Koch backed think-tank finds Medicare for all would cut health care spending

[Póg mo 1,749]

 A NEW STUDY from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University is making headlines for projecting that Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” bill is estimated to cost $32.6 trillion — a number that’s entirely in line with 2016 projections, and is literally old news. But what the Associated Press headline fails to announce is a much more sanguine update: The report, by Senior Research Strategist Charles Blahous, found that under Sanders’s plan, overall health costs would go down, and wages would go up.

21

KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES. WHOOPS.

Ryan Grim, Zaid Jilani

July 30 2018, 5:44 p.m.

Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP

A NEW STUDY from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University is making headlines for projecting that Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” bill is estimated to cost $32.6 trillion — a number that’s entirely in line with 2016 projections, and is literally old news. But what the Associated Press headline fails to announce is a much more sanguine update: The report, by Senior Research Strategist Charles Blahous, found that under Sanders’s plan, overall health costs would go down, and wages would go up.

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So employees will get the benefit of higher incomes due to less Medicaid payouts.  Great deal.  And it will only cost us $32 trillion.  Reckon who will pay that $32 trillion?  Raise taxes?

[smilesammich 10,727]

9 hours ago, Satisfied said:

So employees will get the benefit of higher incomes due to less Medicaid payouts.  Great deal.  And it will only cost us $32 trillion.  Reckon who will pay that $32 trillion?  Raise taxes?

i don't know about you but, every raise i've received in the past 10 years has been completely swallowed by health insurance increases. reckon who pays now? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/14/24-7-wall-st-countries-spend-most-health-care/75771044/

 

Quote

1. United States

> Health expenditure per capita: $8,713
> Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: 16.4%
> Obesity rate: 35.3%
> Life expectancy: 78.8

While higher health care spending generally leads to better health outcomes, this is famously not the case in the United States. The country, which is one of the world's wealthiest, spends by far the most on health care. The United States spends around $8,700 per capita each year on health care, more than double the OECD average and well more than second place Switzerland.

Despite the high spending, Americans are not anywhere near the world's healthiest. More than 35% of Americans are obese, one of the highest rate in the world, and exceptionally high compared with other countries spending the most on health. The United States is also the only top 10 country for health spending where the life expectancy does not exceed 80 years. Also, perhaps as a consequence of poor economic and social factors as well as the inefficient spending, adverse health outcomes such as infant mortality have increased in the United States. While in 2000, the incidence of infant mortality in the United States was lower than the OECD average, today it is higher.

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

11 hours ago, Satisfied said:

So employees will get the benefit of higher incomes due to less Medicaid payouts.  Great deal.  And it will only cost us $32 trillion.  Reckon who will pay that $32 trillion?  Raise taxes?

So you think health insurance is currently free? Interesting🙄

[Póg mo 1,749]

Taxes will go up, but out of pocket expenses will also go down by a similar amount. And the best part is more people will have insurance. Say goodbye to medical bankruptcies, which equates to saving to the tax payer along with freeing up the courts. 

[Dashinka 24,758]

29 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Taxes will go up, but out of pocket expenses will also go down by a similar amount. And the best part is more people will have insurance. Say goodbye to medical bankruptcies, which equates to saving to the tax payer along with freeing up the courts. 

How much will taxes go up to pay for an annual ~$3 trillion cost increase?

[yuna628 9,707]

People do realize that when an elderly person uses medicare, it does NOT fund all of their care. They are still required to buy a medicare supplement + prescription plan (it has it's own hefty premium) and often there is that donut hole gap they have to worry about every year.... it also does not cover a whole host of medications they previously would have taken via a personal or work insurance plan.

 

So how does medicare for all work with this in mind?

Edited July 31, 2018 by yuna628

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

People do realize that when an elderly person uses medicare, it does NOT fund all of their care. They are still required to buy a medicare supplement + prescription plan (it has it's own hefty premium) and often there is that donut hole gap they have to worry about every year.... it also does not cover a whole host of medications they previously would have taken via a personal or work insurance plan.

 

So how does medicare for all work with this in mind?

Easy, the government makes Medicare cover 100% of costs. Taxes would go up, but private health insurance would go down, and savings from administration cost reductions would likely lead to more people covered for for less money. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

How much will taxes go up to pay for an annual ~$3 trillion cost increase?

Read the article. 

[Dashinka 24,758]

4 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Read the article. 

Even if the 10 year cost is only $24 trillion and change, that is still a hefty tax increase.  Btw, the article doesn’t mention how much an individual’s taxes will increase.  I also like the fact that the article goes out of its way to mention the think tank’s ties to the Koch brothers but fails to mention the possible biases of the two they went to for refuting or clarifying it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

So you think health insurance is currently free? Interesting🙄

Yes, that’s what I said.  Word. For. Word.  Glad your reading comprehension skills are not lacking.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, smilesammich said:

i don't know about you but, every raise i've received in the past 10 years has been completely swallowed by health insurance increases. reckon who pays now? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/14/24-7-wall-st-countries-spend-most-health-care/75771044/

 

 

My annual raises have WAY outpaced my health insurance increases, though my co-pays have increased in the past couple of years.  But I know my situation is not what the average USC pays.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

My annual raises have WAY outpaced my health insurance increases, though my co-pays have increased in the past couple of years.  But I know my situation is not what the average USC pays.

health insurance should not be tied to employers. i pay more for less coverage. that's common for americans, and it's only getting worse.

[Póg mo 1,749]

51 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Even if the 10 year cost is only $24 trillion and change, that is still a hefty tax increase.  Btw, the article doesn’t mention how much an individual’s taxes will increase.  I also like the fact that the article goes out of its way to mention the think tank’s ties to the Koch brothers but fails to mention the possible biases of the two they went to for refuting or clarifying it.

Oh you wanted me figure out how much each individual would see taxes increase by? Talk to the IRS or someone with access to individual income information. My guess is that if it costs $24 trillion, then taxes will go up by the same amount, or we could be fiscal conservative about it, and borrow the money instead. Anyway I thought it obvious that an increase in taxes, would be offset by a corresponding decrease in health insurance premium costs. Americans would even save money, with the added benefits of fewer people with cronic health problems arising from lack of primary health coverage, and fewer people being forced into court in order to file for personal bankruptcies. Other benefits include include making it easier for family members to quit their employment, in order to take care of loved ones, without risk being penalized for not being able to afford health insurance. It would also free workers from being forced to remain employed in certain positions, just to receive health insurance, and direct their energies into things that might further benefit society at large. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Logical fallacy.  You are assuming that government-enforced health care will be cheaper than what we have today.  That may or may not be true.  But if people are paying anywhere near $3.2 trillion today in premiums, then paying $3.2 trillion in additional taxes won’t really provide any relief.  And since there is no accurate way to predict that $32 trillion in liberal fantasy monies, I would proffer the idea that it will actually cost MORE than anticipated, as is normal with most government entities.