Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

g5jamz

4 trillion dollars a year for Medicare for All

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Okay republican antitrumper he was talking about medicare FOR ALL.  Which is a replacement of employer and individual insurance and would absorb current medicare. 

Not sure what your exact issue is - Medicare for all is obviously going to cost a great deal more then current medicare spending and be a huge part of federal spending. That is a given.

 

Two different statements. I posted the Medicare costs to rustle your jimmies. 

The serious note, is there are 100’s of factors including the obvious stock market crash that would have to be offset with bonds. Plus the fact we are heading straight into another recession.

Employment is another huge concern of mine personally but I see actual job growth to offset all the overseas stuff private companies use. If there are enough qualified people.

Is private health insurance banned completely? How do you offset high risk jobs. 

Every single metric, every single study, every single piece of data would have to be redone. 

Are you going to force a cap on pharma prices, how are you going to equate for their net profit loss that will be pushed onto employees and hundreds of thousands probably losing their job. 

Are you going to cap doctor prices? How will you deal with their pushback, what will be incentive based.

How are you going to compensate Unions? Employers who actually went above and beyond the call of duty?

I could go on and on and on, because they are all relevant questions I don’t feel like ANY candidate as truly considers fully, much less citizens. 

But the biggest question in the room, how are you going to get that past congress and the American people, and the corporations since Obamacare was actually such a big poo. Not to mention a conservative supreme court.

As somebody mentioned the centrists are actually doing it the right way to force private insurance to offer a better product for the general public. Without just going in guns blazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


18 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Now add in current medicare (part A and B) spending over the next decade.

 

Edit - Add also in Medicaid.

 

 

That’s only if you account for inflation. Which would be 1/4 of the entire budget. 

Edited by Harbingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Two different statements. I posted the Medicare costs to rustle your jimmies. 

The serious note, is there are 100’s of factors including the obvious stock market crash that would have to be offset with bonds. Plus the fact we are heading straight into another recession.

Employment is another huge concern of mine personally but I see actual job growth to offset all the overseas stuff private companies use. If there are enough qualified people.

Is private health insurance banned completely? How do you offset high risk jobs. 

Every single metric, every single study, every single piece of data would have to be redone. 

Are you going to force a cap on pharma prices, how are you going to equate for their net profit loss that will be pushed onto employees and hundreds of thousands probably losing their job. 

Are you going to cap doctor prices? How will you deal with their pushback, what will be incentive based.

How are you going to compensate Unions? Employers who actually went above and beyond the call of duty?

I could go on and on and on, because they are all relevant questions I don’t feel like ANY candidate as truly considers fully, much less citizens. 

But the biggest question in the room, how are you going to get that past congress and the American people, and the corporations since Obamacare was actually such a big poo. Not to mention a conservative supreme court.

As somebody mentioned the centrists are actually doing it the right way to force private insurance to offer a better product for the general public. Without just going in guns blazing.

If only there was some analysis out there that went in depth to most of these questions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cookinwithgas said:

Maybe we should wait and see if any other countries try this stuff first, you know, just to be safe.

Perhaps.. we could look at things like reimbursement costs.  Perhaps we can know current medicare reimbursement rates and how this would blend with a cut to private reimbursement rates and calculate the costs to make sure hospitals and physicans operate in the black.  Perhaps we can put that into projections of costs..

But hey..someone on a football message board says these things werent looked into so perhaps all the data out there from experts is wrong.

 

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Perhaps.. we could look at things like reimbursement costs.  Perhaps we can know current medicare reimbursement rates and how this would blend with a cut to private reimbursement rates and calculate the costs to make sure hospitals and physicans operate in the black.  Perhaps we can put that into projections of costs..

But hey..someone on a football message board says these things werent looked into so perhaps all the data out there from experts is wrong.

 

 

Can you post a study on each of those subjects. Lets find out ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Can you post a study on each of those subjects. Lets find out ;)

 

19 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Can you post a study on each of those subjects. Lets find out ;)

RAND is a good place w/ Jayapal proposal factored in. 

Kff has also done work along this line. 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a RAND study:

m4a-changes-category.svg
 

Table 1. Medicare for All: Changes in U.S. Health Care Spending, 2019 (in Billions)

Spending Category National Health Expenditure Accounts, 2019 (Status Quo) RAND Medicare for All Estimate, 2019
Total National Health Expenditure (in billions) 3,823.1 3,891.9
Out of pocket 396.9 66.1
Private health insurance 1,278.2 0
Medicare 800.1 0
Medicaid 623.4 0
Other health insurance programs* 148.8 81.0
Other third-party payers** 575.5 506.2
Medicare for All 0 3,238.7

*Other health insurance programs include CHIP, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We assume that the VA is preserved under the single-payer system.

** Other third-party payers included here are worksite health care; other private revenues; the Indian Health Service; workers’ compensation; general assistance; maternal and child health; vocational rehabilitation; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; other state, local, and federal programs; school health; public health activities; and investment in research, structures, and equipment. We assume that the Indian Health Service, workers’ compensation, private revenues, worksite health care, vocational rehabilitation, school health, government public health activities, and investment would be maintained outside of the single-payer system.

