DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS

MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS

The Medicare For All plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year and would prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, a new study shows.

The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings. The research, which was published Saturday in the medical journal The Lancet, also found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Alison Galvani, an author of the study and researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek.

Overall, the new research anticipates annual savings of about 13 percent in national health care costs, while providing better health care access to lower-income families. According to the study, about 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, while an additional 41 million people do not have adequate health care coverage. Taken together, about 24 percent of the total population does not have health care coverage that meets their needs.

"The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations," the authors wrote in the study.

The authors also noted, as Sanders often does when discussing Medicare for all, that health care expenditures in the U.S. are "higher" per capita "than in any other country."

Overall, the new research anticipates annual savings of about 13 percent in national health care costs, while providing better health care access to lower-income families. According to the study, about 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, while an additional 41 million people do not have adequate health care coverage. Taken together, about 24 percent of the total population does not have health care coverage that meets their needs.

"The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations," the authors wrote in the study.

The authors also noted, as Sanders often does when discussing Medicare for all, that health care expenditures in the U.S. are "higher" per capita "than in any other country."



If any of the Democratic contenders succeed in the general election, they will face an uphill battle to pass major health care reform in a divided Congress. Even some moderate Democrats have qualms about supporting universal health care, while Republicans have long fought against efforts from the left to move toward universal coverage. The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, is still caught up in the courts as the Trump administration attempts to repeal the policy without introducing an alternative option.

Other studies analyzing a proposed universal health care system have come up with different conclusions from those of the new research. While some have shown cost savings, similar to Galvani's study, others have shown that overall expenses would simply even out, while some have predicted that the policy would end up costing substantially more.

Bivens, from the Economic Policy Institute, told Newsweek that the estimated cost savings from the new research was "on the high side" of analyses of Medicare for all. But he noted it was "not a huge outlier."

"The real question is how soon they [the savings] can be realized – it seems hard to imagine this entire gap could be chopped away in one or two years without providing too much of a shock to health care providers," he said. "But it also seems hard to imagine that something like M4A would not be able to deliver really large savings over time-spans of a decade or more."

https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-wo...y-shows-1487862

Medicare for All, single payer is the solution. These half assed plans like Pete's are just corporate sellouts to keep stuffing the pockets of Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Those dogs can't hunt.

LOL

Lies.

Ask the taxpayers how they would like their taxes jacked up 20% then get back to us.

Prove it's lies, we have enough disinformation around here. You can't.

Except that I can.

How are they gonna pay for it?

HMMMMMMM.

And were the gullible ones ...

Might help if you actually read the article. It will pay for itself with money already being spent. Let me show you the bit that says that.

The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings.

I know this goes against the Fox wisdom y'all love to spread but damn, why so cynical?

Some of the responses you see on this board makes me wonder how many flat earthers we have posting here.

Whopper Alert: 'Study' Finds Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion a Year and 68,000 Lives


By Rick Moran


February 19, 2020


A study by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health shows that contrary to just about every other study published on the subject of Medicare for All, the program would actually save $450 billion a year and 68,000 lives.

Now really, who could ever vote against that? Will this study elect Bernie Sanders president?

How did they come to those conclusions? Smoke and mirrors, of course.

The Fiscal Times:

Previous estimates of the cost of Medicare for All have reached significantly different conclusions, ranging from a roughly 16% increase over current national health-care spending levels to a 27% decrease. This latest study relies on a new analytical tool to measure the impact of different provisions within Medicare for All as applied to real-world data (you can review and adjust the parameters of the analysis in the Single-Payer Healthcare Interactive Financing Tool).

A "new analytical tool"? "Real-world data"? Sounds impressive. Sounds like they actually know what they're talking about. Is M4A the Holy Grail we've been praying for?

Not exactly. One of the most widely quoted studies on the true costs of M4A tells quite a different story.

The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.

The Yale study proceeds from some very different assumptions that don't sound very "real-world" to me.

The researchers found that the proposed system would reduce total health-care expenditures by about 13% based on 2017 spending levels. Savings would come from a variety of sources. Here are some of the major savings the researchers found with Medicare for All, based on the 2017 total health care expenditure of nearly $3.5 trillion:

Reducing pharmaceutical prices via negotiation: $219 billion

Improving fraud detection: $191 billion

Reducing reimbursement rates for hospitals, physician, and clinical services: $188 billion

Reducing overhead: $102 billion

Eliminating uncompensated hospitalization fees: $78 billion in savings.

