Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost added $32.6 trillion

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't understand how other countries are able to deliver healthcare so cheaply for more people with better outcomes. It just doesn't make any sense. We should study what other countries do.

a reply to: dfnj2015



PROFIT and lot of it

a reply to: neo96

No one has said this should be "Free". If Canada can do this for under 1/2 the cost and cover everyone. Why cant the US? Should the US come in second on something like this?

And no, everyone does not have access to health care/pharm. Obama could have fixed this, but he screwed the pooch.

We all know this is about $$$. Not care.

Single-Payer Advocates in Congress Double Down With Medicare for All Caucus

When Medicare was created 53 years ago this month, it was over the objections of Ronald Reagan. On behalf of the American Medical Association, Reagan warned that should Medicare become law, it would lead to “a mechanism for national health insurance capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.”

More than five decades of frustration later, advocates are still fighting to make Reagan’s “nightmare” of universal health care a reality. The recent formation of the Medicare for All Caucus by House progressives could prove to be an important development in this pursuit, according to members and advocates who introduced the new caucus at a press conference on July 19.

“We are united today by a common conviction that health care is a human right,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal during the launch. “One of the best ways to ensure health care for all is to use the system that already exists for millions of seniors [in] Medicare.”

Jayapal founded the new caucus with Reps. Debbie Dingell and Keith Ellison. The caucus had 66 founding members at the 10 am press conference, but by midday that number was 70, according to a list provided to Truthout by Dingell’s office.

truthout.org...

"The California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, Public Citizen, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Health Care-Now, Our Revolution and other organizations were also supportive.
“For the first time ever, we have a congressional caucus that is committed to achieving Medicare for All,” said Martese Chism, a registered nurse and board member of the California Nurses Association, who spoke at the launch."

a reply to: theantediluvian

The study's findings would be additional costs.

originally posted by: atsgrounded
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And if the temp keeps rising as it did this morning, by friday it will be 250 degrees in the northern part of the US. Silly.


If medicare for all was put in place and used a Canadian model there would be strict pricing similar to other industrialized countries.

Would there be a glut of people wanting knees and hips replaced? Yup. We have a failed system now. It will collapse no one can keep paying 2 mortgages. One for the home and the other for piss poor insurance coverage. It will fail because it has to.

From the same article.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.

same source

We can get the sick and poor to pay for it kinda like how mexico will pay for our wall.

personally i do not mind what they come up with for an answer as long as i am not forced to pay another unconstitutional tax for simply existing.

i do not see that the ss tax has been a burden in my life and i could easily pay double or triple the amount.

if i were in charge i would set the labor tax to be non existant up to 100$ a day. Every persons is worthy of not having their labor taxed and anything beyond 100 a day is really just profit and is taxable. Now if we could make that 100$ a day tax free then we could pay more into ss voluntary and possibly get some health care.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Health insurance is a scam. We need to get rid of it anyway.

Exactly. They don't actually provide a service and yet they're making record profits. The whole health insurance business model is take money from people and then find ways to not give that money back when they need it.

It gets even more ridiculous when you realize it is the insurance companies, not the actual healthcare providers, that set prices. Take pharmacy as an example. No pharmacy can exist just dispensing medication. The insurance companies pocket all the profits and the pharmacy operates at a loss.

Health insurance companies are the definition of capitalism run amok. It's ridiculous how many people have bought in to their narrative that they are an essential part of society when they don't actually do anything.

Could someone who is a laissez-faire capitalist please explain to me what prevents the hospitals now from charging $1000 to dispense one dose of aspirin?

And what if the people who own the hospital also own the healthcare administration company. Then the hospitals can charge whatever they want and raise premiums every year around 20%. It sure feels like there is a cartel here controlling the market.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It gets even more ridiculous when you realize it is the insurance companies, not the actual healthcare providers, that set prices. Take pharmacy as an example. No pharmacy can exist just dispensing medication. The insurance companies pocket all the profits and the pharmacy operates at a loss.

You're saying healthcare providers don't set their own costs?

And pharmacies operate at a loss?

I think the healthcare system needs serious addressing, but I don't think you are representing the truth in that post.

Why would pharmacies exist if they don't make money?

Exactly. They don't actually provide a service and yet they're making record profits.

Also, can you show me where they are making more than home or auto insurance companies?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

3.2 Trillion (2015) X 10 (next 10 years) =32 trillion. Grant money please.

Annual U.S. Healthcare Spending Hits $3.8 Trillion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/#24b12d7e76a9

a reply to: atsgrounded

Medicare works by one government program paying for another government program.

The premiums that people pay do NOT cover the expense.

I don't give a flying eff what Canada or any other country does.

Free Market.

No state monopolies.

a reply to: neo96

What we have now is a monopoly!

originally posted by: atsgrounded
a reply to: CriticalStinker

3.2 Trillion X 10 =32 trillion. Grant money please.

Annual U.S. Healthcare Spending Hits $3.8 Trillion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/#24b12d7e76a9

Can you elaborate on your point in that post?

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Everyone will be "TRAPPED" in that system, as the premiums increase year, after year, after year.

ObamaCare has been torturing millions of Americans like that for 5 years now.

It's tragic.

You pay the most for your healthcare and only get 37th place in the world for your health system.
So it doesn't need changing eh?.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

What we have now is a monopoly!

That the US government has.

No single private insurance company has a trillion dollar revenue stream from FORCED TAXATION.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No, INCREASED spending. Double what we have now.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

What we have now is a monopoly!

How? The only way you could say it's a monopoly is because the ACA punishes you if you don't consume a product.

Honestly, a truly universal healthcare system would crash Wall St. big time.

Do you think that there are enough daytraders, 401K investment firms, mutual fund investors, etc that keeps the market afloat and humming along? Insurance companies and banks are the two largest segments of stock market investors. Part of your monthly premiums are used to gamble away in the market to make money to pay salaries, bonuses and actual medical care bills. Instability within the market causes less to be gambled as well as massive upticks in medical care by their clients. Banks do the exact same same thing with client deposits.

When banks and insurance companies play too much on the margins, market goes down until those books are balanced and paid...kinda like a mafia styled loan shark operation. Because the market is the litmus to economic health, removing a major player’s money is going to tank the economy until the adjustments and corrections filter through.

So are the insanely higher premiums due to just wanting more money to play with? Yes and no. Obamacare was done to force stock market stability to avoid the Depression post 2008, but their was too much uncertainty with the underwriters as to how many new clients would need or use substantial amounts of care. Banks did their part by investing interest free loans into the market and paid them off quickly after a 300%-500% profit off the recovering market.