NOTES: Totals may not sum due to rounding; NHEA = National Health Expenditure Accounts.

m4a-changes-sector.svg
 

Table 3. Changes to Federal, State and Local, and Private Spending on Health Care, 2019, Medicare for All, in Billions

  National Health Expenditure Accounts, 2019 (Status Quo) RAND Medicare for All Estimate, 2019 (Federal government does not recoup any state and lcoal spending)
Federal government* 1,090.0 3,498.7
State and local government** 638.0 0
Business, households, and other private*** 2,095.0 393.2
Total National Health Expenditure Projection (in billions) 3,823.1 3,891.9

Federal health spending in the status quo includes spending on Medicaid, Medicare, other programs (maternal and child health, CHIP, vocational rehabilitation, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Indian Health Service, federal workers' compensation, other federal programs, public health activities, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, research, structures and equipment, and Marketplace premium tax credits), employer contributions to private health insurance premiums, and employer payroll taxes paid to the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund.

State and local health spending in the status quo includes spending on Medicaid, other programs (state phase-down payments, maternal and child health, public and general assistance, CHIP, vocational rehabilitation, other state and local programs, public health activities, research, and structures and equipment), employer contributions to private health insurance premiums, and employer payroll taxes paid to the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund.

Business, households, and other private spending under Medicare for All includes out-of-pocket spending on services and products not covered by the Medicare for All plan, workers’ compensation reimbursements to the Medicare for All plan, other private revenue (e.g., philanthropy, institutions’ gift shops, cafeterias, parking lots), worksite health care, school health, and private investment in research, structures, and equipment. Tax payments to finance the spending by the federal government are not shown.

NOTES: Totals may not sum due to rounding; NHEA = National Health Expenditure Accounts.

Although, on average, we assume payment levels would be the same as they are in the status quo in 2019, providers’ willingness and ability to provide health care services—including the additional care required by the newly insured and those benefiting from lower cost sharing—would most likely be limited. The extent and distribution of unmet care would depend on providers’ payer mix under current law and their responses to Medicare for All payment levels. For example, some providers may elect to not participate in a Medicare for All plan (and instead enter in private contracts with individuals, an arrangement permitted in some single-payer bills), providers may alter when they retire, and potential medical students and trainees could change their career choices. As a result, some patients might experience longer wait times for care or face unmet needs.

RAND’s Health Care Payment and Delivery Simulation Model (PADSIM) accounts for how providers’ supply of services might respond to changes in payment (White et al., 2016). In our analysis of the NYHA, which included similar assumptions to those described above regarding how payment would change under a single-payer plan, PADSIM estimated that the supply of physician and hospital services would adjust such that unmet demand would approximately equal 50 percent of the new demand. We apply this 50 percent factor to our utilization estimates for 2019 to account for supply constraints in the current analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, we considered how the results would change if this supply constraint were alleviated

-

  • Commercial insurers pay 167 percent of the Medicare rate for hospital services and 125 percent of the Medicare rate for physician services (American Hospital Association, 2018; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012).
  • Medicare and Medicaid pay roughly the same rates for hospital care, and Medicaid reimburses physicians at 72 percent of the Medicare payment, on average (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016). 

Given these assumptions, we estimate that the all-payer average rate under the Medicare for All plan in 2019 would be 124 percent of current Medicare rates for hospital payments and 107 percent of current Medicare rates for physician payment. In the absence of better data, we assume that reimbursement for other services, such as dental services, home health, and nursing care would resemble reimbursement for physician services. Across all provider types, these estimates yield a blended average payment rate of 109 percent of current Medicare rates3. In general, these assumptions imply that payment would increase for services currently covered by public payers and decrease for services currently covered by private payers. 

 

 

---

 

Now yes the research puts costs slightly above total 2019 costs but health care inflation would be more controlled and short term care would rise but long term fall in subsequent years - leaving a savings over the next decade. Or at the very least cost neutral.   Which is amazing considering that 9% of our population that is currently uninsured becomes insured.

 

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html

Edited by Fryfan
  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if my personal cost went up by 9% but literally everyone in the country was covered, I'd be happy about paying that extra 9%. Knowing people won't go bankrupt because of medical costs and poor kids can get their meds...yeah I'm all for that.

  • Pie 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, g5jamz said:

Sanders person claims Kamala Harris will pay for her M4A with unicorns?

So, you start a thread hoping to elicit some response from the critical thinkers on this board, who quickly debunk what Fox News told you to believe.

And this is what you come back with- no facts, no evidence, no support. Instead, you opt for saying stupid sh!t because you can't argue policy, facts or reason. Well done, just like Trump himself. He'd be proud of you. 

  • Pie 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

So, you start a thread hoping to elicit some response from the critical thinkers on this board, who quickly debunk what Fox News told you to believe.

And this is what you come back with- no facts, no evidence, no support. Instead, you opt for saying stupid sh!t because you can't argue policy, facts or reason. Well done, just like Trump himself. He'd be proud of you. 

Why you can ignore the context of what the sanders advisor was actually saying.

 

--

“But what I’m saying is, is there a way, as Senator Harris seems to think there is, to do this without middle class Americans pay more?” Jackson asked.

“Without unicorns, magic wands – health care’s not free,” Weaver said. “There’s doctors, nurses who have to be paid, hospitals – you have to pay for it.”

“People will be paying less under Medicare for All than they’re paying now, and that’s the point,” he added.

“So, you think Senator Harris’s plan is not realistic?” Jackson asked.

“I do not know how you fund health care for everybody in America without paying for it,” Weaver responded.

 

--

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right wingers in this thread have no problem blowing up the deficit and reckless spending when it pays for endless war and rockets no one can use or if rich people benefit needlessly, but healthcare is a bridge too far. I mean, you guys literally only want taxes to go towards bad poo lol. Imagine being you. 

  • Pie 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g5jamz said:

Sanders person claims Kamala Harris will pay for her M4A with unicorns?

No different than right wingers thinking the government shouldn't involve itself in healthcare or providing for the less fortunate because the church will cover it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...