Author Topic: REVIEWED: The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All  (Read 173 times)

plugger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 141
  • Getting in touch with my inner German Shepard
    • View Profile
REVIEWED: The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
« on: October 23, 2019, 09:49:47 AM »
Link to article:
The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

Reddit Discussion and comments
Reddit Front Page


First off, rather than take the word of a journalist who seems to be shooting from the hip, a person just might want to hear from an organization that has actually studied medicare and health care systems from around the world for many a year, Physicians for a National Health Program: Flawed Study from the Urban Institute.  The Atlantic article was by Ronald Brownstein who is a senior editor at the Atlantic and a senior political analyst at CNN who writes on a variety of political subjects.  Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) has more than 20,000 members of actual working physicians, medical students, and health professionals who are part of an organization that has been around since 1987.  If journalism is compared to health care, readers are getting an opinion from a inexperienced General Practitioner (Mr. Brownstein) vs. an older, much more experienced specialist (actually more like 20,000 of them!).  Forgive me, but I would be more inclined to listen to the specialist.

Mr. Brownstein also attempts to impress the reader noting that the Urban Institute is a "a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats".  I have to wonder if the democrats who value the Urban Institute's study are also the congressional candidates taking contributions from the health insurance companies.  For example, as of October 23, 2019 Humana has given ~$110,000 to democratic congressional candidates for the 2020 political cycle - vs ~$60,000 for the Republicans:   Opensecrets.org.  I apologize if I'm not impressed with UI's credentials.

The Atlantic article also likes to quote the Congressional Budget Office.  How about seeing some other quotes from the CBO, the GAO, the Economic Policy Institute, and many many state studies from 1991 to 2012:

Congressional Budget Office 1991:
"If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured."

Minnesota, 2012:
"A fiscal study by the Lewin Group found that single payer would cover all Minnesota residents and reduce total health spending by $4.1 billion, or 8.8 percent, in 2014, and would save $189.5 billion from 2014-2023 over what health care costs in Minnesota would be under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)."

See more,  much more

I'll add, it just looks very hard to get past the fundamental fact that the health insurance companies make money by NOT paying for health care.





 



« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 08:01:29 PM by plugger »
Proud member of DialysisEthics since 2000

DE responsible for:

*2000 US Senate hearings

*Verified statistics on "Dialysis Facility Compare"

*Doctors have to review charts before they can be reimbursed

*2000 and 2003 Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on the conditions in dialysis

*2007 - Members of DialysisEthics worked for certification of hemodialysis
technicians in Colorado - bill passed

*1999 to present - nonviolent dismissed patients returned to their
clinics or placed in other clinics or hospitals over the years

On my tombstone: He was a good kind of crazy

www.dialysisethics2.org

plugger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 141
  • Getting in touch with my inner German Shepard
    • View Profile
Re: REVIEWED: The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 07:08:23 PM »
I've continued to read headlines blaring things like "Single-Payer Health Care Would Cost the U.S. Government $34 Trillion, Says Left-Leaning Think Tank"!!!  Makes a great shocking headline, unfortunately it is a total bag of bull.  Even the "left-leaning think tank" the Urban Institute, who you may have noticed I have qualms with, and who put out the report says:

"For this approach to reform, federal spending would increase by $34 trillion over 10 years, but health spending by individuals, employers, and state governments would decrease by $27 trillion, so national health spending would increase by $7 trillion over the same 10-year period, from $52 to $59 trillion."  A 13.5% increase - over ten years.
Urban Institute's flawed study


But I'm guessing a headline that reads: "Single-Payer Would Cost the U.S. Government 7 Trillion dollars - a 13.5% increase!!! - over ten years!!!" just wouldn't sell as many magazines and subscriptions.

However even the more subdued headline I just mentioned looks like a crock, though a more subdued crock.  It should read "Single-Payer Will Slightly Save Money Over 10 years by Coming Under the 52 Trillion We are Projected to Spend Anyway!!!"  Probably would never sell too many magazines with that sort of headline.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 07:17:10 PM by plugger »
Proud member of DialysisEthics since 2000

DE responsible for:

*2000 US Senate hearings

*Verified statistics on "Dialysis Facility Compare"

*Doctors have to review charts before they can be reimbursed

*2000 and 2003 Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on the conditions in dialysis

*2007 - Members of DialysisEthics worked for certification of hemodialysis
technicians in Colorado - bill passed

*1999 to present - nonviolent dismissed patients returned to their
clinics or placed in other clinics or hospitals over the years

On my tombstone: He was a good kind of crazy

www.dialysisethics2.org

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk