Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. trillions

[ZiprHead]

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University — a libertarian think tank backed by the Koch brothers — projected that the Medicare for All plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

The study did conclude, however, that Medicare for All would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade. Streamlined administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion, the researchers at the Mercatus Center found.

 

[phands]

And almost instantly, given this and the Kochs refusing to fund the orange traitor's henchmen any more, he promptly declares them a "joke".

anyone see a pattern in trumpo's mental illness here?

 

[Trausti]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

 

[untermensche]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

Nowhere does anybody say it is not affordable.

 

[SimpleDon]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

Never mind. My bad.

 

[SimpleDon]

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University — a libertarian think tank backed by the Koch brothers — projected that the Medicare for All plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

The study did conclude, however, that Medicare for All would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade. Streamlined administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion, the researchers at the Mercatus Center found.

We shouldn't leave such important things to conservatives or to liberals to explain. Yes, it would cost 32.6 trillion dollars over ten years for Medicare to provide medical care to all of the American people. But we currently spend 3.8 trillion dollars a year or a minimum of 38 trillion dollars over ten years for that medical care and this is back to going up by 8% per year now that the Trump administration is sabotaging the modest cost containment mechanisms in ObamaCare. Before ObamaCare the profit motive fueled medical costs were going up by 10% a year, in large part because increasing costs are the only way that the health insurance companies can reliably increase their profits year to year.

The Koch brothers oppose Medicare for all because the rich pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes because they have a disproportionate amount of the income and the wealth. And they oppose the socialization of medical care because it eliminates the possible profit-making investment opportunities in nearly 20% of the US economy.

But at some point, we have to say no to the already wealthy. We suppress wages to increase profits and the incomes of the rich. Then we reduce their taxes, on their incomes that we have inflated by suppressing wages, increasing the national debt. Then we tell the poor and the middle class that they have to pay more in interest on their ever-increasing debt and that they have to pay more for their housing, their schooling, and their medical care out of their suppressed wages so that the rich can make even more profits. Topped off with the news that Social Security and Medicare have to be cut back because there is just no money left.

I am just saying.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

Nowhere does anybody say it is not affordable.

You need to understand that Trausti doesn't understand numbers... or math... or... well, I'm not certain what Trausti does understand.

The US spends trillions each year on health care. So a Government plan that would manage America's health care, should be expected to cost trillions each year. To suggest anything else would be redonkuously stupid.

 

[phands]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

Better get an adult to read and explain the simple sums to you.

 

[RavenSky]

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University — a libertarian think tank backed by the Koch brothers — projected that the Medicare for All plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

The study did conclude, however, that Medicare for All would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade. Streamlined administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion, the researchers at the Mercatus Center found.

excellent article. Thank you!

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is an odd way to report that Medicare for all is still unaffordable after savings for prescription drugs and administrative costs.

Nowhere does anybody say it is not affordable.

You need to understand that Trausti doesn't understand numbers... or math... or... well, I'm not certain what Trausti does understand.

The US spends trillions each year on health care. So a Government plan that would manage America's health care, should be expected to cost trillions each year. To suggest anything else would be redonkuously stupid.

The report says that Medicare for all would cost an estimated $33 trillion over 10 years but save an estimated $2.5 trillion over the same time period. That means the estimated net expense to the government is about $30 trillion over 10 years or about $3 trillion per year.

However, the report does not factor in the savings to the private and public sector. If there were Medicare for all, some people who now have private insurance would not have it. In fact, one would expect the highest risks to use only the new Medicare, so health insurance premiums might fall. So $30 trillion net is an upper bound because it does not include any reductions in private spending and Medicaid .

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You need to understand that Trausti doesn't understand numbers... or math... or... well, I'm not certain what Trausti does understand.

The US spends trillions each year on health care. So a Government plan that would manage America's health care, should be expected to cost trillions each year. To suggest anything else would be redonkuously stupid.

The report says that Medicare for all would cost an estimated $33 trillion over 10 years but save an estimated $2.5 trillion over the same time period. That means the estimated net expense to the government is about $30 trillion over 10 years or about $3 trillion per year.

However, the report does not factor in the savings to the private and public sector. If there were Medicare for all, some people who now have private insurance would not have it. In fact, one would expect the highest risks to use only the new Medicare, so health insurance premiums might fall. So $30 trillion net is an upper bound because it does not include any reductions in private spending and Medicaid .

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives turning against Kochs. That's new.

 

[Jarhyn]

You need to understand that Trausti doesn't understand numbers... or math... or... well, I'm not certain what Trausti does understand.

The US spends trillions each year on health care. So a Government plan that would manage America's health care, should be expected to cost trillions each year. To suggest anything else would be redonkuously stupid.

The report says that Medicare for all would cost an estimated $33 trillion over 10 years but save an estimated $2.5 trillion over the same time period. That means the estimated net expense to the government is about $30 trillion over 10 years or about $3 trillion per year.

However, the report does not factor in the savings to the private and public sector. If there were Medicare for all, some people who now have private insurance would not have it. In fact, one would expect the highest risks to use only the new Medicare, so health insurance premiums might fall. So $30 trillion net is an upper bound because it does not include any reductions in private spending and Medicaid .

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Indeed. So left behind that Trausti is entirely absent from class now. No doubt, they plan to return when they or one of the other resident spin doctors figures out how to distract the conversation away from the utilitarian net financial result, probably onto "Wargarbleredistributionbad" or some such.

 

[Trausti]

You need to understand that Trausti doesn't understand numbers... or math... or... well, I'm not certain what Trausti does understand.

The US spends trillions each year on health care. So a Government plan that would manage America's health care, should be expected to cost trillions each year. To suggest anything else would be redonkuously stupid.

The report says that Medicare for all would cost an estimated $33 trillion over 10 years but save an estimated $2.5 trillion over the same time period. That means the estimated net expense to the government is about $30 trillion over 10 years or about $3 trillion per year.

However, the report does not factor in the savings to the private and public sector. If there were Medicare for all, some people who now have private insurance would not have it. In fact, one would expect the highest risks to use only the new Medicare, so health insurance premiums might fall. So $30 trillion net is an upper bound because it does not include any reductions in private spending and Medicaid .

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

 

[laughing dog]

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

That doubling/tripling of taxes estimate is based on a ridiculous upper bound figure. It does not include any savings from Medicare or early diagnosis of treatment, and it ignores the savings to the private sector of not having to offer medical insurance to employees.

In other words, the doubling/tripling of taxes is a disingenuous figure designed to mislead the naive and the stupid.

 

[James Brown]

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

So I give up my $6,000 medical insurance bill, and in exchange, my $2,500 tax bill will triple?

Sign me up.

 

[Trausti]

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

So I give up my $6,000 medical insurance bill, and in exchange, my $2,500 tax bill will triple?

Sign me up.

The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

Well, if your full federal tax liability is only $2,500/yr I can see how this might be enticing. For the rest of us, not so much.

 

[untermensche]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

 

[Treedbear]

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/
...

Didn't see it mentioned in the article but I would think it would save large, small, as well as tiny businesses big time on insurance costs. My company pays 50% which is about $150 to $600/mo/person and we only have a few employees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

That doubling/tripling of taxes estimate is based on a ridiculous upper bound figure. It does not include any savings from Medicare or early diagnosis of treatment, and it ignores the savings to the private sector of not having to offer medical insurance to employees.

In other words, the doubling/tripling of taxes is a disingenuous figure designed to mislead the naive and the stupid.

Americans are already paying it, so it can't possibly be impossible to pay for.