The first 20 years I was raising a family, building houses and had two businesses.. The second 20 years I worked in corporate America.
Koch study: medicare for all saves money
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
The first 20 years I was raising a family, building houses and had two businesses.. The second 20 years I worked in corporate America.
Not actually what Pelosi said.
What she said was "we have to pass it to know what's in it outside the fog of controversy"
So by lopping off the bolded part of Pelosi's statement, you end up proving her entire statement true.
Conservatives are naturally dishonest people.
The National Median HH income is easily searched on Google.
The premium spending figures come from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
When you can't debate, try to gaslight...it's the Conservative way.
That $32T is in lieu of the $34T we would otherwise be spending if we maintained the status quo.
So we're spending the money anyway. It's just a matter of where.
No. The liars were people like you who lied about Obamacare cutting Medicare, who lied about Obamacare being a government take-over, who lied about Obamacare kicking people off insurance, who even lied about what Pelosi said about Obamacare.
All you've done is lie. The whole time. And you lied because you're a racist POS who wanted everyone to forget you supported Bush the Dumber.
What Obamacare did was get 24,000,000 more people insured.
Your HH income varies based on many factors?! LOL! Like what? You said both you and your spouse were employed...at least, you claimed that...so how would your income vary unless by "employed" you mean you're caught up in one of those Ponzi schemes like Avon or Wrap-It.
Are you counting those as "employed"? And are you saying your income varies because it's all commission-based, as you dupe your fellow white trash neighbors to buy these garbage products?
Based on estimates and projections?
If it's a fact, you can prove it.
You want to pass Medicare for All outside the fog of controversy so we can see what's in it?
cawacko
Well-known member
This Op-Ed breaks down pretty well the various reasons Medicare For All will not work.
'Medicare For All' Would Cost $32.6 Trillion, And That's Not Even The Worst Of It
Socialized Health Care: Democrats have been falling over themselves to endorse Bernie Sanders' government takeover of health care. Maybe they should have taken a closer look at his "Medicare for all" plan before signing up. The gargantuan price tag is just one of its many terrible flaws.
Last year, 16 Senators, including three presidential hopefuls, co-sponsored Sanders' "Medicare for all" bill. And earlier this month, more than 70 Democrats signed on to form a "Medicare for all" caucus. Support for the bill is now something of a litmus test for Democratic hopefuls.
Do they have any idea what they're endorsing?
A new study out Monday from George Mason University's Mercatus Center finds that Sanders plan would add $32.6 trillion to federal spending in its first 10 years, with costs steadily rising from there. That closely matches other studies — including one by the liberal Urban Institute — that looked at Sanders' plan.
Underestimating 'Medicare for All' Costs
To put this in perspective, "Medicare for all" would nearly double the size of the already bloated federal government. Doubling corporate and individual income taxes wouldn't cover the costs.
Even this is wildly optimistic. To get to this number, author Charles Blahous had to make several completely unrealistic assumptions about savings under Sanders' hugely disruptive plan.
The first is a massive cut in payments to providers. Sanders wants to apply Medicare's below-market rates across the board, which would amount to a roughly 40% cut in payments to doctors and hospitals. Blahous figures this will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
But cuts of that magnitude would drive doctors out of medicine and hospitals out of business, since the only way providers can afford Medicare's cut-rate reimbursements today is by charging private payers more.
The study also assumes that shoving everyone into a government health care plan would cut administrative costs by $1.6 trillion over the next decade and prescription drug costs by $846 billion. Neither of those are likely, and wouldn't make much of a difference in overall spending anyway. Private insurance overhead accounts for about 6% of national health spending, and drugs less than 10%.
There's also the fact that every other federal health program has seen costs explode "unexpectedly" after they were enacted. The per-enrollee cost of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, for example, is almost 49% higher than expected. Medicare itself cost nearly 10 times as much as projected in its first 25 years.
