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

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

Simple: Don't allow hospitals to charge $20 for a paracetamol!

You don't even need to make the healthcare service public, you just need to make it affordable. A 100% markup on COST price is enough for the majority of retailers. Why is it not enough for US medical institutions ?

If the cost of drugs and medical fees went down to a level that was acceptable, than insurance costs would go down to a level that most could afford regardless of their income. Of course that also means in return folk not claiming on their insurance for every period pain or tummy bug (no claims bonus).

Great article on the inflated costs Here

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
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?

In my pharmacy we have been barely keeping our head above water. Most times we are lucky to make any money on an rx......just today we had 200 rxs, and my margin was 10%.....that isnt even enough for payroll.

If you are only making a 10% profit on drugs then something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the pharmaceutical supply chain in the US. How can other countries get branded medicine so reasonable ?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Your comment regarding the infant who got denied treatment is absolutely incorrect and you should have double checked this before stating such an inflammatory statement. It is unfortunately typical of those who exclaim "death panels!" to support their argument when none exist. He was not denied treatment because of any financial reasons, he was denied treatment because he was dying, there was no treatment which could cure him or prevent his symptoms getting worse overall, plus there was every likelihood that he was suffering. This decision was based not on any costs, it was based on evidence provided by the medical teams treating him and the Judges agreed that it was in the best interest of the child that he should be allowed to slip away. To suggest otherwise is incredibly misleading.

I'm really not sure why healthcare is such a difficult concept to solve. The US have insurance companies who are designed to make as much profit as they possibly can. To do this they charge you a fortune and wherever possible, refuse to pay out. Throw in the fact that it costs you fortune in admin costs because everyone is assessed.. it's no wonder you all pay more than anywhere else. As a nation you are incredibly unhealthy and getting worse, you have a culture of suing for whatever you can so BANG! your healthcare is expensive. From what I have read on here regarding this issue many, many, many times, there seems to be little interest in sharing the costs of healthcare around equally. It's more a case of "Ill look after myself and they can look after themselves" and frankly, that is not a healthy viewpoint. Guess what, sometimes people just can't afford to pay for things. Not because they are lazy, but because maybe they are ill, or can't find a well paying job, or countless other reason. But if you all paid an equal % of your salary towards healthcare, take out the PROFIT aspect and you'd have a better system than you do now. If you don't want to fine, continue with your system while the rest of the civilised world looks on bewildered at why you persevere with it when so many others work better.

originally posted by: TheResidentAlien

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

Simple: Don't allow hospitals to charge $20 for a paracetamol!

You don't even need to make the healthcare service public, you just need to make it affordable. A 100% markup on COST price is enough for the majority of retailers. Why is it not enough for US medical institutions ?

If the cost of drugs and medical fees went down to a level that was acceptable, than insurance costs would go down to a level that most could afford regardless of their income. Of course that also means in return folk not claiming on their insurance for every period pain or tummy bug (no claims bonus).

Great article on the inflated costs Here

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
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?

In my pharmacy we have been barely keeping our head above water. Most times we are lucky to make any money on an rx......just today we had 200 rxs, and my margin was 10%.....that isnt even enough for payroll.

If you are only making a 10% profit on drugs then something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the pharmaceutical supply chain in the US. How can other countries get branded medicine so reasonable ?

Hospitals are trying to make up the losses from the masses that don't pay anything for medical care. So what happens is they charge exorbitant costs to those that can pay.

Think about your typical urban hospital. Here in Chicago, University of Chicago just opened a trauma ward on the southside of Chicago. The ghetto hoodrats started complaining that there wasn't a trauma center close by and all the gun shot victims had to go Stroger Hospital further away.

Let that sink in for a minute. No one stops to ask them to stop killing each other over petty BS, but instead wants a hospital to spend tens of millions of dollars to build out a trauma ward. You know a small percentage of people who actually use this trauma center will have insurance or means to pay for it. As a result, those of us that use U of Chicago for other medical needs will see inflated costs to makeup for the losses.

One of the biggest issues with healthcare is that the vast majority of the costs are generated by a very small percentage of people. Unfortunately, it is also people often times who are in no position to pay.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grey580
No more $50 dollar tylenols.

Pretty much sums it up. There's no way to extend universal health care when the medical industry makes a killing(pun intended), Big Pharm makes a killing and insurance companies make a killing.

Right, like the time I went to the doctor for a broken finger. After X-rays and doing nothing but put a plastic splint over it, they charged me $500.

What a bargain you got! Just to walk in to the E.R. here in Chicago costs $800. They have a big sign saying, If You Don't Have $800 (Cash/CCard/No Checks) Please Go Elsewhere. Thank-you.

Oh yeah, this was in Tucson AZ which is very cheap overall. I bet here in NYC it would be much more.

I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

It may be that we cannot provide decent quality healthcare for all at current costs, even with lowering costs of healthcare.

The key must be to include strong preventive education in public education, from independently audited nutritionists and personal trainers not bought by industry. This would make most of the population healthy and square their healthspan, compressing morbidity to just a few months or years at end of life instead of decades of expensive care. Healthy individual would only require at most a simple check up throughout most of their lives.

