AP FACT CHECK: Sanders spins savings in Medicare plan

a reply to: rnaa

Yes. Doctors are increasingly fed up with the bureaucratic hassles, paperwork and meddling imposed on them by today’s private-insurance-based system.

How stupid do you have to be to think that it's going to be any different with our government who's "supposed" to be held accountable by taxpayers?! There's no way around it. Strict controls need to be put into place just to keep out the waste, fraud, and abuse that they suffer so much from now anyway.

a reply to: Deetermined

Am I missing something on these spending projections?

Yes you are missing something very important.

The federal government payment into health care is only a small portion of the total nationwide spend on health care. The states also contribute to the taxpayer spend on health care. Individuals also spend on health care via insurance premiums, both individual and via employer contributions for group health.

A 'medicare for all' or 'single payer' system would replace EVERYTHING, and according to the Koch brothers study when you add it all up, Bernie's plan would be 2 trillion dollars (according to his projections) less over 10 years and EVERYONE would be covered, not just some.

Edit: I just found a video that explains this with a bit of humor...

a reply to: rnaa

The federal government payment into health care is only a small portion of the total nationwide spend on health care.

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. In 2016, the federal government spent approximately $958 Billion on Medicare and Medicaid and another $42 Billion on subsidies related to the ACA. That totals $1 TRILLION and you know that amount has continued to grow over the last two years.

The states also contribute to the taxpayer spend on health care.

The states only contribute 30% - 35%. The federal government refunds them the majority of their Medicaid expenses.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: rnaa

The federal government payment into health care is only a small portion of the total nationwide spend on health care.

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. In 2016, the federal government spent approximately $958 Billion on Medicare and Medicaid and another $42 Billion on subsidies related to the ACA. That totals $1 TRILLION and you know that amount has continued to grow over the last two years.

The states also contribute to the taxpayer spend on health care.

You are forgetting about insurance premiums that people pay personally or through their employer. You are forgetting the co-pays that patients pay. You are forgetting optical and dental. You are forgetting prescriptions. You are forgetting treatment that is not covered by insurance. You are forgetting self funded health services.

Sander's costs include ALL OF THAT. And so does the Koch brother's study.

That is the point. If you are going to compare apples to apples, you have to count EVERYTHING.

The states only contribute 30% - 35%. The federal government refunds them the majority of their Medicaid expenses.

a reply to: rnaa

You are forgetting about insurance premiums that people pay personally or through their employer. You are forgetting the co-pays that patients pay. You are forgetting optical and dental. You are forgetting prescriptions. You are forgetting treatment that is not covered by insurance. You are forgetting self funded health services.

No I'm not. I'm only interested in how much our government is currently paying verses how much more they will be paying if we put "Medicare for All" in place, even if we were to throw all of our current health care premiums in as additional tax and lower payments to physicians by 40% (which we both know will NEVER happen).

Think about this for a minute. If as a whole, we're paying $3.2 Trillion per year (2016 statistics) and the government is already contributing $1 Trillion towards that amount, how much do you think it's really going to cost? Because I guaranty you that physicians aren't going to agree to a 40% cut in pay, even if the government pays for their malpractice insurance, provided we're even allowed to hold physicians responsible at that point

a reply to: Deetermined

It's 6 to 8 years from start to finish. The average salary is between £74000 and £103000 so $100k to $132k pa with benefits such as private pension and even private medical (even though we have the NHS)

a reply to: ChristianParr

I will add though that a lot of doctors and GP's in the UK also do private work pushing their salaries from the above (£103k) to well over a million. Private healthcare can and does use NHS facilities such as operating rooms and equally the NHS subs out some care plans to places like France and Belgium meaning you don't have to have your hip replaced here but can go to Europe instead. Equally, we allow NHS exchanges within the EU so it all works rather well. As for Obama care startup costs.. of course things are going to cost money to start off with and there will be mistakes but to simply leave your appalling healthcare where it is is simply not on. Whether you agree with a national health service or not is irrespective, what is evident is your current state of affairs cannot continue as is, perhaps what you need is something in between where at least those who have no means of funding healthcare or end of life services will not be left to rot because some pompous eejit thinks he doesn't want to have a social care plan for all because 'they haven't earned it'

a reply to: Deetermined

No I'm not. I'm only interested in how much our government is currently paying verses how much more they will be paying if we put "Medicare for All" in place, even if we were to throw all of our current health care premiums in as additional tax and lower payments to physicians by 40% (which we both know will NEVER happen).