A Truly Radical Plan
Democrats are also apparently unaware that "Medicare for all" would be a more expansive than anything that exists anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Cuba.
Sanders' plan would eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses for medical, dental and vision care. The only exception would be a small copay for brand-name drugs.
As IBD pointed out, there is no industrialized country in the world that does this. Even in Sanders' beloved Nordic socialist paradises, people pay as much as 30% of their nations' health costs out-of-pocket. In Communist China, almost a third of health spending is out-of-pocket.
Shortages, Long Waits And Waste
Because Sanders would eliminate prices entirely from health care, the only way to control health spending would be to slap stiff price controls on doctors, hospitals and drugs, or ration care.
Here's what health care in the U.S. would look like as a result:
There would be chronic shortages of doctors nationwide. Hospital overcrowding would be epidemic. Waits for everything from hip replacements to cataract surgery to cancer treatments would be extensive. Drug innovation would come to a virtual standstill. And there would be endless fights over the size of the government's health budget, along with massive amounts of waste, fraud and abuse.
How do we know this? Because this is precisely what's happened in countries that have already gone down the "Medicare for all" road.
In Canada, the average wait time for a hip replacement is nearly two years in some provinces. Patients with cataracts can end up waiting a year for surgery. The UK has fewer doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita than any other industrialized nation, and is in a state of almost constant crisis.
Here at home, the Veterans Health Administration — once touted by the left as a model of socialized medicine — has seen deadly delays and massive corruption, even as its budget ballooned in size.
Almost 10% of Medicare spending today is for what the government euphemistically calls "improper payments," but anyone else would label it waste. Extend this across the entire health care system and Sanders' "Medicare for all" would result in some $400 billion a year in "improper payments."
Central Planning's Failures
But the biggest problem with "Medicare for all" — and any plan to socialize medicine — is its underlying assumption. Namely, that a handful of government central planners can manage trillions of dollars' worth of resources better than hundreds of millions of people making trillions of decisions every day in the free market. They can't.
We already know central planning never works, since it has miserably failed where it's been tried. It didn't work in the Soviet Union. It doesn't work in North Korea or Cuba, and it's causing untold misery in Venezuela.
"Medicare for all" isn't just wishful thinking. It's a dangerous delusion. Republicans, independents and any remaining sensible Democrats should fight against it with every ounce of energy.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...ll-32-6-trillion-dollars-socialized-medicine/
'Medicare For All' Would Cost $32.6 Trillion, And That's Not Even The Worst Of It
Socialized Health Care: Democrats have been falling over themselves to endorse Bernie Sanders' government takeover of health care. Maybe they should have taken a closer look at his "Medicare for all" plan before signing up. The gargantuan price tag is just one of its many terrible flaws.
Last year, 16 Senators, including three presidential hopefuls, co-sponsored Sanders' "Medicare for all" bill. And earlier this month, more than 70 Democrats signed on to form a "Medicare for all" caucus. Support for the bill is now something of a litmus test for Democratic hopefuls.
Do they have any idea what they're endorsing?
A new study out Monday from George Mason University's Mercatus Center finds that Sanders plan would add $32.6 trillion to federal spending in its first 10 years, with costs steadily rising from there. That closely matches other studies — including one by the liberal Urban Institute — that looked at Sanders' plan.
Underestimating 'Medicare for All' Costs
To put this in perspective, "Medicare for all" would nearly double the size of the already bloated federal government. Doubling corporate and individual income taxes wouldn't cover the costs.
Even this is wildly optimistic. To get to this number, author Charles Blahous had to make several completely unrealistic assumptions about savings under Sanders' hugely disruptive plan.
The first is a massive cut in payments to providers. Sanders wants to apply Medicare's below-market rates across the board, which would amount to a roughly 40% cut in payments to doctors and hospitals. Blahous figures this will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
But cuts of that magnitude would drive doctors out of medicine and hospitals out of business, since the only way providers can afford Medicare's cut-rate reimbursements today is by charging private payers more.
