Let’s put this in perspective: if you eliminate every single solitary soldier, tank, satellite, nuclear weapon, eliminate the Pentagon and it would only pay for 4 months of Medicare for All. 4 months.Where do the other 8 months come from? Your paycheck. #DemDebate— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 16, 2019
A bit disingenuous of Biden. Obviously coming up with numbers is very hard, and people will pick and choose what numbers to believe. Even fack checkers put disclaimers on their numbers. This one has Medicare for all costing about 32 Extra Trillion (based on 2 studies) and the savings at 26 Trillion (both over the next 10 years). So the cost would be "only" and extra 6 Trillion over 10 years (600 billion per year). https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Well... Depends on exactly what number he's talking about tho, doesn't it? If an extra $600 billion a year pays for M4A and if the military's budget is actually "only" $700 billion, eliminating the Military entirely would pay for M4A and leave an extra $100 billion/year that could be spent other places. So based on those numbers, he's wrong, But then, if his tweet isn't taking into account the savings you listed, he's not far off. On the other hand, there is NATO's pesky 2% of GDP spending requirement, which means the US has to spend a minimum for $410 billion/year on the military (based on the US's 2018 GDP of $20.5 trillion). That would result in $300 billion extra being added to the deficit..
It's a bit difficult to make sense of those figures as an outsider but, for what it's worth, (probably not much I guess), the cost of a comprehensive NHS-style system for a population the size of the USA would be about $9Tn over 10 years. But that's talking about an EXTRA 6 trillion over and above what's being spent now over 10 years... https://www.cms.gov/research-statis...spending grew 4.2% to,34 percent of total NHE. Which looks like about $13Tn on medicaid and medicare, isn't it? i.e. a total of about $19Tn. But then that's talking about a total of about $59Tn over 10 years? I'm sorry, WHERE do these figures come from?
I think that the math in that page is confusing and there are many overlapping figures. Some expenditures seem to be counted twice. Looking into their spreadsheets, I think this is a better summary: Total Healthcare Cost per year: 3.5 Trillion (or about $11k per capita/18% of GDP) Medicare $.7T Medicaid $.6T Private Insurance $1.2T Out of pocket: $.4T Others (Prescriptions, Third party payments?) $.6? Over 10 years the total amounts would be about 35 trillion total, 13 trillion on public programs. So, in general terms, as I've said many many many times, if we were to make into a single payer (i.e. Medicare for All), what would happen is that the private insurance cost (plus some of the out of pocket and 3rd party) would be shifted to Medicare. At the beginning, there would be little savings, mostly in prescriptions and administration, but let's say we stay at about 18% GDP, only that now we would cover everyone and that there would be no medical bankruptcies. Eventually we would have some savings here and there, but even if that's achieved, I think that the most important goal is to cover everyone, without as many limitations, for the same price we pay now to cover 85-90% of the people with a lot of caveats.
Is that based on GDP % spending? In the USA about 80-85% of healthcare is done by the private sector, the Government only controls about 15%, and even then, it is just the insurance part, the medical care is still controlled by the private sector (outside Military), Even Medicare for all would still only give Government control of the Insurance part, the Giving care part would stay (for now) in the private sector. That link you posted breaks it down, the cost of care in the USA right? Those are just 2017 numbers, but as you can see Medicare (old people) grew 4.2%, same as private insurance 4.2%. Medicaid, grew by 2.6%, that is pretty good. Some legislation in congress actually want to expand MedicAid as the public option as it would be a lot cheaper and you also can make the claim that everyone is covered. Obviously MedicAid covers a lot less than Mediccare. You guys have a lot of cost controls in your Health system, here politicians are afraid of talking about health controls, because they get attacked with "Rationing care" or "death panels" But to keep cost down, we need some rationing and some cost controls about who, what, when, how much care can people get. The problem as this article explains, the people tend to want more healthcare than what Governments think is needed or affordable. http://www.healthcareadministration...k-healthcare-system-vs-u-s-healthcare-system/ Paying for Medical care with Taxation runs into this challenge and then it is balanced by the want of people of more Healthcare, vs. the opposition of people of paying for that healthcare. Your system hides the cost of healthcare from the tax payer better than our system currently does. We pay a flat tax to fund Medicare, currently about 2.9% (half funded by workers, half by employers) If Medicare for all becomes a thing, we can Increase that Tax (by a lot), we can make it a progressive Tax (Richer people pay a higher rate). Or we can do away with a direct link so people do not know how much they are paying for healthcare and just take it from the General taxation fund as you guys do (Regular income taxes/other taxes). This article makes it to be, we pay a lot more, but get better amenities and more technological breakthroughs(for those that can afford those things, meaning not the poor). https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/american-healthcare-and-nhs-10979.html
Just quickly, on the issue of the UK costs, (because that's relatively simple), I got my estimate from here... https://fullfact.org/health/spendin...spending in England,on the NHS England budget. Total health spending in England was around £129 billion in 2018/19 and is expected to rise to nearly £134 billion by 2019/20, taking inflation into account. In 2018/19 around £115 billion was spent on the NHS England budget. The rest was spent by the Department of Health on things like public health initiatives, education, training, and infrastructure (including IT and building new hospitals). I must have been using the lower figure not including the money for public health initiatives, education, training and infrastructure because that's wrong. So... based on the £134Bn, (that's UK pounds, obviously), and comparing for the population difference between England as opposed to the USA, (approx, 55m people for England only - NOT the whole of the UK - compared to about 340m for you guys), and converted to US dollars at about 1.29, (today's rate I see), we get approx. £1.06Tn p/a or £10.6Tn over a decade. Of course, as it says there, we're talking about spending MORE than the current amounts in the future.
