New study: single payer would cost 34 trillion for first decade

This estimate by The Urban Institute, funded by The Commonwealth Fund shows two options, along with cost analyses for each.

The single-payer option covered by this analysis is very similar to Bernie's plan but excludes those 6.6 million people who are not legal US residents. One would assume that including them would bring the cost up even more. However it is most like Bernie's plan in that it would leave no out of pocket expense at point for the patient. Costs actually go up moderately in the first year and would be paid entirely by the federal gov't. In this sense, it is true single-payer healthcare.

This reform option covers the entire US population. National spending on health care would grow by about $720 billion in 2020. Federal government spending would increase by $2.8 trillion in 2020, or $34.0 trillion over 10 years.

Click to expand...

The other option is much more workable it's called "Medicare for all who fucking want it". I'm sure there's 34 trillion lying around somewhere...

Are American health care costs not already 3 times higher than single payer systems on a per capita basis? That would make the cost of doing nothing over 100 trillion dollars, the alternative ain't cheap either. Wealth has to be redistributed, modern capitalism and political corruption causes it to accumulate in the .1% and single payer health care is just one means of doing this. 30 years down the road when AI, automation and robots are doing most of the jobs, people will still need to eat and live. Social programs are a way to begin this distribution process and if you don't have any your society will fall off a cliff one day. There will be many smart idle hands in the future and they will demand a share of the wealth generated by technology.

At 34t for 10 years, that roughly 10,000 per every man, woman and child in the US per year. Maybe you can ask Jeff Bezos and his buddies to chip in.

There is a cost to being wealthy, and that is paying for the people your accumulation of wealth displaces. The only reason some people have so much is because so many have so little. Healthcare is a human right, so get out your check books, here comes equality!!!

BurtMaklin said:

At 34t for 10 years, that roughly 10,000 per every man, woman and child in the US per year. Maybe you can ask Jeff Bezos and his buddies to chip in.

There is a cost to being wealthy, and that is paying for the people your accumulation of wealth displaces. The only reason some people have so much is because so many have so little. Healthcare is a human right, so get out your check books, here comes equality!!!

Click to expand...

No. I don't want Medicare or a tax hike. All of Bernie's options to pay for this shit add up to less than half of the cost. Those options are, very specifically to squeeze every last cent out of the wealthy. Also, it starts higher and descends as costs go down, so significantly more than 10k per year on average at the beginning. Considering he wants it free for everyone making less than 30k we're talking huge tax hikes on the middle class. Either that or a huge deficit.

There are other things the federal budget has to pay for as well, shit that creates jobs, like infrastructure and education. Medicare for all who actually want it is a much better and workable idea. Bernie's medicare for all will actually cost us almost a million jobs and give doctors a pay cut.

Medicare for all who want it would immediately eliminate the problem of 27 million Americans being uninsured without the huge tax hikes on the middle class. Also, it could actually be passed through congress. Besides, it would be more than 34T if it covers all the immigrants in the country as Bernie promises.

I'm healthy, I can get a cheap plan with deductibles and copays and save thousands of dollars. Full coverage medicare for those who need it is a great idea though.

abandonconflict said:

No. I don't want Medicare or a tax hike. All of Bernie's options to pay for this shit add up to less than half of the cost. Those options are, very specifically to squeeze every last cent out of the wealthy. Also, it starts higher and descends as costs go down, so significantly more than 10k per year on average at the beginning. Considering he wants it free for everyone making less than 30k we're talking huge tax hikes on the middle class. Either that or a huge deficit.

There are other things the federal budget has to pay for as well, shit that creates jobs, like infrastructure and education. Medicare for all who actually want it is a much better and workable idea. Bernie's medicare for all will actually cost us almost a million jobs and give doctors a pay cut.

Medicare for all who want it would immediately eliminate the problem of 27 million Americans being uninsured without the huge tax hikes on the middle class. Also, it could actually be passed through congress. Besides, it would be more than 34T if it covers all the immigrants in the country as Bernie promises.

Click to expand...

Then go make less than 30k a year and see what you have to complain about.

America already pays more now for their fucked up hybrid system than what M4A will cost in the future. It will lower the per capita cost of healthcare, saving money overall. How is that a bad deal?

BurtMaklin said:

Then go make less than 30k a year and see what you have to complain about.

Click to expand...

So we should support a guy who will make us want to earn less in order to get free shit?

Here's how Bernie can still win! Yeah dude, you're dumb as fuck.

abandonconflict said:

So we should support a guy who will make us want to earn less in order to get free shit?

Here's how Bernie can still win! Yeah dude, you're dumb as fuck.

Click to expand...

If America elects Bernie because of "free shit" for people making under 30k, I'm pretty sure we've identified the problem.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Are American health care costs not already 3 times higher than single payer systems on a per capita basis? That would make the cost of doing nothing over 100 trillion dollars, the alternative ain't cheap either. Wealth has to be redistributed, modern capitalism and political corruption causes it to accumulate in the .1% and single payer health care is just one means of doing this. 30 years down the road when AI, automation and robots are doing most of the jobs, people will still need to eat and live. Social programs are a way to begin this distribution process and if you don't have any your society will fall off a cliff one day. There will be many smart idle hands in the future and they will demand a share of the wealth generated by technology.

Click to expand...

That's not even close. Single payer would only reduce healthcare costs by a very small percentage over the course of a decade. It would actually cost more for the first year than the current system, but the entirety of those costs would become part of the federal budget instead of aggregate. Expanding Medicare to all who want it while allowing people like myself living within limited means and with very good health to opt for a cheap private plan with copays and deductibles and save thousands per year. This would eliminate the problem of 27 million uninsured Americans and actually reduce aggregate healthcare costs by shifting part of it to the federal budget.

To clarify, I am actually for having a single payer system, eventually, once aggregate costs are down. I am opposed to nationalizing costs that amount to more than the entire federal budget. Bernie's inability to compromise is actually a liability to the very principals he ostensibly supports.

When you go shopping and see something you want, then find out it costs more than you have, you have to take a look at your options.

To be honest I haven't really researched the whole "Medicare for all who want it" notion, however if everyone ends up wanting it, doesn't that mean it will cost the same as Bernie's plan in the end?

Then why force everyone and tax them to shit for something not everyone wants or needs?

abandonconflict said:

Then why force everyone and tax them to shit for something not everyone wants or needs?

Click to expand...

So that's a yes to my question?

PJ Diaz said:

So that's a yes to my question?

Click to expand...

No. Bernie's plan is not the only way to implement single-payer. It would actually be impossible to do it in a more expensive way than his plan, so it's a clear no. Besides, I don't think even half of the country would opt for it if it were optional, however, making it optional would force both Medicare and private plans to offer more value or lower costs. Win WIn. Forcing everyone to take Medicare and tax hikes, not so much.

BurtMaklin said:

If America elects Bernie because of "free shit" for people making under 30k, I'm pretty sure we've identified the problem.

Click to expand...

Bert,

Canada has options for people who don't want your equivalent of Medicare.

Also, your hypothetical statement is not a logical argument for why Bernie should force 150 million people from plans they like. First of all, it's hypothetical, so, the "then" is also a fiction. If Medicare is made available to everybody and is better than the private insurance, private insurance will go away.

I'd like to get back to your earlier reply where you said "three years is too long to implement universal healthcare under Medicare". It clearly shows you know not what you are talking about when it comes to the US healthcare system.

Fogdog said:

why Bernie should force 150 million people from plans they like

Click to expand...

Brought to you by..

Padawanbater2 said:

Brought to you by..

View attachment 4478123

Click to expand...

So after all your poor persecuted white guy bullshit like that classic you spilled about how your coworkers expect more from you since you're a white guy, you have the nerve to call Fogdog a right wing extremist? You're getting desperate.

Padawanbater2 said:

Cry me a river

Don't cite right wing propaganda if you don't want to look like a right wing propagandist

Click to expand...

I did not cite The Heritage Foundation. Did Fogdog? How stupid are you?

I cited Urban Institute.

abandonconflict said:

I did not cite The Heritage Foundation. Did Fogdog? How stupid are you?

Click to expand...

nope

I ignored his juvenile jab because he often accuses others of being as ignorant as he is. My sources on the 150 million people:


From this, about 85% of everybody insured through private coverage rate their coverage as very good or excellent.


From this, as of 2019, 160 million receive private coverage

How did I arrive at 150 million people like their coverage? 135 million say "excellent or very good" so I rounded up to 150 million say they like their coverage. Whatever it is, it's a whopping large number of pissed off people if they are told they must drop it. Especially on the vague promise that Bernie has given us in the form of his healthcare bill.

I don't give a shit what the Heritage Foundation says. Facts are neither right or left, they are simply true. If the Heritage Foundation wants to cite facts, well, that's a surprise but OK by me. Apparently, only propaganda from Sanders-approved sites are acceptable to his cult.

Whatever the exact number is, a hundred million or more people who like their private healthcare plan is a whopping large number of pissed off people if they are told they must drop it. Especially on the vague promise that Bernie has given us in the form of his healthcare bill. I think it's enough all by itself to hand Trump the election in the fall.