I believe, without the LTC provision - are based on a 10-year time line of 2022 - 2031.

 

So simplifying this - the analysis adds in all forecasted health expenditures - except for the VA and LTC and comes up with a total figure.  Then they figure out how much it would cost and that would be the tax basis - paid by whoever - people, emplolyers - whomever they can tax for it.

 

It is true that some of these cost would be offset - but not all of them as the article says.

 

These are cost expenditures - what it cost everybody - except the VA system and any LTC cost or insurance.  Insurance company profits are included in the cost expenditures so yes, they would be covered.  Same thing for any fraud - if we are paying for it now, it is included in the total expenditures.

 

No, we are not spending $ 3.5 Trillion annually on 5% of the population - the $ 3.5 Trillion ( $ 3.3 Trillion in 2016) covers everything except the VA and (private) LTC cost and insurance - Medicaid LTC cost are included for the poor elderly.  This figure also covers cost for dental and vision -but don't think it covers OTC drugs - but medically necessary stuff, like it is suppose to now..

 

Well, mickstuder, it is being looked at and analysized - that's why I posted the article - I have long complained that the proposal has been long on goodies but short on cost analysis - lets see what they do with it because it seems that the cost analysis by many different sources are coming in pretty close. 

 

The money to pay for it has to come from somebody - or from several groups of somebodies.  How much can you kick in?

 

However I agree with @CS402050 - before embarking on this endeavor - we need to do something about health care cost - In fact, we can just pick up some of the methods that other industrialized nations use to control their cost.  Let's see if American can accept some of them.  We can make sure that we are using Best Practices and that protochols have to have priority - meaning the morbidly obese person might have to lose some weight before they get their knee replacements because that leads to better success of the procedure and we don't have to pay for it again when it fails the 1st time.

 

Do you think providers will accept Medicare pay rates or lower under such a single payer system.

Or will our shortage of PCP just get worse - what about specialist?

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Your support data does not include all the expenses that make up the total health care costs. Mainly expenses at State and local level.  Until you go to the total system what you say means nothing, and nothing will be changed. It might make one feel good to show all this data, but it is a waste of time if you really want to improve the total system. A start to improve the system is a Medi Care for all approach as medi care works. The ACA was a good start but the far right are doing everything to kill it, as their approach is a go fund me account for everyone. Give us all the details on the Go fund me accounts as that would be as much help as the support data provided so far. The biggest start would to have all learn what the current system is and how to use the material on the web as that would keep people from trying to be experts on health care rather than experts on health care articles. There are experts who can fix this problem but they are not in here, and spending our time getting leaders in office who will bring the real experts together would be a start. You can be sure Trump and his far right crowd are not that group. They belong to the group who have told us let them die in the streets. Yes all providers will accept the payments outlined in a new total health care system.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1016
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1300
Views

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

1,300 Views
Message 102 of 126

@rker321 wrote:

Gail   are we dealing again with Medicare for all.? please, how many times have I stated that what we need in this country is a National Health Care system, that is suited to our needs.
Medicare has too many problems to be the system that will be effective for all of us. so, please, change your tune and realize that Medicare for all is not what this country needs.>


It is not my tune - I am just giving info on the progress

"Medicare For All " or H.R. 676 is a National Health Care System design and the Democrats are thinking about support for it as a litmus test for the candidates - now in the midterms and into the 2020 election.

 

This new cost study as well as others are just putting numbers to the plan.

 

What kind of plan were you thinking about if not a single payer - universal type - which this is.  Medicare for All is just a catchy name - putting visions of lots of care  for little money into the minds of people.

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1300
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1313
Views

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

1,313 Views
Message 103 of 126

@mickstuder wrote:

@

 



 

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

 


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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 


The way I understand it, mickstuder - and I am having to go from 2016 data - is that the $ 3.3 Trillion we spent on health cost in 2016, covers everything, except for the VA Healthcare system.

CMS did a detailed analysis of everything back in 2016 and it is also historical.

