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.
Originally posted by @whodeyA 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!!!!
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.
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.
Originally posted by @no1marauderI'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.
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.
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
Originally posted by @sh76It's all good, it's just monopoly money! 😵
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
But really, who cares? I mean, health care is a natural right, right? So if it destroys the country economically so be it.
Originally posted by @sh76If 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.
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
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.
Originally posted by @sh76It'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
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
By 2032, the federal budget is almost certain to double anyway.
Originally posted by @whodeySanders 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
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.
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.
Originally posted by @whodeyWorth 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by @kingdavid403A 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.
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!!!!
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.
Originally posted by @whodeyBollocks.
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.
Originally posted by @mghrn55Define healthcare. Where do you draw the line between necessary and unnecessary.
Are you suggesting health care is not a natural right ?
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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYeah... no other country’s been able to make that distinction...
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.
A boob job to look better?
A boob job to minimize strain on the back?
It’s rocket science!