Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (Member)

Debate 10-15-2019

Politics   (7,581 Views 37 Comments)
7,597 Visitors; 423 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 3 of Debate 10-15-2019. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

4 hours ago, luv2 said:

Sen Warren's plan is not sustainable. It will place America's economy into a recession.

Maybe you could clarify why reducing the burden of healthcare on our economy and reducing the rate at which costs are increasing is "not sustainable"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

Yes, her source of funding will have to be raiseing taxes on the middle class.  And it still won't be enough.

I'm not sure how you think we currently pay for healthcare, but the middle class is already paying, and on average they're paying about $20,000 a year for family coverage.  Paying a few thousand less than that is still a few thousand less regardless of whether we call it "insurance premiums" or "taxes".

I'm not sure how you've concluded that "it still won't be enough".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the researcher's letter to Senator Sanders:

Quote

Dear Senator Sanders: I am writing now to clarify some important issues regarding the financing of Medicare for All, specifically, the type of Medicare for All proposal that you introduced as a U.S. Senate bill S. 1804 in 2017, and subsequently revised with S. 1129 in 2019. I understand that some commentators have been unclear on the question as to how much new tax revenues will be needed to finance Medicare for All along the lines you have proposed.

Of course, any additional taxes paid by businesses or households will substitute for the premiums, deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket spending businesses and households now pay to private health insurance companies. For the most part, as I describe in a bit more detail below, under Medicare for All, households and businesses will pay significantly less for health care than they spend at present under our existing system, even while all U.S. residents will be guaranteed access to good-quality care.

The question on which I focus in this letter is: How much additional public revenue from new sources will be needed to finance Medicare for All over a 10-year period?  I will take the period 2017 – 26 as our frame of reference. My short answer is: $13.5 trillion. The table below shows the basics on how this figure is derived: 

https://www.peri.umass.edu/images/Pollin--Open_Letter_to_Sen_Sanders_re_Medicare_for_All_funding---10-7-19-2.pdf

 

Quote

Reviewer Assessments of Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

https://www.peri.umass.edu/images/ReviewerAssessments_MFA.pdf

You can open the link and then click "Read PDF" to read the entire University of Massachusetts study.

Quote

Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

This study by PERI researchers Robert Pollin, James Heintz, Peter Arno, Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Michael Ash presents a comprehensive analysis of the prospects for a Medicare for All health care system in the United States.

The most fundamental goals of Medicare for All are to significantly improve health care outcomes for everyone living in the United States while also establishing effective cost controls throughout the health care system. These two purposes are both achievable.

As of 2017, the U.S. was spending about $3.24 trillion on personal health care—about 17 percent of total U.S. GDP.  Meanwhile, 9 percent of U.S. residents have no insurance and 26 percent are underinsured—they are unable to access needed care because of prohibitively high costs. Other high-income countries spend an average of about 40 percent less per person and produce better health outcomes.

Medicare for All could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent, to $2.93 trillion, while creating stable access to good care for all U.S. residents...

https://www.peri.umass.edu/component/k2/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all 

Quote

 

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

In your opinion. Many many experts disagree with your opinion.  Our current profit focused system is not fiscally sustainable. 

 

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Anyone could debate and find experts on the Affordable Care Act or Medicare for All. The Obama-Biden administration got it done despite Washington politics. Instead of adding provisions to enhance people's ability some of the Democrat Presidential candidates are arguing its effectiveness this has to be the twilight zone. 

Instead of focusing on issues such as

Foreign Policies  

The Economy

Education

Climate Change 

The National Debt-(which Medicare for all will add)

To name a few 

I am not stating healthcare is not important, but we are fighting against something the democrats built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not sure how you think we currently pay for healthcare, but the middle class is already paying, and on average they're paying about $20,000 a year for family coverage.  Paying a few thousand less than that is still a few thousand less regardless of whether we call it "insurance premiums" or "taxes".

I'm not sure how you've concluded that "it still won't be enough".  

Medicare for all is going to cost Trillions of dollars.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, luv2 said:

Medicare for all is going to cost Trillions of dollars.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Charles Blahous again?

