Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Jul '18 16:521 edit
    https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-federal-cost-33-trillion-study-23251fc1-1888-4d4b-964d-21cacf703bf1.html


    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a libertarian policy center at George Mason University, projects that progressive Democrats' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

    Why it matters: The study concludes that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not be enough to cover the added costs of the plan.


    The backdrop: Democrats intend to make health care a central issue in the 2018 midterms and progressive candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have been running on "Medicare for All."

    What they're saying: Sen. Bernie Sanders, a key backer of the "Medicare for All" proposal, called the study "grossly misleading and biased" in a statement and cited the Mercatus Center's funding from the Koch political network, per Fox News:

    "If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same."

    Worth noting: All told, "Medicare for All" would actually slightly reduce the total amount we pay for health care. But the plan would increase the share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.
  2. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    142689
    30 Jul '18 17:104 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-federal-cost-33-trillion-study-23251fc1-1888-4d4b-964d-21cacf703bf1.html


    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a libertarian policy center at George Mason University, projects that progressive Democrats' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

    Why it matters ...[text shortened]... share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.
    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a Rand Paul Tea Party libertarian policy center says $32.6 trillion over 10 years. I say complete BS. Is that what Canada pays? Is that what England pays? Is that what the UK pays? Is that what all three pay together? NO! BS all the way around. That's over 30% more than the $700 billion we pay every year on our military budget. Complete LIES AND FALSE WITNESS BS!!!!
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jul '18 17:26
    If present trends continue with a rise in health care costs of about 5% a year, we'll be spending $5.7 trillion a year on health care (an increase from the $3.7 trillion we pay now) in just 8 years. A plan that actually decreases overall health care spending seems certainly prudent.

    And close to 2/3 of that is already publicly funded:

    Tax-funded expenditures accounted for 64.3 percent of U.S. health spending – about $1.9 trillion – in 2013, according to new data published today [Thursday, Jan. 21] in the American Journal of Public Health. The Affordable Care Act will push that figure even higher by 2024, when government’s share of U.S. health spending is expected to rise to 67.3 percent.

    At $5,960 per capita, government spending on health care costs in the U.S. was the highest of any nation in 2013, including countries with universal health programs such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom. (Estimated total U.S. health spending for 2013 was $9,267 per capita, with government’s share being $5,960.) Indeed, government health spending in the United States exceeded total health spending (government plus private) in every other country except Switzerland.

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-health-care-costs-american-journal-of-pub

    So it's hard to see how something that reduces overall costs in a system already heavily reliant on public funding would really force taxes to be more than doubled.
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    30 Jul '18 17:49
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    If present trends continue with a rise in health care costs of about 5% a year, we'll be spending $5.7 trillion a year on health care (an increase from the $3.7 trillion we pay now) in just 8 years. A plan that actually decreases overall health care spending seems certainly prudent.

    And close to 2/3 of that is already publicly funded:

    Tax-funded e ...[text shortened]... stem already heavily reliant on public funding would really force taxes to be more than doubled.
    I'd have to read the paper carefully to spot any dubious methodology or assumptions, but it's conclusion does amount to roughly doubling the federal budget.

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Jul '18 17:50
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I'd have to read the paper carefully to spot any dubious methodology or assumptions, but it's conclusion does amount to roughly doubling the federal budget.

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
    It's all good, it's just monopoly money! 😵

    But really, who cares? I mean, health care is a natural right, right? So if it destroys the country economically so be it.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jul '18 18:064 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I'd have to read the paper carefully to spot any dubious methodology or assumptions, but it's conclusion does amount to roughly doubling the federal budget.

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
    If health care costs rise by 5% a year until 2032, they will more than double by 2032 hitting close to 7.7 trillion. So the government will be paying close to $5 trillion a year if nothing is done.