CMS - The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) - DATA

 

This data is done by tables in total and then by specifics.  The total page covers these things to add up to the 3.3 Trillion in Health Expenditures in 2016.

National Health Expenditures                                                      $ 3337.2

  • Health Consumption Expenditures                                                               $ 3179.8
    • Personal Healthcare                                                                      $ 2834.0
    • Government Administration and net cost of Health insurance       $   263.7
    • Government Public Health Activities                                              $     82.2

Investment                                                                                                                $   157.4

 

Within these categories, it covers all these things:

National Healthcare Expenditures 2016 Highlights

 

Each of the tables and the pdf data give info about this aggregate above.

Table 1 is the totals which I have posted above for 2016 - sorry if it does not line up exactly due to this sites formating options - did my best.

Table 2 is by type of expenditure

Table 3 is by source of funds

and so on . . . . .

 

This PDF document within the data is pie-charts showing THE NATION’S HEALTH DOLLAR ($3.3 TRILLION), CALENDAR YEAR 2016: - WHERE IT CAME FROM

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealt...

 

The only thing I see missing is the VA Healthcare system and I believe that is because it is a separate entity, separately funded - it is also not covered within any "Medicare for All" plan.

 

Yes, your statement here is TRUE EXCEPT IT IS NOT JUST MEDICARE - it is all of our health care spending - out of pocket, insurance premiums dental bills etc.

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?

 

These cost analysis of the "Medicare for All" HR676, I believe, without the LTC provision - are based on a 10-year time line of 2022 - 2031.

 

So simplifying this - the analysis adds in all forecasted health expenditures - except for the VA and LTC and comes up with a total figure.  Then they figure out how much it would cost and that would be the tax basis - paid by whoever - people, emplolyers - whomever they can tax for it.

 

It is true that some of these cost would be offset - but not all of them as the article says.

 

These are cost expenditures - what it cost everybody - except the VA system and any LTC cost or insurance.  Insurance company profits are included in the cost expenditures so yes, they would be covered.  Same thing for any fraud - if we are paying for it now, it is included in the total expenditures.

 

No, we are not spending $ 3.5 Trillion annually on 5% of the population - the $ 3.5 Trillion ( $ 3.3 Trillion in 2016) covers everything except the VA and (private) LTC cost and insurance - Medicaid LTC cost are included for the poor elderly.  This figure also covers cost for dental and vision -but don't think it covers OTC drugs - but medically necessary stuff, like it is suppose to now..

 

Well, mickstuder, it is being looked at and analysized - that's why I posted the article - I have long complained that the proposal has been long on goodies but short on cost analysis - lets see what they do with it because it seems that the cost analysis by many different sources are coming in pretty close. 

 

The money to pay for it has to come from somebody - or from several groups of somebodies.  How much can you kick in?

 

However I agree with @CS402050 - before embarking on this endeavor - we need to do something about health care cost - In fact, we can just pick up some of the methods that other industrialized nations use to control their cost.  Let's see if American can accept some of them.  We can make sure that we are using Best Practices and that protochols have to have priority - meaning the morbidly obese person might have to lose some weight before they get their knee replacements because that leads to better success of the procedure and we don't have to pay for it again when it fails the 1st time.

 

Do you think providers will accept Medicare pay rates or lower under such a single payer system.

Or will our shortage of PCP just get worse - what about specialist?

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1313
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1300
Views

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

1,300 Views
Message 104 of 126

Universal Healthcare Just Doesn't Work....

 

healthcare universal.jpg

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1300
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1282
Views

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

1,282 Views
Message 105 of 126

Gail   are we dealing again with Medicare for all.? please, how many times have I stated that what we need in this country is a National Health Care system, that is suited to our needs.
Medicare has too many problems to be the system that will be effective for all of us. so, please, change your tune and realize that Medicare for all is not what this country needs.>

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1282
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1268
Views

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

1,268 Views
Message 106 of 126

@mickstuder wrote:

@CS402050 wrote:

Following is an article I published on this subject last year.

