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

And the realities of economics went right over yours....

You actually trust the government to spend the money on what they say its for?

Do you realize the SS Trust fund is just a stack of IOU's in a building in WV?

https://moneymorning.com/2017/03/31/the-...filing-cabinet/

https://wallstreetexaminer.com/2017/03/s...filing-cabinet/

they spent all our money decades ago!

Why in God's name do you want to give them more money while they **** it down the drain and you get nothing...There is a reason you need to have insurance with Medicare, because it doesn't cover a lot of stuff.

Your a fool if you think the government is going to use that money for your healthcare.

lmao.

Do you think we are talking about using existing funds? Do you know that the fund you speak of is only in trouble because politicians took money that wasn't theirs to play with and spent it mostly on the military? You should be mad that they did that, not mad that a guy like Bernie wants to make your life a little better. smh

The rest of your rant is pointless to address because you aren't even in the same book as the rest of us let alone on the same page.

Maybe I didn't explain the question properly.

It would not be an "additional cost".

At this very moment GM pays an estimated 1700 to 2000 dollars for employee healthcare per person. If instead of paying that amount to a private insurer, it was paid in taxes to cover their employees healthcare, the cost doesn't go up. You just pay the same amount you're paying now to the government instead of Aetna or some other private insurer.

Same cost.

"I think" that should have been spelled YOU'RE.

You forget Eve is a libertarian, they don't handle the word 'tax' rationally.

I'd argue they're the only ones that do.

The thing is that medicare costs more than independent insurance.
Here is a link. https://usafacts.org/articles/why-have-m...ee0c9bfbbe7a1ab

They do say that the average healthcare cost per person goes down. (Medicare doesn't cover everything.)

BUT it costs 13K per person. That is a huge increase than what businesses are currently paying, so yes there will be a lot of inflation.

Also, I disagree with the dogma that it's a business responsibility to foot the bill for healthcare in this country. That is a very large crock of [censored].

That will hurt small business growth immeasurably.

Book smarts ... more than likely ,,,,

IF u believe this crock of ASSUMPTIVE CRAP u have ZERO COMMON SENSE and i may actually be more book smart than u ....

IF U BELIEVE THIS ,,, may god help U ...

At the estimated 2k a month that GM says it pays, that's 24k a year. 24k is less than 13k. Business has been paying the bulk of employee healthcare costs for decades now. I understand you may be opposed to the concept but it's not anything new or that is some change to the way things have been done.

I do not feel that GM pays 2K per month. Where do you get this number from?

I pay individual ins 100% out of pocket for 600. Business has the ability to negotiate lower rates with ins companies. So I don't really see that they pay 2K. That number makes no sense.

It is posted above but since you seem not to have seen it I'll post it again.....

GM has said in the past that it annually spends about $1 billion a year on healthcare coverage for its hourly workers, suggesting the monthly cost per worker is in the range of $1,700 to $2,000.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/gm-switc...ng-workers.html

I feel that number is bogus since ins is available on the open market for far less.

And companies negotiate with ins companies to get lower rates when they have a number of employees to cover. I know this quite factually when I was trying to determine the cheapest way to acquire ins for myself as a business owner. If your business has multiple employees you can always negotiate a lower rate.

So, it's doubtful that GM pays that much. Certainly not more than 13K per year.

The only thing I would suggest is that GM offers top rate insurance. Their employees enjoy some of the best healthcare available in America. That may make some difference.

But you do have more experience at dealing with this issue first and than I do.

I don't know what GM does. But I don't have the cheapest plan either. I go with the "Silver Plan". Not the best, not the worst. And it's only 600. I know it will be more if you insure a whole family. But still not 2K.

So something is a bit fishy with that figure.

link doesn't work.

It could very well be you're right. Like I said, I really don't know. I simply posted figures that GM had provided. For all I know the figures could be inflated to try and avoid giving employees wage increases or other benefits in contract negotiations.

The automaker claims to spend over $1 billion yearly on healthcare, which averages out to $1,700 to $2,000 per year per hourly employee.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/29900/gm-s...d-day-of-strike

No, it substitutes one middle man for another, and the new one isn't motivated by profit to remain efficient and keep costs down.

The government will, in short order, double any existing administrative costs while failing to do anything in the realm of negotiating.

