Free Health Care For All...

[seer]

Isn't so free after all....

The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System

The leading current Senate bill to establish single-payer health insurance in the United States is that of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It’s called the Medicare for All Act, or M4A.

M4A Would Place Unprecedented Strain on the Federal Budget

By conservative estimates, this legislation would have the following effects:

M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031).
This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022. This amount would rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and continue to rise thereafter.

These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs.

A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication...lthcare-system

[mossrose]

And throwing all that money at it won't make it work.

[Mountain Man]

As the saying goes, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free!"

[rogue06]

So what if it'll cost over 30 trillion dollars over a decade's time because a trillion is just

00000000000000arc1.jpg

a billion with 3 zeroes added and zeroes have no value. Therefore there is no real cost.

[Cow Poke]

So what if it'll cost over 30 trillion dollars over a decade's time because a trillion is just

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29453[/ATTACH]

a billion with 3 zeroes added and zeroes have no value. Therefore there is no real cost.

If you say it fast, it doesn't sound as bad. And kinda mumble.

[Leonhard]

Sounds every bit as expensive as an insurance based system. Granted we made it work in Denmark, and our system is actually more efficient per dollar spent than yours is. The question is only whether you believe its a good thing for all people to have access to healthcare.

[Mountain Man]

Sounds every bit as expensive as an insurance based system. Granted we made it work in Denmark, and our system is actually more efficient per dollar spent than yours is. The question is only whether you believe its a good thing for all people to have access to healthcare.

Ooh, I see you've fallen for the bait-and-switch. Liberals have only promised health insurance. Whether or not you can use that insurance to actually receive healthcare is a different matter, as many of those on Obamacare have unfortunately discovered.

[QuantaFille]

Ooh, I see you've fallen for the bait-and-switch. Liberals have only promised health insurance. Whether or not you can use that insurance to actually receive healthcare is a different matter, as many of those on Obamacare have unfortunately discovered.

When the marketplace was set up here, I didn't have insurance so I went to take a look at what was available. The plans that had affordable premiums had extremely high deductibles and were not accepted by any doctors within a reasonable distance (i.e. in my state). The plans that actually had a low enough deductible that the insurance would eventually cover stuff that year, and had in-network doctors nearby, had premiums WAAAAY outside of my budget.

For those who don't know how insurance works here, basically that means if I had a plan I could afford, I still would have paid out-of-pocket for everything, plus I would still have had to pay for the insurance itself despite it not covering anything.

[Cow Poke]

When the marketplace was set up here, I didn't have insurance so I went to take a look at what was available. The plans that had affordable premiums had extremely high deductibles and were not accepted by any doctors within a reasonable distance (i.e. in my state). The plans that actually had a low enough deductible that the insurance would eventually cover stuff that year, and had in-network doctors nearby, had premiums WAAAAY outside of my budget.

For those who don't know how insurance works here, basically that means if I had a plan I could afford, I still would have paid out-of-pocket for everything, plus I would still have had to pay for the insurance itself despite it not covering anything.

That's the thing that amazed me - people were signing up and bragging about saving money on premiums, and when I asked what the deductible was, they didn't know. When they checked, they were absolutely stunned.

It's like buying car insurance at a reasonable monthly cost, but the first time you get in an accident, they want you to pony up $10,000.

[Starlight]

Isn't so free after all....

Sanders thanked the Koch Brothers who funded that study for its conclusion that Medicare For All would save $2 trillion over 10 years compared to what people in America already pay for healthcare. It would also extend healthcare to cover everyone.

The internet was rolling on the floor laughing at how it backfired on the conservatives who commissioned it.

[Starlight]

Sounds every bit as expensive as an insurance based system.

It sort of is an insurance based system. It's the government as the insurer. Turns out it's going to be about $2 trillion cheaper over a 10 year period if the government does the insurance for everyone rather than people negotiating private insurance. Not surprising, as plenty of data already shows that the US government's Medicare insurance program is much more efficient than private insurance companies (in terms of percentage of money taken in as revenue being paid out on healthcare rather than spent on administrative costs).

Granted we made it work in Denmark, and our system is actually more efficient per dollar spent than yours is.

