Study finds universal health care would cost less than bailouts

Raw Story

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. The Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy(IHSP) is a non-profit research group for the National Nurses Organizing Committee. According to the analysis of their proposal for a single-payer universal health care system, IHSP found that “full medicare benefits for all” would have these immediate effects:

$317 billion in increased business and public revenues throughout the US economy.

2,613,495 new permanent jobs, at an average of $38,262 per year.

$100 billion in additional employee compensation.

$44 billion in increased tax revenue.

The biggest impact of the proposal would be coverage for the 46 million uninsured Americans, but 'Medicare for all' would also get rid of the “current chaos of eligibility, exclusions, family coverage, premium costs, and high out-of-pocket expense,” unenviable consequences of the present system. The full report can be found here.

A similar proposal for single-payer national health insurance was published by the American Medical Association in 2003. That study found that national health insurance would save the US $200b by “eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services.”

The health insurance companies in the US are nothing but leeches.
Single Payer NOW for all Americans. It would also relieve a tremendous burden on both small and large business making us vastly more competitive!

Here is the link to the original study.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Leo Strauss]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


single payer vs public option explained

physicians for healthcare

daily kos list of studies

cost of baucus bill

cost of doing nothing

republican bill status quo

hr 676 broke down

There's a conspiracy here all right. People who even try to talk about single payer are ignored and marginalized. Crackpots, socialists they call us. You can't even have a serious discussion on this topic without being attacked from all sides by political ideologues.

The only way I see to ensure that everyone has health care is to do this. U realize many here do not agree, but whenever it is brought up it is brushed aside so quickly I have to wonder if we can even have a legitimate conversation on the merits of single payer.

So why is it so ridiculous, and why aren't we talking about it? Why has it been dismissed as fringe thinking?

There are two problems I have with this article. One, its eight months old and regardless of what one vague idea of a universal healthcare plan might have cost then, its not the plan that is under consideration now.

Second, and more importantly, I don't know that the argument of 'its cheaper than the bailouts!' is going to garner much sympathy. Aside from the fact that the bailouts were almost universally hated by the public, they were hideously expensive. That still leaves a ton of room for health care to be hideously expensive, too.