Don't believe me? When is the last time a government program or agency shrunk, streamlined, or ceased to be? They don't.. they don't go away, they just continually get new layers of bureaucracy. As for negotiating, let's just take a casual look at the last 100 year history of government procurement, shall we? I think you will find that between $100 hammers and $17,000 toilet seats, there isn't going to be a whole lot of hard bargains driven with Big Pharma.

The entire notion that the government will reduce the costs of anything is nothing short of a fairy tale.
It is exactly as they have proven themselves to be.

Thank you!

It's fishy because it is very misleading, and basically untrue. A large part of GM's healthcare costs are legacy costs for employees that are no longer with the company. So, while it seems fair to divide the total cost by current employees, the figure is grossly distorted. Strangest thing is, they regularly offer buyouts to rid themselves of American workers, and many of the buyouts include healthcare til Medicare age for anyone that will reach the age of 50 within that current contract... So basically anyone above the age of 46 can leave GM and still receive healthcare. Free medical for 20 years? That will skew the numbers a bit.

You won't hear that argument on Fox.. They can't combat it.

"We end the $100 billion a year that the health care industry makes."

Bernie Sanders stated on January 14, 2020 in comments about his "Medicare for All" plan during the January Democratic presidential debate.

Sanders targets health industry' profits. Are his figures right?

At the January Democratic debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders zeroed in on the question of profits in the health care industry.

Under "Medicare for All," he said, "We end the $100 billion a year that the health care industry makes."

It’s a huge number, and one that Sanders has cited before. So we decided to look closer.

The math

The Sanders campaign shared its math, and it’s comprehensive.

The $100 billion total comes from adding the 2018 net revenues -- as disclosed by the companies -- for 10 pharmaceutical companies and 10 companies that work in health insurance.

We redid the numbers. Sanders is correct: The total net revenues, or profits, these companies posted in 2018 comes to just more than $100 billion - $100.96 billion, in fact. We also spoke to three independent health economists, who all told us that the math checks out.

There are a couple of wrinkles to consider. Some of the companies included -- Johnson & Johnson, for instance -- do more than just health care. Those other services likely affect their bottom lines.

But more importantly, $100 billion is likely an underestimate, experts told us.

For one thing, there are more than just 10 pharmaceutical companies, and more than 10 insurance companies, noted Robert Berenson, a health economist at the Urban Institute. Many more exist -- even if they are smaller and post smaller profits.

And this figure looks at pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, but it doesn’t include the biggest source of health care profits: hospitals and physicians.

"You could ask the same questions of health systems and not-for-profit hospitals who are raising prices at a steady clip," said Ellen Meara, a professor of health economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "If you’re going to go after industry, you need to go after the whole system and say prices are a problem everywhere."

If anything, Berenson said, that makes Sanders’ point stronger. After all, $100 billion is a small proportion of the trillions spent annually via national health expenditures. When you factor in hospital margins, the number grows significantly.

So, Medicare for All?

Sanders suggested that Medicare for All would "end" the $100 billion per year profits reaped by the health care industry.

The proposal would certainly give Washington the power to do that.

"If you had Medicare for All, you have a single payer that would be paying lower prices," Meara said.

That means lower prices and profits for pharmaceuticals, lower margins for insurers and lower prices for hospitals and health systems.

That could bring tradeoffs: for instance, fewer people choosing to practice medicine. But, Meara noted, the number supports Sanders’ larger thesis. "There’s room to pay less."

Other health reform plans — including letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, or a government-sponsored public option, such as the plan backed by former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — could also have this effect.

But, Berenson noted, having only one insurer, and having it be publicly funded, would likely have a greater impact.

"I could whack pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t need Medicare for All to do it, but I do need Medicare prices for All to deal with what the real profits are — whether you call them profits or not — which is hospitals."

Our ruling

Sanders said Medicare for All would "end the $100 billion a year that the health care industry makes."

The math holds up. If anything, it’s an underestimate because it doesn’t include one of the largest sources of health care profits: hospitals, health systems and physicians. We rate it True.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...alth-industrys/

I would love to know more about hospitals and their profits. My assumption is it varies widely. You've got the Cleveland Clinics of the world just raking in money while many smaller hospital systems struggle.

No! I'll continue to call out your education as long as you think socialism is a viable option or plan. I won't stop either.

You still didn't answer my question whether or not you went over socialism and how it works in class. I don't think you did but whatever. The basic tenants of socialism go against economics, particularly in the study of Austrian economics. I could break it down for you if you're interested but you seem hell bent on turning the US into a socialist nation. I'll do it anyway for your education and some of those around you.

Get ready. Everything I'm about to say holds true in all socialist type programs. Doesn't even have to be totally socialist either, just a hint.

1. Socialist programs don't work because they have a tendency of being a "planned" program\economy. When I say "planned" I mean artificially controlled by the government instead of by natural market forces.

2. With a planned program being part of the economy and operating artificially and not with the free market supply and demand scale, what or who decides how to distribute the goods? When I say goods I mean hospitals, doctors, medical equipment and so forth. So who or what decides? It sure isn't the free market and that's where the problem begins to come in.

3. Being that the program is NOT operating off of the free market using natural supply\demand there are multiple problems happening here.

-The first is who is deciding what to allocate and when? How many medical devices should Baltimore receive? When you have a socialist program the government or elite beaurcrats are in charge of this and are the ones who decided when to allocate. It is mentally impossible for the government or a select group of elites to be able to do this and make an informed decision on what to distribute because they don't have all the information. This is commonly referred to as "The information problem." You can cite every study on what to distribute until you're blue in the face but it WILL NEVER give you the same natural indicators as the free market does. This is a fact that cannot be disputed...

This is one of the main reasons you see shortages and long wait times across countries that have socialistic healthcare programs. That's because there are inefficiencies in the decision processes on how much to allocate and when.

-The other point under number three has to do with price indicators. What determines the price of a good? Under a perfect free market the price is determined by numerous factors. Among those are supply, demand, and scarcity. How much of the good is consumed in the market? How much real demand is there? These different factors fluctuate the actual price of that a good should be. In a socialist system, the price of a good is no longer being determined by the natural factors in the market, this is bad. You can't figure out what the actual price of a good, medical equipment, doctors, or hospitals should be since its not in the free market and subject to the laws of supply in demand.

If you want to know more about the price point issue I suggest reading Ludwig Von Mises. He's one of the most famous Austrian economist and led that school of thought. I hope you covered him in your classes. Here's an amazon link to his book if not.: https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630

4. The elites in the government and system are corrupt. All of the problems with supply, demand, the price point non withstanding, even if you had things working as well as possible, people and individuals act within their own self interest. This will never change, especially when they're spending other people's money and not their own. Because its not their own then they are less careful with it, they're most likely more interested in lining their own pockets. They don't care about taking the time to make educated choices on how much and what to try and distribute. Now think about this for a moment.....On the subject of how much and when to distribute, would you want a person or the natural forces of the free market giving you the signs of when to do so.

Everything that I just said its true and can be applied for the past 50 years plus to multiple countries such as Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and more. Multiple cases studies using real people as examples are definitely there. Knowing the actual economics that happen behind socialism and why it doesn't work throughout history I have no idea WHY people would continue to advocate for it. I feel its because they are uneducated and ill informed about history. You know what they say, if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

You are speaking of a true socialist government where the government controls production and distribution. Social democracy, Bernie's brand of 'socialism' does not replace capitalism, it works hand in hand with capitalism. Social democracy is capitalism with a strong social safety net and an economy that works for working people allowing them to flourish. Bernie does not want to control production, just regulate the greed. He believes in capitalism too, but a regulated capitalism where workers thrive instead of the rampant greed of pure capitalism which leads to fascism and class inequality. What does today look like to you when over half the people in the country can't handle a $400 emergency? When medical bills bankrupt people or lack of insurance kills? Where the rich and powerful make the laws all skewed in their favor... Is this the capitalism you are fighting so hard to preserve?

I think maybe you are to scared to see what others around you go through or too cold hearted to care. Do you think the way the economy for the poor is going with all the homelessness, people with no insurance, people working 2 and 3 jobs still struggling to make ends meet and a government striping away the little social safety net we have is the answer? Do you realize what that will lead to? You need to stop trying to be smarter than some rando on a bulletin board and open your damn eyes to the world around you. I don't care if you come at me with all your misgivings about Bernie, and I'm sure he doesn't have all the answers to every issue. But the direction that he wants to lead us... building a strong social safety net, developing an educated workforce within an economy that is structured to not only let them exist but thrive as humans and be treated with kindness and decency while earning their fair share of the wealth they spend their lives helping to create. This used to be the American dream. This used to be the land of opportunity where with hard work you could be anything. This is what you are fighting to stop. And supporting Trump is supporting the further decay of America. His autocracy is leading us to fascism. His lies, bullying and divisive rhetoric is fueling all of this. Is this what you want?

You ask why I would advocate for socialism, when you don't even understand what social democracy is... So I'll ask you, why do you advocate for fascism? Why do you want to see democracy fail? Why do you refuse to fight not just for yourself, but for all Americans? How do you accept that so many must suffer for the little you have to be preserved or so the elite can hoard more? Half the country can't afford a $400 emergency... Think about that. Children are homeless in the streets and that problem is growing rapidly. Think about that. People are dying because they can't afford medicine. Think about that. Then tell me again how I'm wrong.

The only problem with the lie presented in the article you posted, claiming socialist governments don't work, is the fact that there are dozens of successful socialist leaning countries that are far far far to the left of the Dems. Most of them have better schooling, healthcare and quality of life.

I do understand the difference between Bernie's socialism and the socialism depicted in his opposition's scare tactics... even if I do have to remind myself occasionally.

What I distrust is the line about his social democracy working hand in hand with capitalism. He demonizes capitalism at every opportunity, but it's supposed to have a place in his ideal setup? I highly doubt it.

I believe in the free market, when it's mostly left alone. I think a lot of the issues we see with it now (not all, though) are because of government trying to meddle and control it without understand the repercussions.

If you listen to any of the Western European politicians, they go off on capitalism just as much, if not more than Bernie does.

And yet they’ve managed to have a balance that we can only dream of. You can point to any system and see success and failure. How many times have we seen our own version of capitalism absolutely wreck our country? Just like we’ve seen pure socialism crash, and even democratic socialism have its issues.

Bernie does a horrible job explaining the difference between socialism and democratic socialism, but there are massive differences.it would also help if he correctly stated parallels to Denmark and Norway and such, because he keeps scaring a lot of people off.

For example, those countries also have a private insurance option. He has to mention that.

Those countries also have billionaires. He has to mention that.

Those countries also have a lot of capitalist principles in their market system. He has to mention that.

The issues we see with capitalism is something I disagree with you on. The issue is that the corporations now write our laws and have for atleast the last 20-30 years, which oddly enough is why we’ve been so unstable as an economy. And that’s the difference.

Those governments make policies that focuses on strengthening/expanding the foundation (what we call the middle class), while here in America we focus on bribing rich people and corporations and strengthening them (the elite). They focus on their base, but we’re extremely top heavy.

I believe in the free market too, but it has to have a foot up its Ass just like anything else, or it will become out of control, like it has.

For me, even with bernies views that bother me, he represents bringing a balance back, even if it’s not complete balance. What I mean is that I doubt he gets anywhere close to his vision on the economy (probably will on healthcare), but enough that we have a better balance than what we currently have now.

Conservatives can’t keep talking about the free market when they use governments to prop up industries that are favorable to them.

Republicans do that, and that’s socialism. Can’t whine about socialism then turn around and hand farmers 28 billion dollars worth of it. Can’t whine about socialism then hand out corporate welfare checks in an attempt to bribe companies from going offshore.

I mean think about it. Pence and trump went to try and save those carrier jobs, offered them all these tax breaks.

They took the breaks and STILL left. Oob, that’s not free market policies. That’s not capitalism. That’s a failure of bribery. That’s picking and choosing winners that you think will help you politically. That has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with someone who acts like they’re being held hostage by an industry.

That’s crony capitalism. And it needs to go.

Great post Swish. A lot of good posts on both sides.

I have very little confidence that we can institute a government controlled healthcare program that isn't absolute coup of taxpayer dollars. Nevermind trying to accomplish it in a shock and awe fashion, if Bernie has his way.

We're going to stack our government on top of a capitalistic industry, and see if the mighty corporations that pay for the elections will put it's tail between it's legs? We all know that's not happening... and that's just the first hurdle.

Medicare gives us a little glimpse of our competency in running "healthcare"... And what we do with our great "buying power". The 5.1 trillion dollar "thief in the night" that "borrows" unrelated tax revenues from other programs.


$363 Billion Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2018

In 2018, Medicare spent $740.6 billion on medical services for America’s seniors but only collected $377.4 billion in payroll taxes and monthly premiums.
· This cash shortfall represented 46 percent of the federal deficit in 2018.

In 2018, the Medicare Part A (hospitals) cash deficit was $40 billion.
· A 15 Percent Increase in Annual Payroll-Tax Increase Needed to Balance Medicare Part A

In 2018, the Medicare Part B (physicians) cash deficit was $244 billion.
· To balance, seniors’ premiums for physicians would need to increase by 261 percent.