 

Sometimes liberals have good intentions. At least that's what I tell myself. But they screw it up in the end and then argue to the death that they saved all us little people from ourselves. For example, they decided we needed “comprehensive health care reform” so they gave us the ACA and now they keep arguing how great it is because fewer people are uninsured. But the ACA did not reform healthcare. It made it easier for a minuscule percentage of the population to buy health insurance and penalized everyone else. But having insurance and getting healthcare are two different things and having insurance does not mean you can get healthcare. Just one obvious example is all the people who were required to buy insurance under the ACA but can't use it because they can't afford the deductibles.

 

Now Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer bill. Strike two. Single-payer only makes the problem worse. For one thing, the cost would be astronomical, a minor point which is seldom considered by liberals until it is too late and we're stuck with the bill. After years of trying, California passed single-payer earlier this year. According to the LA Times, 65% of voters were in favor of it. Then the cost was revealed, which would more than double the budget of the state with the highest state income tax and the 65% in favor changed to 80% against and it was dropped just like it was dropped in Sanders' home state. But liberal states like California are rooting for Sanders. Like all good socialists they believe someone else should pay for what they want. Why else would they be in favor of something they already discarded due to cost unless they thought tax money from other states would offset their cost? And all that money does little more than pay for a giant quasi-insurance company run by the government. It still does not address healthcare.

 

When I was young, my family could not afford health insurance and Medicare and Medicaid did not exist. Yet we got the healthcare we needed because it was affordable. Today it is not and that's the problem. Of the top thirty-five developed nations, healthcare cost per person in the U.S. is far greater than any other country and close to three times the average of the other thirty-four countries. A doctor summed up the problem in an NBC interview: “We have crappy outcomes for a huge price tag. We do all kinds of stuff that doesn’t really work that’s expensive. We are wasting a ton of money and probably not helping people.” Sanders attempted to use cost to justify single-payer by saying we will spend $49 trillion over the next ten years if something isn't done. But single-payer doesn't address the cost. It just addresses who sends the check.

 

Medicare rates are set by a panel of doctors appointed by the AMA. Insurance companies negotiate rates with healthcare providers. Neither seems to get it right. The rates are all over the place and healthcare providers always overbill anyway. For example, according to the HuffPost, a woman was billed $135,000 by a hospital. Per an agreement, her insurance paid $45,000. But the average price the hospital was paid for that procedure was $37,000. According to CNN, an echocardiogram costs $1,714 in Massachusetts, $5,435 in New Jersey and less than $100 in Japan. In some cases, insurance companies pay more than Medicare. In some cases, Medicare pays more than insurance companies. In some cases, both Medicare and insurance companies are paying more than rates set by the healthcare providers themselves. For example, the LA Times reported that a hospital had a set price of $1,054 for a CT scan. Per a “negotiated” agreement a woman's insurance paid $2,336 for that CT scan.

 

Democrats and Republicans can argue the merits of their various plans forever but it's all meaningless until something is done about healthcare cost. The good news is there are lots of things that could be done. For example, rates could be set by law for providers. Personally, I'd hate to see that but we do have laws against price gouging during emergencies. What's a bigger emergency than a life threatening illness? My preference would be a “most favored nation” law that says healthcare providers cannot charge anyone more than the lowest price they charge anyone else.

 

With that and a couple more equally simple laws, healthcare would take care of itself and the government could get out of the healthcare business and stop punishing us for their incompetence. But don't hold your breath. For anything reasonable to happen, liberals would have to admit that the ACA and universal healthcare are not the answers. Fat chance. Besides, the AMA has one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, closely followed by the AHA and some other healthcare associations. And their goal is to keep those rates as high as possible.