Get this now: Healthcare expenditures are rising at about 6 percent a year. And yet, M4A will reduce costs by 13 percent?

How did they figure 68,000 lives saved? Easy. Everybody knows that if everyone has health insurance, no one will die. Well, that may be a slight exaggeration. But perhaps the most bogus stat in this entire debate is that insurance coverage leads to treating disease early, thus "preventing" deaths. The problem with that? In order to be treated early, a disease has to be diagnosed. And for that to happen, people actually have to go to the doctor when they're feeling bad. Even with insurance, most of us don't.

Radicals like Sanders will continue to try and sell this snake oil. But even if Democrats win the White House, the House, and the Senate, Medicare for All will never become the law of the land.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/great-news-...ve-68000-lives/

Says the Koch Brothers sponsored "a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period."

half-true

National Federal Budget Health Care Medicare Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Sept. 13, 2017, where he unveiled his Medicare for All legislation. (AP/Andrew Harnik) Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Sept. 13, 2017, where he unveiled his Medicare for All legislation. (AP/Andrew Harnik)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Sept. 13, 2017, where he unveiled his Medicare for All legislation. (AP/Andrew Harnik)
Louis Jacobson
By Louis Jacobson August 3, 2018
Did conservative study show big savings for Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan?

When a free-market think tank published its analysis of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan, Republicans took to social media to tout the report’s most eye-popping finding.

Sanders’ Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years, an amount they framed as crushingly large.

Sanders, however, found good news for his idea in the generally skeptical report.

In a video he shared on social media July 30, he pointed out one of the report’s findings that others had overlooked. Sanders tweaked the Koch brothers, the conservative donor family that has supported the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.

Sanders said, "Let me thank the Koch Brothers of all people for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period. … That is what is in the study of the Mercatus Center."

Sanders’ plan would essentially expand Medicare to cover everyone, rather than just those older than 65. Individuals (and their employers) would no longer need to shoulder co-pays for medical care or premiums for private insurance coverage. Instead, the government would pay everyone’s medical bills.

Sanders and his allies say this would end up saving money, because it would remove the middle-man of insurance companies, which drive up administrative costs, and and enable the government to use new bargaining power to rein in costs by providers.

Skeptics counter that those savings are not guaranteed, and the lack of a monetary incentive for patients to hold back on services could lead to increased use of the system, adding to the overall cost. In addition, with the government having to raise revenue to pay everyone’s bills, taxes and the federal debt could go dangerously high, potentially canceling out or exceeding the money that individuals and families would save in higher take-home pay and lower health-care expenses.

In this article, we’ll look at something much more narrow: whether Sanders is right that the Mercatus report says that single-payer would save the United States $2 trillion in health care outlays.

In a way, Sanders is right, though his assertion glosses over some caveats.
Where the $2 trillion estimate comes from

The Mercatus report included a table summarizing the financial effects of Sanders’ bill. With a minimum of arithmetic, it’s not hard to find the $2 trillion in question.

It’s the difference between the Department of Health and Human Services’ projection of the amount of total health care spending in the United States, and what Mercatus thinks that number would be under Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. (See Table 2.)
Featured Fact-check
Pat Cipollone
stated on January 21, 2020 in remarks in the Senate impeachment trial
"Not even (House Intelligence Chairman Adam) Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" during the House impeachment investigation.
true false
By Louis Jacobson • January 21, 2020

Under Mercatus’ projection for Medicare for All, the total amount of health expenditures would actually fall compared to what is expected under a continuation of the current system.

Specifically, total health care expenditures would fall by $2.054 trillion over 10 years, according to Mercatus.

So there’s definitely something to what Sanders said.
Some reasons for pause

The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

Sanders’ bill "indicates that health providers would be paid at Medicare’s payment rates, which are about 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurance," Blahous said. "Obviously, immediately cutting payments to health care providers by roughly 40 percent would lower national health spending."

But would cuts that large actually occur (and without other negative consequences, such as mass retirements of doctors unwilling to accept lower fees)? This is where independent experts express caution.

Sustained cuts as deep as those projected in the Mercatus model Sanders pointed to are "not likely feasible," said John Holahan, a fellow in the health policy center at the Urban Institute. His Urban Institute colleague, Linda Blumberg, agreed, saying it’s a "pretty heroic assumption to say that you can dial payment rates down to those levels system-wide politically."

In addition, even if the switch to Medicare for All does end up cutting the total amount of money spent on health care in the United States, the legislation places more of those costs on the federal budget. In an era of rising debt and an aging Baby Boom generation, that could be a problem.