In 2018, the Part D (drugs) cash deficit was $79 billion.
· To balance, seniors’ premiums for prescription drugs would need to increase by 502 percent.


Sounds like our government is up to the task. At least the projections that Medicare will be 13 trillion in debt by 2035 are pre-empted by the fact that it will be insolvent by 2026. How am I expected to believe a program with the incompetency to produce a half-trillion dollar annual shortfall will "flip the script" by 1 trillion per year? Hold on, they're going to increase their incompetency ten-fold, insuring every American, and somehow start saving money? THAT is some serious voodoo mathematics.

"FREE Healthcare for all", as pure as it sounds, will require a plan that will take years (if not decades) to accomplish effectively.

The only PLAN that makes any sense is Amy Klobuchar's... it's ridiculed as a "post-it note" while Bernie scratches some pie-in-the-sky figures on a dinner napkin in Nevada.

Yes, we'll need to use taxpayer dollars.. No question.

Yes, we have the system in place with Medicare that already does an amazing job of controlling the process.

The question everyone should be asking is, will the elimination of my premiums that I pay now be offset by the increased taxes I pay.

Also, will the amount your (some of you anyway)employer pays into your healthcare be offset by the increase in tax costs?

I don't think anyone that is pushing Medicare for All is actually capable of answering those questions.

I expect to pay higher taxes... As long as the extra taxes I pay do not exceed my current premiums, I'm good! Actually, a little bit higher wouldn't make me angry really... I mean, it's one less thing to worry about.

Bernie should hire you for his staff.

That's your reply to what I wrote? Really? That really doesn't make you look very good.

I just explain in principle economic terms why socialist type programs don't work well. Now READ CAREFULLY. Everything I described in my previous post applies to "socialist leaning" programs. The program doesn't even have to be full socialist in order to be prone to what I laid out.

I expected a more economically based argument from you using principles, what a shame. And you said you've taken economics? I think not because you haven't shown me anything.

Everything you just said about laws being skewed in favor of the elites, can't handle a $400 emergency, inequality, fascism, class warfare is BUNK. All of that is just socialist talking points and garbage with no factual basis.

See, that's the difference between you and me. I laid out economic facts and prinicples, you lay out some tepid emotional response. In my mind that doesn't qualify as a real rebuttal. You can say what you "feel" but that doesn't mean anything if its just operated on emotion.

I laid out economic principles, you haven't done anything. Show me why it would work using those and I'll respect your response a lot more. Until then your reply is garbage.

The question everybody should be asking is can you still get a Supplement plan, because Medicare sucks without it.

The only problem with all of that nonsense is the fact that you're dead wrong. As I said before dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the globe, to the left of the USA Democrats all doing great thank you very much. Better schools, better healthcare (for all) better quality of life. And your opinion can't invalidate those facts.

Expanded medicare will pay for all your medical needs with exception of things like boob jobs which are not medically necessary.

Pure socialism, a government that controls the production and distribution of goods DOES NOT WORK. Pure capitalism, a government where the free market is dominated by mega corps and greed runs rampant DOES NOT WORK. A combination of the two does work, and that is what we have in the US. The problem is that for the last 40-50 years the capitalism side has been slowly grown out of control to the point we've become a corporate oligarchy. Greed is rampant, economic inequality is rampant, and the middle class is being or has been destroyed. Some socialism, in particular a strong social safety net AND some policies to correct the economic inequalities will restore balance and restore our democracy.

I stay in the 22% bracket....$160,000 a year. We do well enough on that.


I'll be dammed if some Socialist who has enriched himself tells me I have to pay mare. Screw him and screw all who want him.

Americans have turned in to a bunch of woosies. A bunch of penciled necked men who have more wishbone than backbone.

Wossies.

160k a year in retirement ... good for u bro ..

There’s so much wrong with this ...

Starting with the fact that anyone with a brain would want to give our government more control over our lives ... that is just dumb based off our gov’s history ...

Thats just for starters ...

On a side note .... i find it ironic that a multimillionaire is the face of the socialist party in this country ... the mans a multimillionaire so he clearly practices what he preaches ... ...

How do you feel about socialist ideas such as state funded safety organizations (police, fire, EMS), road care, social security, etc.



You're so tolerant.

I guess this is better than saying their followers are more likely to commit a sexual act?



You know, that's just like, your opinion, man.