 

 

You can repeat this and repost this as many times as you want..................................but there exists in the United States 3 Essential Documents that distinguish our Country from all others - the theme throughout these 3 Documents has nothing to do with Exclusion of any it's Citizens especially due to the inability to pay for our rights and privledges....................................Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness only requires one to be a Citizen and for that Citizen to be Loyal & Commited to the Values and Obligations outlined in the 3 Documents........................

 

The more Expensive Life becomes as it is with the cost of Healthcare today - the more valuable the themes in these 3 documents become

 

No American should be denied Life because of their inability to pay

 

This isn;t about Left or Right - it's about Promises Kept within a System of Beliefs thats states - ALL Men are Created Equal................................no mention of Dollars and Cents anywhere

 

 

 


First, WRONG.  There is one document that governs this country.  It is the Constitution.  You're quoting the Declaration of Independence which is NOT law.  Its purpose was to explain why this country declared its independence from Great Britain

 

Second, you shouldn't reference the Constitution if you're not willing to abide by it which liberals only do when it's convenient.  For example, the Constitution states that only Congress can make or change the law and it requires the President to ensure "the Laws be faithfully executed."  That is EXACTLY what Trump did with his zero tolerance policy.  He didn't make any law; he didn't change any law; he said the law as enacted by Congress should be enforced.  And all the little liberals started whining about it and talking about how bad he was for doing what the Constitution requires him to do.  (Just more of the same, nothing to offer voters so let's stand in the way of the Constitution and say it's Trump's fault.)

 

So if you want to discuss the founding documents of this country, first just tell me you agree with Trumps' zero tolerance policy.

 

Finally, what I wrote has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not a person gets healthcare.  It was about the best way to provide healthcare.  So save your emotional nonsense for someone who isn't able to recognized it for just what it is.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1268
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1264
Views

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

1,264 Views
Message 107 of 126

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/30/koch-funded-hit-piece-backfires-shows-medicare-all-woul...

 

Koch-Funded Hit Piece Backfires: Shows Medicare for All Would Save 'Whopping $2 Trillion' Over Ten Years While Covering Everybody

 

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/

 

Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. trillions

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trilli...

 

Bernie Sanders’s $32 trillion Medicare-for-all plan is actually kind of a bargain

 

https://slate.com/business/2018/07/single-payer-health-care-could-save-americans-usd2-trillion-conse...

 

Conservative Think-Tanker Accidentally Argues That Single Payer Could Save Americans $2 Trillion

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1264
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1244
Views

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

1,244 Views
Message 108 of 126

 

 

healthcare enrichment.jpg

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1244
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1244
Views

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

1,244 Views
Message 109 of 126

Is there some reason medical diagnostic equipment  in the US deserves higher user fees than their counterparts in the EU? No.

 

Is there a reason medical personel in the US deserve more than their counterparts in the EU? No.

 

Is there some reason medical care providers in the US should face greater exposure to malpractice lawsuits that their counterparts in the EU? No.

 

Is there any reason insurance companies should make higher profits than their counterparts in the EU? No.

 

So if we want to make Medicare For All AFFORDABLE, lets stop pretending there are magical "market forces" that make our care twice as expensive as everybody else and replace the obscene "Charge Master" nonsense with fixed prices like the rest of the World, cut the cost of medical treatment by 70% and give health care to EVERYBODY for $3,000/year/person.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1244
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1238
Views

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

1,238 Views
Message 110 of 126

Gail posted:

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.


The Mercatus 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.


Currently, Americans pay $3.4 trillion (one year) for medical care (and, unfortunately, don't get impressive results). (Wow!)

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

 

Bernie's Plan sounds like a good deal. It includes coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing - and we'll be spending less on healthcare than we do now. (Wow!)

 

https://www.apnews.com/09e06d686a1a481fa76e3fd91f3fcbc2/Study:-'Medicare-for-all'-bill-estimated-at-...

 

On average, other wealthy countries spend "half as much" per person on healthcare than the U.S. (Wow!)...Kaiser....

 

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-com...

 

healthcare treadmill.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1238
Views