    EDIT: A quick glance shows about a $1 trillion yearly underestimate of health care costs from 2022 on largely because it expects health care costs to minimally rise (about 1% a year) from now until the end of 2022.
  7. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138630
    30 Jul '18 18:16
    Originally posted by @whodey
    It's all good, it's just monopoly money! 😵

    But really, who cares? I mean, health care is a natural right, right? So if it destroys the country economically so be it.
    Are you suggesting health care is not a natural right ?
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jul '18 18:26
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I'd have to read the paper carefully to spot any dubious methodology or assumptions, but it's conclusion does amount to roughly doubling the federal budget.

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
    It's also a bit misleading; our economy is going to be growing as will the federal budget. The CBO estimates outlays will be over $7 trillion by 2028 which is already a 70% increase over 2018 estimates. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf

    By 2032, the federal budget is almost certain to double anyway.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jul '18 19:22
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-federal-cost-33-trillion-study-23251fc1-1888-4d4b-964d-21cacf703bf1.html


    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a libertarian policy center at George Mason University, projects that progressive Democrats' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

    Why it matters ...[text shortened]... share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.
    Sanders proposed a number of possible different funding sources for "Medicare for All". https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

    Some are based on capturing part of the savings that employers and workers would get from not having to pay health insurance premiums and costs; some are tax the rich plans.
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Jul '18 20:46
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-federal-cost-33-trillion-study-23251fc1-1888-4d4b-964d-21cacf703bf1.html


    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a libertarian policy center at George Mason University, projects that progressive Democrats' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

    Why it matters ...[text shortened]... share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.
    Worth noting: All told, "Medicare for All" would actually slightly reduce the total amount we pay for health care. But the plan would increase the share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.

    Gee, really? Thanks for that, Sherlock.

    The overall cost would go down, meaning that any sort of argument along the lines of "we can't afford it" is moronic... which happens to be the argument you are citing. Oops.
  11. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22171
    30 Jul '18 22:05
    I'm curious.

    How many industrialized nations in the world have gone bankrupt because they've offered their citizens free universal health care?
  12. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19426
    30 Jul '18 23:20
    Originally posted by @kingdavid403
    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a Rand Paul Tea Party libertarian policy center says $32.6 trillion over 10 years. I say complete BS. Is that what Canada pays? Is that what England pays? Is that what the UK pays? Is that what all three pay together? NO! BS all the way around. That's over 30% more than the $700 billion we pay every year on our military budget. Complete LIES AND FALSE WITNESS BS!!!!
    A certainly interesting discussion, though, would be how the global pharmaceutical and medical supply companies would be affected by a massive consumer switching to a more European model.

    As it stands, I believe that Medicare is routinely ripped off, along with the American consumer, and this largely enables the cheaper prices abroad.

    I don't know enough about the market, though, but it's safe to assume that if the Americans did get a fair system, it'd affect a lot of other things.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56327
    31 Jul '18 04:53
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.axios.com/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-federal-cost-33-trillion-study-23251fc1-1888-4d4b-964d-21cacf703bf1.html


    A new study from the Mercatus Center, a libertarian policy center at George Mason University, projects that progressive Democrats' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years.

    Why it matters ...[text shortened]... share of that cost paid through taxes, rather than through insurance premiums or out of pocket.
    Bollocks.
  14. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    31 Jul '18 05:34
    Originally posted by @mghrn55
    Are you suggesting health care is not a natural right ?
    Define healthcare. Where do you draw the line between necessary and unnecessary.

    And before you flippantly answer with "all healthcare is necessary," keep in mind that the government WILL draw the line somewhere. People with the fewest QALYs go to the back of the line.
  15. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56327
    31 Jul '18 06:41
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Define healthcare. Where do you draw the line between necessary and unnecessary.

    And before you flippantly answer with "all healthcare is necessary," keep in mind that the government WILL draw the line somewhere. People with the fewest QALYs go to the back of the line.
    Yeah... no other country’s been able to make that distinction...

    A boob job to look better?
    A boob job to minimize strain on the back?

    It’s rocket science!
Back to Top