The study also assumes that shoving everyone into a government health care plan would cut administrative costs by $1.6 trillion over the next decade and prescription drug costs by $846 billion. Neither of those are likely, and wouldn't make much of a difference in overall spending anyway. Private insurance overhead accounts for about 6% of national health spending, and drugs less than 10%.
There's also the fact that every other federal health program has seen costs explode "unexpectedly" after they were enacted. The per-enrollee cost of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, for example, is almost 49% higher than expected. Medicare itself cost nearly 10 times as much as projected in its first 25 years.
A Truly Radical Plan
Democrats are also apparently unaware that "Medicare for all" would be a more expansive than anything that exists anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Cuba.
Sanders' plan would eliminate all out-of-pocket expenses for medical, dental and vision care. The only exception would be a small copay for brand-name drugs.
As IBD pointed out, there is no industrialized country in the world that does this. Even in Sanders' beloved Nordic socialist paradises, people pay as much as 30% of their nations' health costs out-of-pocket. In Communist China, almost a third of health spending is out-of-pocket.
Shortages, Long Waits And Waste
Because Sanders would eliminate prices entirely from health care, the only way to control health spending would be to slap stiff price controls on doctors, hospitals and drugs, or ration care.
Here's what health care in the U.S. would look like as a result:
There would be chronic shortages of doctors nationwide. Hospital overcrowding would be epidemic. Waits for everything from hip replacements to cataract surgery to cancer treatments would be extensive. Drug innovation would come to a virtual standstill. And there would be endless fights over the size of the government's health budget, along with massive amounts of waste, fraud and abuse.
How do we know this? Because this is precisely what's happened in countries that have already gone down the "Medicare for all" road.
In Canada, the average wait time for a hip replacement is nearly two years in some provinces. Patients with cataracts can end up waiting a year for surgery. The UK has fewer doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita than any other industrialized nation, and is in a state of almost constant crisis.
Here at home, the Veterans Health Administration — once touted by the left as a model of socialized medicine — has seen deadly delays and massive corruption, even as its budget ballooned in size.
Almost 10% of Medicare spending today is for what the government euphemistically calls "improper payments," but anyone else would label it waste. Extend this across the entire health care system and Sanders' "Medicare for all" would result in some $400 billion a year in "improper payments."
Central Planning's Failures
But the biggest problem with "Medicare for all" — and any plan to socialize medicine — is its underlying assumption. Namely, that a handful of government central planners can manage trillions of dollars' worth of resources better than hundreds of millions of people making trillions of decisions every day in the free market. They can't.
We already know central planning never works, since it has miserably failed where it's been tried. It didn't work in the Soviet Union. It doesn't work in North Korea or Cuba, and it's causing untold misery in Venezuela.
"Medicare for all" isn't just wishful thinking. It's a dangerous delusion. Republicans, independents and any remaining sensible Democrats should fight against it with every ounce of energy.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...ll-32-6-trillion-dollars-socialized-medicine/
OK, you're describing progressive taxation...what point are you trying to make?
Actually, you would likely need to make around $150,000 a year to end up (maybe) paying more in Medicare Tax than you currently pay in premiums. Also, someone making that much is likely to have a more expensive insurance plan anyway. The $3,500 premium is just for Bronze Plans, which are the most common. I would think that the higher your income, the higher your insurance plan (perhaps Gold or Platinum). So that $3,500 is just the average amount the average worker spends on just premiums, not OOPE, which could be much, much higher.
Well, I doubt that quite a bit. Mostly because you're cagey on your personal details, and I'm not apt to take your word for it.
Unless you are making at least $150-$200K a year, you will see a net benefit in cost with M4A. And even at wages that high, you still might be coming out ahead on M4A depending on what your current insurance plan is, and what your OOPE are.
You don't care about the debt either. You just care what people think you think about the debt. And that's done in service of your own ego.
Of course, you left this out:
“national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”
Projections and estimates?