Something from 2012 to read: 

 

More recent:

How a libertarian analyst inadvertently made a good case for Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All

Blahous focuses on the government share of total national health expenditures, which would more than double to about 95% from the current 45%. That would mean an increase in the federal budget of $32.6 trillion over the 10 years 2022-2031, which “by itself, is more than all federal individual and corporate income taxes projected to be collected during that period,” Blahous says. Pretty scary...

...   But as is often the case with analyses of single-payer costs, what Blahous leaves out is the other side of the ledger. This wouldn’t be an increase in healthcare spending, but a shift of funding from private pockets to the public purse. In fact, according to Blahous’ analysis, under Medicare for All overall U.S. spending on healthcare would be lower than currently projected in every year over the decade.

Taken all together, national health expenditures would total $57.6 trillion through 2031. They’re currently projected to be $59.7 trillion. In other words, Medicare for All would reduce total U.S. spending on healthcare by 3.44%. We asked Blahous to comment on the implications of his finding, but he didn’t reply...

...   In his paper, Blahous tries to conceal the implications of this figure by interpreting it as overall health expenditures remaining “virtually unchanged,” but this is merely an attempt at legerdemain. He skates over how much more Americans would get for their money under Medicare for All. As outlined by Sanders, health insurance would be provided for all Americans, including those currently uninsured. The government program would cover dental, vision and hearing care for everyone. Deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and other cost-sharing bills would be eliminated...

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-blahous-medicare-20180730-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, luv2 said:

Medicare for all is going to cost Trillions of dollars.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Again, I'm not clear what you think our healthcare system currently costs, but it already costs trillions of dollars.

Even using estimates from conservative groups like Mercatus, we would pay less under medicare for all.  Their estimate is that we would spend about $32 trillion over 10 years without medicare for all, compared to about $30 trillion under medicare for all.  And that doesn't include potential cost reductions by proactively reducing the need for our most costly care.

Your argument that we can't afford to pay $3 trillion a year so we should instead pay $3.2 trillion a year makes no sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, luv2 said:

Medicare for all is going to cost Trillions of dollars.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Well written blog. 

Health care costs are projected to be almost 20% of our GDP by 2027 while simultaneously bankrupting scores of our workers and their families.  We must change the trajectory and goals of our current fractured and poorly performing health system.  

When the country says that we don't have enough money to take care of the people and the infrastructure and support that they require but it has enough money for a wall, we are in trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

money to take care of the people and the infrastructure and support that they require but it has enough money for a wall, we are in trouble. 

We only have enough for a wall because we are robbing from money allocated to the defense department for improvements to military bases both in the US and overseas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nursej22 said:

We only have enough for a wall because we are robbing from money allocated to the defense department for improvements to military bases both in the US and overseas. 

Yes.  Notice how those men can find and move money for ridiculous and unnecessary things like a wall while millions of citizens die for lack of health care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INVESTOR-OWNED HOSPITALS are leading the fight against the creation of a comprehensive, universal health care system, according to corporate filings reviewed by MapLight and The Intercept.

Tenet Healthcare, the nation’s third-largest investor-owned operator of hospitals, has donated nearly $630,000 to the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, or PAHCF, a dark-money organization created last year to erode public support for Medicare for All, a government-run plan that would provide health care for all Americans.

PAHCF’s incorporation records list a lobbyist for the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade organization that represents Tenet and other investor-owned hospitals, as one of its authorized representatives...

...  In 2016, Tenet was fined $513 million as part of a non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice for allegedly paying illegal kickbacks to clinics in exchange for referrals of pregnant Medicaid patients. A decade earlier, the company entered into a $900 million settlement with federal regulators for overbilling Medicare...

 https://theintercept.com/2019/10/15/medicare-for-all-hospital-tenet/?link_id=7&can_id=4ede6423e423726bdee78262ebd4207b&source=email-re-report-documents-reveal-hospital-industry-is-leading-fight-against-medicare-for-all&email_referrer=email_665622&email_subject=re-report-documents-reveal-hospital-industry-is-leading-fight-against-medicare-for-all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×