Josh Miller-Lewis, a spokesman for Sanders, focused instead on the impact on individuals, many of whom will end up ahead. "Under Medicare for All with a progressive tax system, the vast majority of people will save money on health care," he said.
Our ruling

In cheekily thanking the Koch brothers, Sanders said a study they indirectly sponsored "shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period."

The $2 trillion figure can be traced back to the Mercatus report. But it is one of two scenarios the report offers, so Sanders’ use of the term "would" is too strong. The alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be, would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, not a decline. Independent experts say the alternative scenario of weaker cost control is at least as plausible.

We rate the statement Half True.


https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ngs-bernie-san/

Right wing scare tactics. Cutting out the insurance companies who take 30% off top would mean an immediate reduction. So how exactly could it to increase costs by trillions?

The middle class would be fitting the bill for the people who do not want to work. All, while the rich, the 1% who will be forced to pay more taxes either reduce payrolls (another hit to the middle or working class) across the country or take their money out of the US and invest it in other countries.

Where did you get the 20% increase

Where did you get that the middle class would be "Footing" the bill.dd

great, the same BS scare tactics complete with defending the same wealthy people who dont hesitate to screw you over if given the chance.

yall remind me of the dudes during pre-french revolution, defending the rich while they actively exploit you even further, simply because you're scared of standing up for yourself.

pathetic. weak. sad.

deplorable.

Shacts - talking points you pull out of your ass.

Think about this for a moment.. Taxes will go up with this plan.. But today, most people are paying pretty high premiums for Health insurance and if they change jobs or get fired or laid off, they loose those benefits (they can go on COBRA but even higher premiums will come with that).

Also, there is no portability with private insurance. (yes, I know, some folks can get insurance that is portable, but not the masses by any means)

What bothers me is that when I hear about all the higher taxes, I never hear that you won't be paying premiums, co-pays, deductables etc. Essentially, nothing out of pocket. You keep this insurance from Cradle to Grave.

Next let's tackle another myth.

Medicare is BAD.....HA No, it's not bad..

I'm on Medicare (because I'm Old) and I have an additional supplemental plan. I've never had better insurance in my life.. NEVER. Medicare is a well oiled machine that provides the best service period.

So, you can get great insurance, with no premiums and you complain about having to pay higher taxes?

Just be fair, if you wanna talk about higher taxes, do two things,, Talk about what the real increase is and talk about the savings on the other side of that.

While your at it, how can so many countries provide insurance for all, and we can't? Ask yourself that.

Ask yourself how it's right that we allow so many Americans to go without coverage?

Can anyone tell me why that is right and just?

Higher taxes, no premiums and everyone is covered...What's the problem.

Oh,, I know, they'll put big Pharma and big Insurance and big Hospitals out of business...

I doubt it.

I’ll add... how many countries with socialized medicine are fighting to change and implement our for profit system?





(Hint..... none. I wonder why?)

I've been in England for the last week. Mum in an intensive care ward. NHS .... Free healthcare. Hate to imagine how fast they would have tried to jettison her out of the hospital in the USA or how much it would have cost ... Yes, sometimes she waited 15 minutes or more for a nurse to bring her a commode. Some of the meals looked a bit bland. 1 nurse was a bit rude. But the bottom line was phenomenal care, passionate and caring nurses.

NHS? Not very efficient, wait times for non emergency health issues. BUT FREE FOR ALL. Private healthcare in the USA = inflated procedural costs and health companies making massive profits. Thinking it can't be done cheaper if you remove the profit layer is asinine. Compromises? Sure. But I'm all for the wealthy Being able to pay for more and private care if they choose, just like UK.

I should add, when I say free for all, everyone pays for it. Nothing is free, funds have to be collected from somewhere. Don't need some smart Alex telling me that it's not free.

It goes against common sense ... just like when i was a pup and i said the trade deals Ronnie started making were horrible for the workers in this country and when your boy O said our premiums would go down or when Mr. President said Mexico would pay for the wall ... u look at things through some blue ass glasses while i look at them objectively ...

Once again ... 0 + 0 = 0 is well well well beyond your grasp .... sad but true ...

U have NO COMMON SENSE what so ever when it comes to anything in politics ... you have zero objectivity and believe your side is always right ... awesome way to fo through life ...

The best part ...

Bernie ADMITS taxes are going way up for what’s left of the middle class (thanks Ron, thanks Bill) yet u put stock in this crap ass study and are calling your god a liar ...

Fox is where i get my info from ... ....