Oh, no doubt, I men we (England and the USA) could try to copy what the South Koreans do, but yes we (The USA) do spend by far more per person than anyone else. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
So the Urban institute, now has a nice little chart where you can see the differences between current healthcare expected spending and future spending. Well it may not be a new chart, but new to me at least. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/do...eral-health-spending-national-health-spending So basically any Single payer system has to come up how to fix 2 problems (well on top of the political problems of running on it and implementing it). 1. It is expected to cost 7 trillion more than doing nothing, basically 700 Billion per year, or about 70% of the department of defense budget. 2. how to move the 34 trillion (27 currently expected for the private sector + 7 trillion increase) from the private sector to the Public sector.
From the same article: Fully funding a new single-payer program would require an additional $7 trillion in federal spending beyond that repurposed $44 trillion. The $8 trillion in spending not affected by the single-payer program would continue to be funded by a mix of government and private sources. Thus, it is not appropriate to compare an estimated increase in federal spending of $34 trillion over 10 years with a current-law level of national health spending of $52 trillion over the same period and conclude these are savings in national health spending. And although many advocates believe that a single-payer system would increase federal spending but with the benefit of reducing national health spending, our estimates contradict that. According to our analysis, a broad single-payer reform, similar to current Medicare for All bills, would increase federal spending and increase national spending. But as our full report also shows, a single-payer program can be designed to decrease national health spending, as can other approaches to achieving universal coverage. This is the quick version of the possible approaches: https://www.urban.org/research/publ...ous-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs Within the existing public-private health care system, near universal coverage and improved affordability could be achieved with moderate increases in national health spending. Under one of the plans modeled in the report, which proposes a mix of private and public health insurance, everyone in the US could be covered except for undocumented immigrants. The plan would enable workers to opt for subsidized nongroup coverage instead of their employer’s insurance plan. It would also improve the ACA’s subsidies to help people afford coverage, cover people in states that have not expanded Medicaid, require everyone to have insurance with an auto-enrollment backup, offer a public insurance option, and cap provider payment rates. Coverage and costs: This reform plan achieves universal coverage for people legally present in the US, covering 25.6 million people who would otherwise be uninsured. However, the plan leaves 6.6. million undocumented immigrants without coverage. National spending on health care would decrease modestly, by $22.6 billion or 0.6 percent, compared with current law in 2020. Federal government spending would increase by $122.1 billion in 2020, or $1.5 trillion over 10 years. One single-payer approach would leave no one uninsured and largely eliminate consumers’ out-of-pocket medical costs but would require much greater federal spending to finance. The modeled “enhanced” single-payer system would cover everyone, including undocumented immigrants. The reform would include benefits more comprehensive than Medicare’s—including adult dental, vision, hearing, and long-term services and supports—with no premiums or cost sharing. All current forms of insurance for acute care would be eliminated, including private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare, and everyone residing in the US would be covered by a new public insurance program. Providers would be paid rates closer to Medicare’s. Health spending by employers would be eliminated, and household and state health spending would decline considerably while federal spending would increase significantly. Coverage and costs: 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. A second single-payer approach can be constructed with lower federal and system-wide costs. In addition to the enhanced single-payer plan above, researchers examined a single-payer “lite” plan that is similar to the enhanced version but includes cost sharing for out-of-pocket expenses based on income, adds fewer new covered benefits, and only covers legally residing US residents. Single-payer “lite” lowers total national health spending, decreasing health spending by households, employers, and state governments and increasing federal government spending by less than the enhanced single-payer reform. Coverage and costs: This reform plan achieves universal coverage for people legally present in the US, covering 25.6 million people who were uninsured. However, the plan leaves all 10.8 million undocumented immigrants without coverage (due to the elimination of private insurance). National spending on health care would decrease by $209.5 billion, or 6 percent, in 2020. Federal government spending would increase by $1.5 trillion in 2020, or by $17.6 trillion over 10 years. Here is the full discussion: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/si...form_options_building_ACA_single_payer_db.pdf
That is similar to what Biden is asking for (well a little less) with the public option. I mean there are other proposals in congress (going no where as long as Republicans control the Senate) that would provide universal coverage (perhaps not to non-citizens) for much cheaper than the Sanders and Warren plans. Some may not be well liked by the left, because some are MedicAID for all, so the coverage would be much lower quality than medicare for all, but it would cost much less.
What are the economical benefits thar arise from the single payer system? All I seeis about the spending, but nothing about the economic benefits that surely come about from this system....like a huge reduction on consumption of medication related to stress about not being insured/costs involved with illness etc.
Depends, if you ask republicans it will be more 10 trillion more because people will be stressed for paying more taxes. If you ask Democrats, it will save 10 trillion dollars per year. Those things are hard to estimate, just like estimating what it would do to the economy when we fire all those people working for private insurance (a good chunk, not all) would they find a job quickly? would many get hired to work for the government? would the economy take a hit first, but then grow faster once they find other employment. All those things are hard to predict and the range of predictions probably vary a huge amount.
Well, there's a huge amount of people on what ever scheme there is for people without income. How many are unable to work because of illnesses not treated because of being uninsured. Getting those to work generates taxes and reduces pay out of benefits.
And there will be medical bills getting paid that are now not paid, which while not exactly injecting money into the bottom of the economy is still going to be much more constructive than tax cuts for the top.
Talking about stress levels, man reading this article made my stress go up. I guess 10% of my annual salary is the max I should spend on a car, I paid (I am paying) a lot more than 10% for my current car. Put this on another of the many reasons on why I am never going to be wealthy. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/fol...re-money-expert.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab But you just wait Mr Sam Dogen (the article writer), all that "smart" financial planning in your life, when President mama Warren gets into office, she will make sure to fvck you up the ass. Lets see who has the last laugh at the end. Especially if V.P. Yang hooks me up with that free money every month.
I don't know why you placed the article in this thread, but man, this guy really has it tough... I learned this lesson the hard way: In 2001, I purchased a one-year-old Mercedes G500 SUV for $79,000. It seemed like a great deal at the time, considering it sold for $150,000 the year before at a dealership that had exclusive import and selling rights to the model. But shortly after, I experienced buyer’s remorse. Owning the car was costing me more than I had anticipated, and it was ruining my finances. The biggest bummer? I later found a two-bedroom, two-bathroom condo facing the park in San Francisco that I really wanted to buy. Unfortunately, the SUV was too big to fit into the garage. I mean, who of us here has not faced that problem? I can't get the 2 million dollar condo that I want because I can't park my $80k SUV in the garage!!!!
Just off the top of my head: 1) Everyone is covered, so overall costs are reduced. This is the essential concept behind insurance, spread the risk as wide as possible. 2) Since everyone is covered, those who are not covered now would no longer be a strain on the system. Emergency rooms would no longer be the repository for sick, yet uninsured individuals. Public hospitals that primarily serve the uninsured would be less required (although hospitals should largely be non-profit). 3) Since everyone would be covered, employers would no longer have the financial burden of providing health insurance for employees. Employers could pay their employees more, to help offset the inevitable higher taxes. 4) Since everything would/should be covered, there would be lower out of pocket costs and fewer financial strains. 5) The costs of prescription drugs would be reduced. 6) A population that has access to health insurance is likely to be significantly healthier, since people could seek medical care when needed, not when things get so bad. 7) Since everyone would be covered, perhaps workers' compensation insurance might not be required.
Couple of issues here: On the other hand, there might actually be an increase in the number of ER visits as people will be largely divorced from the cost of visiting an ER vs. making an appointment, so there isn't really an incentive to not go to the ER for non-emergency visits to the doctor. While hospitals won't be losing out on money due to non-payment by the uninsured/under-insured, they would still be charging the system more. Most of the plans that I've seen don't seem to have a significant reduction in the cost to employers. In cases where the employer doesn't actually provide insurance (or provides a very minimal amount), it may actually have a pretty sizable increase in cost to the employer.
Part of the debate over here for the general election is the cost of drugs if we had a trade deal with the USA if we brexit under the tories. Apparently a calculation of the extra amount paid for drugs if we paid US drugs prices indicated we'd have to find another £27Bn a year for our population, (about 66m), which, calculating back for your population, (about 327m), means about £133Bn or around $170Bn p/a. But what interested me was that that figure isn't accurate as things stand because we apparently only buy about 9% of our drugs from the US, the rest comes from elsewhere or we produce it ourselves. Of course, that's just looking at drug pricing, nothing else, and is based on drugs as decided by the national institute of clinical excellence which, as we've discussed before, doesn't agree to purchase all the drugs available. Some are refused because, a) they're too expensive, or, b) only help a small number of people, or, c) they've been tested to our standards and aren't effective enough for our criteria.