Although in your system it appears, from reading about it, that most of your hospitals are run by government (like most hospitals here are), unlike the US system where the hospitals are themselves privately run.

The US is by far the outlier when it comes to healthcare spending among developed nations. Their system is just so expensive compared to everyone else:



The really simple reason they pay so much for healthcare compared to everyone else is that the government just isn't as involved in healthcare in the US as compared to other countries. Because such a high percentage of their healthcare comes through private industry rather than being government-controlled, it introduces massive inefficiencies and the profit motive sends prices sky-high compared to what people in other countries pay. On the graph above their public / private ratio is 50/50 as compared to other countries where public spending is 80-90% of the healthcare spending. And, as a result of the private sector being in such large control of the industry and sending prices sky-high, the parts the government does fund end up costing the government a lot more than they otherwise would. So even though the US government is paying plenty of money already in absolute terms compared to other countries, such that if the government controlled 80-90% of the healthcare industry it could push prices down so that expenditure would cover anyone, because it doesn't have that level of market control and because private industry can set sky-high prices, that huge amount of money the government is dishing out only covers half the population.

The question is only whether you believe its a good thing for all people to have access to healthcare.

You should probably be a bit careful with the "access to healthcare" phrasing because some of the US right use the weasel-word "access" to describe the hypothetical that a person could access care if only they had the money for it, which they might not if they were poor. So they distinguish giving people "access" to care from people actually being able to obtain care. In their view those that die on the streets have "access" to care but just chose to not be rich enough to afford it.

[Mountain Man]

Sanders thanked the Koch Brothers who funded that study for its conclusion that Medicare For All would save $2 trillion over 10 years compared to what people in America already pay for healthcare. It would also extend healthcare to cover everyone.

The internet was rolling on the floor laughing at how it backfired on the conservatives who commissioned it.

Yes, it would "save" us $2-trillion by raising our taxes to pay for the increased spending.

Socialists never have been good at math. They have this absurd idea that "free" means paying through the nose in taxes, and then good luck getting the government to actually pay for healthcare once they have your money.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, it would "save" us $2-trillion by raising our taxes to pay for the increased spending.

Socialists never have been good at math. They have this absurd idea that "free" means paying through the nose in taxes, and then good luck getting the government to actually pay for healthcare once they have your money.

Where's that classic example of the 7 (?) men going to lunch and splitting the check...

Or this....

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

[Starlight]

Yes, it would "save" us $2-trillion by raising our taxes to pay for the increased spending.

Yes, instead of paying your bill to the healthcare insurance company, you would instead pay it in taxes but at a slightly lower amount.

Do you not want to pay $2 trillion less over 10 years and in doing so ensure that everyone in your country has healthcare? What is your objection to getting more healthcare for less money?

Socialists never have been good at math.

I'm a socialist and a math whiz, so shut up with your blithering idiocy. You probably failed math. US Republicans are the ones who can't do math. Bush W started two wars and forgot to pay for them, and also did tax cuts, so ran up the debt massively, and now under Trump the Republicans did another tax cut and upped military spending massively and are running up massively more debt as a result. Republican prattle about balanced budgets but never actually balance their budgets in office because they are too stupid to do basic math.

They have this absurd idea that "free" means paying through the nose in taxes

"Free" refers to free at point of use. i.e. when you go to the hospital there are no bills. Just like if you call the police there are no bills. Or if you drive down the street there are no bills. Nobody thinks that building roads or employing police is actually free, because everyone knows it's paid for through taxes. Although you're stupid enough that you might actually not realize it isn't free... you certainly seem to think the "it isn't really free" is some sort of big revelation when it comes to healthcare, so I have to wonder if you've only just realized this basic fact or something.

and then good luck getting the government to actually pay for healthcare once they have your money.

Moron, the Medicare program already exists in the US. It consistently polls as one of the highest-rated government programs. People like it because it does pay out money. Your "but the government won't pay out" conspiracy theories are just blithering idiocy. It's a wonder you can figure out how to even turn your computer on.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, instead of paying your bill to the healthcare insurance company, you would instead pay it in taxes but at a slightly lower amount.

Except, in the cases of healthy old farts like me, where my entire "medical regiment" for the year is a couple bottles of baby aspirin I buy at Walmart.... I would still pay the taxes for everybody else.