I love how these estimates rely on the government reducing admin costs. I can get behind the argument that they can negotiate down drug costs (I don't know how successful they'll be in the long-term, it costs millions of dollars to get a drug through the clinical trial process, and most formulations fail along the way).

But to say that admin costs have been increasing and then argue that government coming in and dramatically turning around that trend is laughable. Calls into question the overall thought process.

They fought for independence from government not fighting for government to protect them. I do not know about you but I do not want to go back to being a peasant while government ascends to being our ruling class. We fought for freedom in this country and free we need to stay. Say No to socialism.

are you really that clueless?

you're already a peasant. most of us are. the government has been completely taken over by the new royalty class which is the wealthy elites, and has been for some time now. our laws are written by corporations and only passed if corporations allow it.

you live under the illusion of freedom. honestly i dont believe half you even know what freedom is or means anymore.

Here's one catch in all of this. Companies are paying huge amounts for the healthcare coverage of their employees.



Now if people suddenly believe the money corporations save on paying for their employees healthcare will be given to their employees to help cover the increase in their taxes for government healthcare, that would be a fine thing.

But it seems the very same corporations you rail against are the same entities you now would have to trust to do this. Otherwise corporate profits soar and the tax payer pays a hefty price.

That is not true. Yes, I work for an employer. I can leave that employer any time I want. I can see what ever dr I want. I can pay for what ever medicine I decide. I do not need or want the government telling me any different. The bottom line is I pay for my insurance. I do not want to have to pay for mine and others. Especially others who do not work and have no desire to work.

The rich are not hurting our medical insurance the lazy are.

Obviously yes. Did you see that last response?

you bringing up the fact that you work for an employer isnt anything close to the point i was making.

and pay for your insurance? people who have jobs also pay for their insurance. under a single payer system, we ALL pay for insurance.

newsflash, day: YOU ALREADY PAY FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK.

jesus you maga hatters are beyong clueless.

It's based on what Europeans pay. Their "free" healthcare is not free, despite what the dumbocrats try to tell you. They pay VAT tax to offset the costs. VAT tax is a federal sales tax. On average it is about 20% in Europe.

Would you like an additional 20% federal sales tax to pay for your "free" healthcare?

Bro I have way more common sense than you. And book smarts.

Have you taken an economics class before?

Corporations pay taxes too bro, they just have too many loopholes. This will be an added tax like the social security tax on employers. They will pay it on each employee.

Of course I have. Have you?

Yeah. This won't cause inflation or anything. The people will not be affected.

Well I have to keep asking that question because of the assertions you're making about socialistic programs. Per the nature of economic logic they don't work. Didn't you go over that?

You are surrounded by 'socialistic programs' in the US. They also exist throughout the world... but you somehow think M4A won't work here when we are the only major country without some form of it... then you say 'per the nature of economic logic' as if you know something... please don't question my education until you get one.

I disagree with the entire medicare for all concept. But I have to ask you.....



If GM is paying the costs of their employers healthcare now, how would them paying for it in taxes rather than to private insurers change anything?

It sounds to me like they would just be paying for it in a different way that wouldn't effect anything.

Employees are the largest cost that any business has. If they have to pay additional taxes/costs for their employees then that extra cost is going to be passed down to consumers. That is a fact of life.

This is the biggest pile of horse dung I have read in quite a long time.

To do my Scarface impression " ARE YOU CRAZY MONTANA!"

Listen the Social Security and Medicare Trust fund is BROKE. They are only going to be solvent until 2026 unless we make drastic cuts to the program. Are you crazy!? You want to put everyone on it!?

SS & Medicare is the very definition of an unsustainable system. It should be in the damn encyclopedia when the term is looked up. SS & Medicare is literally a government run Ponzi scheme, and you want to put everyone under a government run Ponzi scheme? That you rely on? Say what you want about insurance companies, but if they run Ponzi schemes they go to prison, the government? not so much...

There is no way in **** this system could EVER work longterm, no damn way.

by 2026 SS & Medicare will be broke and operating in the red under current conditions

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2019/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/social-security-medicare-insolvency.html

If SS & Medicare can't provide health insurance for just the "elderly and disabled" there is no way in **** if could provide for putting everyone on it...

This is just more twisted numbers and lies. They could take 100% of the Top 10% wage earners in the US, take all their money, property, etc and it would only fund SS & Medicare for 10 years and then all the money would be gone...then what?

Anyone who buys this, I have some pristine beach front property i'll sell you for a song...

No way this is viable unless they raise payroll taxes significantly and institute a national sales tax, both of which are economy killers...

Well the logic Pit used, very basic logic, just went right over your head... lol