Drug research should also be financed by government and licensed to various companies to compete in the market place. That would reduce the justifications to ridiculous profit from ultra expensive drugs.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "

ABC

OK, but right now the average American spends 10k per person on Healthcare per year.
That is 3.2 Trillion annually.
And assumes no lowering of costs that naturally accompany single payer efficiencies.

Please explain how this isn't a cost savings no matter how you slice it?

And BTW - Free market healthcare still exists in single payer. People can always pay extra for the best surgeon in field X, or a specialist in unusual treatment etc. etc.

originally posted by: Xenogears
I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

Wait times are a function of number of doctors or specialists.

Sweden and the UK and bunch of other countries with "Socialized Medicine" actually have lower wait times than the US.

Wait times in the US can suck for a specialist and same-day appointments with GPs are non-existent in populated areas of the US.

Just saying that wait times and socialized medicine are not correlated.
Number of Doctors in a region is.

Even more....

health policy experts and co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler argued that even the "whopping" $2 trillion in savings projected by the Koch-backed study vastly overstates the costs of implementing Medicare for All and "grossly" understates the savings that would result.

and...

According to an analysis by David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler viewed by The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Zaid Jilani,

the Mercatus Center's "report undercounts administrative savings by more than $8.3 trillion over 10 years. Taking those savings into account would lower Blahous's estimate from $32.6 trillion to $24.3 trillion."

www.commondreams.org...

For more detail information:

www.pnhp.org...

And yet more...

theintercept.com...

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xenogears
I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

Wait times are a function of number of doctors or specialists.

Sweden and the UK and bunch of other countries with "Socialized Medicine" actually have lower wait times than the US.

Wait times in the US can suck for a specialist and same-day appointments with GPs are non-existent in populated areas of the US.

Just saying that wait times and socialized medicine are not correlated.
Number of Doctors in a region is.

We cannot significantly lower the requirements for being a Doctor, lower their income by reducing costs, and those capable of becoming Good Doctors will be disincentivized from taking this route reducing the number of Doctors. Same goes for specialists, if their effort is not properly rewarded they will be disincentivized and the number of them will be reduced by individual choice.

Also remember you're competing with other nations, if someone would make far higher doing the same elsewhere why stay? At the same time the near million dollar salaries top specialists can command would be difficult to scale up to pay for such to have wide availability, and remain in country.

Also, some places with public healthcare ration out the healthcare offered to their patients.

a reply to: TheResidentAlien


If Health Insurance was removed, and everyone had to pay cash, the cost of medical care would lower, to match the reduced amount of funding available. But, the best doctors would only work with the well-to-do. That's the downside.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xenogears
I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

Wait times are a function of number of doctors or specialists.

Sweden and the UK and bunch of other countries with "Socialized Medicine" actually have lower wait times than the US.

Wait times in the US can suck for a specialist and same-day appointments with GPs are non-existent in populated areas of the US.

Just saying that wait times and socialized medicine are not correlated.
Number of Doctors in a region is.

We cannot significantly lower the requirements for being a Doctor, lower their income by reducing costs, and those capable of becoming Good Doctors will be disincentivized from taking this route reducing the number of Doctors. Same goes for specialists, if their effort is not properly rewarded they will be disincentivized and the number of them will be reduced by individual choice.

Lowering the requirements for becoming a doctor?
Socialized Medicine does not do that.
And in the US Registered Nurses have been assuming a larger amount of the workload for years.
Socialized Medicine does not reduce doctors income and a large chunk of their costs are expansive collections and billing staff to navigate all the different coding and agreements with various insurance companies eager to deny payment.
Ditto Specialists.

The Reality is that the majority of doctors are in favor of single payer. They are obviously not looking to harm their own income and are well aware of the financial implications and see it as a win.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Government protected monopolies - - no competition is permitted in the "healthcare" realm in this country. Was it EpiPens that went up to $500/piece here? Go to Europe and get them for $40 each and bring them back here to sell for $55 to make some money and your butt will end up in jail. Break up the monopolies in the medical industry, throw people in jail and watch the prices drop like a rock. But alas, we'd rather try to show that Obama is from Kenya or that Trump colluded with Russia while the healthcare industries ram us you know where.....we deserve the costs we pay. Just another recent example... MRI Shop

originally posted by: Xenogears
I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

It may be that we cannot provide decent quality healthcare for all at current costs, even with lowering costs of healthcare.

The key must be to include strong preventive education in public education, from independently audited nutritionists and personal trainers not bought by industry. This would make most of the population healthy and square their healthspan, compressing morbidity to just a few months or years at end of life instead of decades of expensive care. Healthy individual would only require at most a simple check up throughout most of their lives.

Drug research should also be financed by government and licensed to various companies to compete in the market place. That would reduce the justifications to ridiculous profit from ultra expensive drugs.

You heard from 'one person' - do you base all your decisions on what you hear from 'one' radom 'person'. I won't tell you what my Daddy would call that.

Fox News is absolutely the wrong place to look for objective news. This projected cost of single payer healthcare came from a recent study. It did state costs were projected at $32/6 trillion. So that's what Fox ran with, and it illustrates how Fox lies to its subscribers all the time. How? Because the same report said this would save Americans $2 trillion. Thus, it was disingenuous for Fox to focus on what the program would cost rather than what it would save.

Furthermore, what would America get for its $2 trillion in savings? Every person would have healthcare. Every person could seek medical care when needed at little to no cost for copayments etc. Every person would be free from employment where they were effectively trapped due to healthcare benefits. And more. In short, it would be a win win for everyone.

Here is a link discussing the report this topic refers to...   Mercatus Study

But I think the real benefit would be from central management to streamline the healthcare process and to begin looking at additional ways to save. A large part of why Americans face such huge healthcare costs are due to fraud, legal or not. For example, Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to the generic drug Daraprim and increased its price 5500 percent overnight, from $13.50 to $750. I know some of you believe a company has a right to do things like that, but I utterly disagree, particularly in matters of healthcare where profits should be based on a reasonable rate of return for investment and manufacture. Not to mention that a great deal of research is done using taxpayer money. This effectively socializes the risk and cost of research and development while privatizing profits for Big Pharma. These kinds of things run rampant through the industry and need to be curtailed.

For those who disagree, and do not profit from our fraudulent current healthcare system, tell me why you enjoy paying high premiums, forgo seeking care due to additional expenses, or simply have no insurance at all?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Xenogears
I heard someone who used socialized medicine in canada, I think it was Stefan Molyneux, they seem to have said that the wait time to see a specialist for their condition that could be deadly was over one year. I've heard similar from other countries with socialist medicine.

It may be that we cannot provide decent quality healthcare for all at current costs, even with lowering costs of healthcare.

The key must be to include strong preventive education in public education, from independently audited nutritionists and personal trainers not bought by industry. This would make most of the population healthy and square their healthspan, compressing morbidity to just a few months or years at end of life instead of decades of expensive care. Healthy individual would only require at most a simple check up throughout most of their lives.

Drug research should also be financed by government and licensed to various companies to compete in the market place. That would reduce the justifications to ridiculous profit from ultra expensive drugs.

You heard from 'one person' - do you base all your decisions on what you hear from 'one' radom 'person'. I won't tell you what my Daddy would call that.

How about hearing it from canadians themselves

I don't have an answer for healthcare, nothing has stopped the costs from climbing. Single payer might be an option. Nothing else we have tried works.

A friend of mine just related a story of their significant other, the cost of one drug for his treatment was $45,000!

However, we shouldn't be using pie in the sky estimates of cost. We should use worst case scenarios. I don't have faith in the government to reduce or contain costs.

originally posted by: pavil
I don't have an answer for healthcare, nothing has stopped the costs from climbing. Single payer might be an option. Nothing else we have tried works.

A friend of mine just related a story of their significant other, the cost of one drug for his treatment was $45,000!

However, we shouldn't be using pie in the sky estimates of cost. We should use worst case scenarios. I don't have faith in the government to reduce or contain costs.

Drugs need to be researched by gov., and licensed to various private competing firms with guarantees of restricted prices. That way even rare and unprofitable diseases would be researched, and treatments for such wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

Any treatment's price has to be justified, with non excessive profit margins.

The problem is we need preventive care, preventive education. If most people are healthy, and most are insured, insurance prices go significantly down. IF a large percent or most of the population is very sick, there is no significantly reducing of insurance costs, and you will have to ration healthcare as seems happens in some of these socialist medicine countries.

In any case socialist medicine and open borders are directly opposed.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: pavil
I don't have an answer for healthcare, nothing has stopped the costs from climbing. Single payer might be an option. Nothing else we have tried works.

A friend of mine just related a story of their significant other, the cost of one drug for his treatment was $45,000!

However, we shouldn't be using pie in the sky estimates of cost. We should use worst case scenarios. I don't have faith in the government to reduce or contain costs.

Drugs need to be researched by gov., and licensed to various private competing firms with guarantees of restricted prices. That way even rare and unprofitable diseases would be researched, and treatments for such wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

Any treatment's price has to be justified, with non excessive profit margins.

In addition to rare diseases not receiving research attention under the profit model, other cures for widespread diseases that can't be "monetized" do not receive private funding.

I read about a researcher at University of PA that altered a flu virus, making it "toothless" and then tasked it with attacking cancer cells (or something similar). It showed great results, but every company he appealed to for research funding passed because no one could "patent" the process.

This also why "drugs" that treat symptoms vs. methods that treat cause and cure get vastly more attention in the USA.

It is hugely more profitable to patent a new drug that treats a symptom than it is to discover the "cause" of a disease and eliminate it or prevent it.

Disease and treatment lack consumer choice. Demand is disconnected from cost and profit. That is the dirty little secret that makes the healthcare industry billions in the USA. It is not a free market as long as people don't have a choice about getting cancer etc.

The Pharmaceutical industry has more in common with old world mob shaking down shop owners (pay me or die) than it does the rest of the free-market economy.