LINK Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. trillions – ThinkProgress
An estimated cost of $32.6 trillion over 10 years is less than the US would spend over the next 10 years under the current system.
...
When we talk about a Medicare for All system, it’s important to discuss the costs in the context of what the U.S. already spends on health care. As of 2016, national health expenditures — which includes federal spending, state Medicaid programs, and private employer health care spending — totaled $3.3 trillion per year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
That means that over the next decade, the U.S. is projected to spend more than $33 trillion, plus inflation, on health care services without any changes to our current health care system, significantly more than Mercatus’s estimated $32.6 trillion cost to the federal government over the next ten years.
12
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Even Sanders says the Koch Brothers are misleading people here. What they do is generalize savings under the program (and the savings are great), but spread fear to individuals by claiming they would be taxed enormously. They are trying to get the public to dislike the plan. Sadly, Dems alike are saying the same thing.
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
July 31, 2018
1
It couldn't possibly be a higher tax than the premiums I'm paying. If I could be paid what I get in benefits right now, and then just be taxed say $500/month for universal health care, I'd still be about $600 ahead.
@Paul4747 Yeah, it's ridiculous.
You could double everyone's taxes and still not afford it.
Netochka
Level 5
July 31, 2018
1
both systems.
Boy, are you out of the loop!
@ezwryder it tells me that what you claim is not accurate.
@DeeTee Canada has a lower population than California, each person spends about $7000 on coverage, and it doesn't cover any prescription medication. Also Canadian medical innovations are rather lacking.
OH so this is why Trumpster is tweeting nastiness toward the Koch Brothers.
It makes total sense to have this in place but health care and big pharma have lots of lobbying money to keep congress from doing anything to dismantle the current system. And let's face it Congress has nothing to gain by allowing this to happen. They have the best health care that American tax payer money can buy. And if the gov't ends up spending more by keeping the sytem as is rather than single payer system, why should congress care - they will just pare down even more social programs to save money while keeping pharma and health care lobbying dollars in their pockets.
AmelieMatisse
Level 8
July 31, 2018
3
Medicare for all has always made sense. The big problem is no one is going to get rich from it. Thats not American...at least not the capitalist way. All those health insurance policy's, gone. All the paperwork, mostly gone. All the family's, savings, car, home, job, etc. when one member gets a major illness, not gone. The way it is now, you would give everything to have your kid or whomever, well again. The Corporate Goons know this and take all they can before they tell you to just pray. Dissect profit from health care, it's way cheaper and humane.
IzMark
Level 4
July 31, 2018
6
I'm on disability, and for now that gets me medicare A, and B,plus medicade. They take $100 out my check for that, but I don't mind, it's WAY cheaper than trying to get other health insurance.
Although, I am very nervous that Trump might take that away.
I won't be able to live if that happens.
TristanNuvo
Level 8
July 31, 2018
3
Sanders laid most of this out repeatedly during his campaign. He explained how universal health care and free college education could both be covered and we'd still save money.
The right AND the left kept calling his ideas fantastic and unrealistic. It saddens me that our political spectrum considers something other countries already do "fantasy" and claims that the movement for treating its citizens better is "progressive". The GOP and the Dems are bought and paid for by large corporations.
We now have the GOP on the right, the Dems in the center, and Progressives on the left, without party representation.
mattersauce
Level 7
July 31, 2018
4
I for one never called his health care ideas unrealistic.
I found his "worker owned cooperatives" ideas a little on the loony side. I don't like his protectionist trade ideas or his plans to essentially expose the Fed to political pressures. And I really dislike his backing of banning guns that look scary ("assault weapons", which they aren't).
But if he had won the nomination, I would have voted for him and counted on Republicans to block any gun ban legislation, exactly as happened with Obama, who didn't even suggest a renewal of the Brady bill. (That's basically the only use I have for Republicans anymore.)
@Paul4747 Well I'm glad you're starting to see the light. As far as the gun ban legislation goes, it's okay you don't have to like kids.
@mattersauce
No need to be that way. I'm not in the NRA, I support registration, professional training, and extensive background checks before anyone can be licensed to own guns of any sort. And closing the private transaction loophole is a vital step.
The point is that the kind of gun doesn't matter to a person (using the term loosely) who wants to commit a mass killing. Ban one, he will use another. Ban them all, he'll use a bomb. And there are currently so many legal "assault weapons" out there now, that you would criminalize thousands of law-abiding gun owners and collectors overnight, for the actions of a very very few psychotic individuals. You would prove the very predictions that the far right have been making for years were true. I'm determined that they should not be. Liberals are not "gun-grabbers".
@Paul4747 Very well said, I apologize about my flippant remarks.
In the vision you've outlined I would still have concerns, but I feel like you've described a very significant step and one that may in fact resolve the issue. Once it was in place I'd continue to review the data on current events, compare to other countries, and refine my assessment but I'd happily accept what you've described as a worthy compromise.
@mattersauce
Thank you. I would want to watch the data unfold as well, and if more needed to be done, I would want it done. And thank you for your words.
Just to be clear, I supported Brady, and I'm not against a renewed import ban. But these things have to be done at the federal level, so that gun owners have a rational standard and know whether they're complying with the law no matter what state they're in.
The majority of gun owners are "law-abiding libertarians" (I just invented that)- we want better background checks, we want to keep guns away from criminals, and we want to own our guns as the manufacturer intended them. Not automatic weapons, just something that reminds us of our service or something to keep us and our families safe.
Know why I carry? Because average response time to a 911 call is 11 minutes. That's a long long time in a crisis situation.
The findings aren’t surprising, who conducted the study is what is surprising.
ThisIsPatrick
Level 6
July 31, 2018
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.