You cannot dismiss the non-government part.

Medicare-for-all reorganizes the ENTIRE health care system; public, private, insurance, whatever.

The numbers in the 'Medicare for All' plan cover the ENTIRE health care system - NOT just the Government Contribution.

The numbers in the 'Koch Brothers' study cover the ENTIRE health care system - NOT just the Government Contribution.

You cannot compare the current cost of just the Government contribution to the predicted cost of Medicare for All. It is not the same thing.

Think about this for a minute. If as a whole, we're paying $3.2 Trillion per year (2016 statistics) and the government is already contributing $1 Trillion towards that amount, how much do you think it's really going to cost?

I don't have to 'think' about it too hard. The 'Koch Brothers' study gives us that number (actually 32 Trillion over 10 years). The numbers in Medicare for All come out at 30 Trillion over 10 years,

That is a 2 Trillion dollar savings over 10 years.

Now maybe you can argue whether or not the 'Bernie's ' numbers are correct, and Medicare for All plan will really 'only' cost 30 Trillion over 10 years, and whether or not the plan's projected costs are really covered. So lets see your numbers. Notice that the Koch Brothers commissioned their study for the specific purpose of showing that Medicare for All was way too expensive, that the real cost of the M4A was not being properly accounted for, AND IT COULDN'T BE DONE.

The actual study of the actual numbers by a conservative group looking specifically for cost blow-outs couldn't find any, and proved that the M4A plan would actually do exactly what it claimed: deliver BETTER health care for EVERY American from the highest to the lowest, and at the same time save the country as a whole 2 trillion dollars over 10 years.

a reply to: Deetermined

Because I guaranty you that physicians aren't going to agree to a 40% cut in pay,

Really? That is why the PNHP has been promoting Medicare for All for years, and has succeeded even in flipping the AMA to support it?

Where do you get the 40% figure from? Link please.

Are you saying that 40% of a doctor's 'income' is for overheads like malpractice, administration, over testing, their own personal healthcare costs, chasing their tail over differing insurance company procedures, bidding into insurance groups, marketing, etc, etc, etc?

I hadn't seen that number, but I can believe it for sure. And almost all of that goes away with single payer. So the gross income could actually take a hit, but the actual net income would stay pretty much the same.

Interestingly, US doctors income ROSE when Medicare started.

even if the government pays for their malpractice insurance, provided we're even allowed to hold physicians responsible at that point

In general, there will be no need for malpractice insurance at all. Malpractice payouts are, in general, to cover damaged patients future health care costs. Under Medicare-For-All, that requirement goes away altogether, since everyone is already fully covered. There is no longer a need to resort to getting the doctor personally responsible to pay for that future care. And the reality is that very few doctors ever get hit with malpractice during their career.

And it isn't only Malpractice insurance that drives the doctors bills beyond.

a reply to: Kharron

FACT CHECK: The fact is, the AP stole this story from me. I cited two reasons the number is wrong, one of which is the expectation of stagnant wages.

a reply to: ChristianParr

Whether you agree with a national health service or not is irrespective, what is evident is your current state of affairs cannot continue as is, perhaps what you need is something in between where at least those who have no means of funding healthcare or end of life services will not be left to rot because some pompous eejit thinks he doesn't want to have a social care plan for all because 'they haven't earned it'

Personally, I always thought that was the most common sense approach, to come up with something in between.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: Kharron

FACT CHECK: The fact is, the AP stole this story from me. I cited two reasons the number is wrong, one of which is the expectation of stagnant wages.

The expectation of rising living standards, with each generation doing better than the one before, has long been a given. More recently, that expectation has diminished—and with good reason. One of the best measures economists use to determine Americans’ economic advancement is whether wages are rising, broadly and consistently. After adjusting for inflation, wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973, with annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent.[1] The U.S. economy has experienced long-term real wage stagnation and a persistent lack of economic progress for many workers.

www.brookings.edu...

a reply to: rnaa

Where do you get the 40% figure from? Link please.

It came from the article and link that were in the original post...

The study found that if hospitals and doctors were willing to accept Medicare-based payments of 40 percent less for patients who currently have private insurance, then projected U.S. health care spending would decline by about 3 percent from 2022 to 2031, or $2.05 trillion.

apnews.com...:-Sanders-spins-savings-in-Medicare-plan

a reply to: rnaa

Interestingly, US doctors income ROSE when Medicare started.

I'm not interested in that fact as much as I am the fact that Medicare has already been in the red every year except for one since it started back in 1965.