Medicare open enrollment begins Tuesday! Visit the AARP Medicare Resource Center for the information you need to make your best choices.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
312
Views

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

312 Views
Message 81 of 126

The "something for nothing party" now wants Medicare for all. They think that doubling all the taxes will cover it (except for those who don't pay tax). Oh yes, we will need a carbon tax and a national sales tax to cover it all, but the "something for nothing party" wants it, so we should have it. What's next? Free college, free housing, free food, free cars, and of course a guaranteed income from the "government".

 

Can we just become part of Venezuela?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
312
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
369
Views

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

369 Views
Message 82 of 126

Voters won't care if Medicare cost $32 Trillion or $32 Gazillion. They'll be thinking about how nice it would be to go into a doctor's office or hospital with a Medicare Card in their wallet / pocketbook.

If one of their children needs medical care, each one of their children will have their own Medicare Card. Dentist -- Medicare Card. Peace of mind for the whole family. That's why every major industialized with universal healthcare don't want to give it up. Peace of mind. 

It's an election winner.

Voters won't be persuaded to oppose having a Medicare Card for themselves because some people off the beaten path have to travel far for an MRI. That argument is not going to cut it at election time.

 

I don't remember if it was election 2000 or 2004 (I think it was 2000), but back then Howard Dean proposed lowering the Medicare age to 55. Later he said if not 55, perhaps 58. If Dems would have listened to him, they would have picked up quite a few votes - votes needed to send George Bush back to Texas to chop wood. 

Many people start feeling aches and pains when they reach their 50's. I think Dems would have picked up quite of few votes from the 55-65 group and those approaching 55.

 

healthcare expensive.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
369
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
376
Views

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

376 Views
Message 83 of 126

As the comments pile up, we do know one thing for sure - the ignoblers failed to read the entire information from Mecatus Center - it is easier to spout rhetoric...of which some of them excell - because it doesn't have to be factual.    

 

While most outlets don't even mention the buried cost-saving conclusion of the Mercatus report, Axios—whose headline reads "Bernie's 'Medicare for All' predicted to cost nearly $33 trillion"—includes this line at the very bottom of its piece, in the "worth noting" section: "All told, 'Medicare for All' would actually slightly reduce the total amount we pay for health care."

 

In 2016, the United States spent $3.4 trillion on healthcare; projected over ten years—and assuming costs don't rise, as they're expected to—that's $34 trillion. By 2025, the current for-profit healthcare system is expected to cost a staggering $5.5 trillion per year.

 

Now I could recommend to stop being stupid....but that wouldn't be heard by the ignoblers.   Well, that an Math is Hard for those who don't really care about anyone but themselves - who knew that ignoblers were the " it is all about me" gang.  

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
376
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
392
Views

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

392 Views
Message 84 of 126

Medicare is something people pay into. Are you sure it isn't Medicaid that is being touted?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
392
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
377
Views

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

377 Views
Message 85 of 126

Republicans keep formatting clever questions that produce their desired results.

 

They ask "Do you want to pay higher taxes?" when the real question is "Do you want to participate in a tax-funded program that will cost you less less than you now pay for private health insurance?"

 

They ask "Do you support Medicare For All  if it gives the Government too much control over health care?" when the real question is "Do you support Government controlling what providers receive for services just as they do now with Medicare?"

 

They ask if people perfer being able to keep their own insurance and enjoy the reduced costs created by Medicare For All without paying for Medicare for all, which is how they work to kill Obamacare and Unions.

 

If ANY of the strawman "problems" Republicans invent to scare folks away from Universal Health Care coverage actually existed, the rest of the World would not have Universal Health Care for their citizens and we would not be the only place on earth where you can lose EVERYTHING if your kid gets sick.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
377
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
368
Views

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

368 Views
Message 86 of 126

Sorry if this has already been posted.

 

 

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

An estimated cost of $32.6 trillion over 10 years is less than the US would spend over the next 10 years under the current system.

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Tre...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
368
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
355
Views

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

355 Views
Message 87 of 126

The federal government is going to spend a lot more money on health care, but the country is going to spend about the same.

 

And unlike today, EVERYONE will be covered. Good deal.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
355
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
355
Views

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

355 Views
Message 88 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@gordyfl wrote:

Unless and until we stop playing partisan political games with this issue, there WILL be no comprehensive solution.

 

Times are changing.

 

A poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation , a nonpartisan health policy think tank, found that:


59% of respondents supported a Medicare-for-all healthcare system in which all Americans would get coverage through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid.

 

medicare all chart.jpg

 

 

 


From the same source:

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-s...

 

While a slim majority favors the idea of a national health plan at the outset, a prolonged national debate over making such a dramatic change to the U.S. health care system would likely result in the public being exposed to multiple messages for and against such a plan. The poll finds the public’s attitudes on single-payer are quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate. For example, when those who initially say they favor a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard that such a plan would give the government too much control over health care, about four in ten (21 percent of the public overall) say they would change their mind and would now oppose the plan, pushing total opposition up to 62 percent. Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would require many Americans to pay more in taxes or that it would eliminate or replace the Affordable Care Act, total opposition increases to 60 percent and 53 percent, respectively.


Are they also told that their other costs would also decrease? it seems that all those attacking the plan want to discuss is the increase in taxes while they want to ignore the savings in not having to pay for individual insurance and other out of pocket costs.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
355
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
343
Views

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

343 Views
Message 89 of 126

This looks a whole lot like presenting someone with the grocery bill for the next 10 years and having them say "we can't afford that. We will stop eating at once".  How does Mercatus' estimates compare to what we pay now WITHOUT universal care?  The estimate is less than the projected costs.  TANSTAAFL.

 

Mercatus is projecting a $32 trillion increase in federal spending, above current projected government expenditures, from 2022 to 2031.

In terms of overall health care spending in the United States over the same period, however, they are actually projecting a slight reduction.

There is the rub. The federal government is going to spend a lot more money on health care, but the country is going to spend about the same.

 

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

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
343
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
344
Views

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

344 Views
Message 90 of 126

@GailL1 wrote:

@Richva

 

Here is the analysis and report by Charles Blohus at the Mercatus Center.  

Actually it isn't out of line with the others that have been done by folks who have been within both Dem and Rep Administrations.

Mercatus Center: The Costs of a National Single-Payer System

 

The researcher points out savings in the government negotiating prescription meds based on a select, defined formulary, about $ 800 billion over ten years - which is how other industrialized countries do it to hold down cost.  

 

There are many ways those other countries hold down their healthcare cost - we need to try some of these ways to see what happens.  Will the healthcare industry and Americans like them - especially since they know what they have now - there might be an adjustment period.

 

For everything now except for the VA and private LTC out of pocket and insurance, we are running over $ 3 Trillion a year.

 

I hope to take a better look at this later but to compare our system and outcomes you have to look at other nations and how they control their cost and even outcomes - it makes sense what they do but it is a far cry from what we have.

Geographically we would have some problems - case in point as an example, MRI machines - we have many, many, more machines than other countries where they have to wait to get it done unless an emergency.  We can usually have one the same day.  But even having all these MRI machines, we still have places where people have no access to them - so we not only have to reduce the number of them, we have to reposition where they are located to give people access.

 

Now how would we get these MRI vendors to move from Big City, USA to Small City USA?

 

That's just an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


America spent over 15% of GDP while Canada, for instance, only spends 10%.  You raise an interesting example.  How to get MRI vendors to the small cities where they are needed? This is one of the many drawbacks of our system. Services follow the highest profit margins.  It is one of the reason health outcomes in America are so dismal in comparison to single payer countries. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
344
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors