Current Events > Sanders' latest single-payer plan estimated to cost an additional $36 Trillion

(+) Yeah! (+)

Giant_Aspirin posted...

darkjedilink posted...

I would, if not for the fact that, in 2016, many grous not funded by them came to similar conclusions, that this study falls in line with.

got source?

I posted one

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

You do know that our government is already $18 Trillion in debt, right? Where's that extra $36 gonna come from?

Progressive taxation that results in the average person paying less than under the current system.

Show me how those numbers work out
---

Balrog0 posted...

Show me how those numbers work out

It's simple really.
Tax the hell out of the rich, and then hope they don't wander off like what constantly happens in France.

darkjedilink posted...

$36 Trillion

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

It actually saves $2 trillion in national healthcare costs over 10 years. Then there's this:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-savings-mercatus-center-report
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Show me how those numbers work out

It's simple really.
Tax the hell out of the rich, and then hope they don't wander off like what constantly happens in France.

They're leaving France because they're in France and France does not have any kind of bargaining power.

If you leave the USA, where are you going to go? What country do you think will treat you better than USA? Australia? South Africa?

Lets face it, we can raise taxes all we want on the rich here in USA and they will stay regardless because there is nowhere else for them to go.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Show me how those numbers work out

It's simple really.
Tax the hell out of the rich, and then hope they don't wander off like what constantly happens in France.

They're leaving France because they're in France and France does not have any kind of bargaining power.

If you leave the USA, where are you going to go? What country do you think will treat you better than USA? Australia? South Africa?

Lets face it, we can raise taxes all we want on the rich here in USA and they will stay regardless because there is nowhere else for them to go.

Moral of the story: don't bother trying to get rich
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

If you leave the USA, where are you going to go? What country do you think will treat you better than USA? Australia? South Africa?

Cayman Islands, usually.

Tyranthraxus posted...

If you leave the USA, where are you going to go? What country do you think will treat you better than USA? Australia? South Africa?

it depends on what mechanism you're going to use to raise the revenue

for instance, if the method is capital gains taxes, there are several first world countries with lower capital gains taxes than the U.S.
---

ledbowman posted...

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

It actually saves $2 trillion in national healthcare costs over 10 years. Then there's this:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-savings-mercatus-center-report

yes, but this question hinges on our ability to slash payments to providers which the same people proposing we do this would probably not actually be in favor of

it's easy to get mad at pharmacy companies but if we really started paying nurses less -- which is the kind of thing this would ultimately necessitate -- we would quickly see people talking about how nurses don't deserve to be food insecure and live on food stamps and etc etc etc

pretending that only the very tippity top of people would see any negative impacts from this is the problem I have with the whole thing. the issue is far more cross-cutting than that is
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

darkjedilink posted...

I would, if not for the fact that, in 2016, many grous not funded by them came to similar conclusions, that this study falls in line with.

got source?

The article I posted specifically mentioned it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

SwordMaster13X posted...

If this isn't a good plan, then what's the right plan?

Or perhaps a more fundamental question: Is it even possible to provide adequate and even coverage to 325 million people? The best plans in the world work in extremely small, homogeneous countries that are 2% the population of the US, and among equivalent countries in terms of size and diversity, the US has by far the best healthcare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

The first country you hit that isn't basically third world is Japan, which is already half the pop of the US, followed by Germany at about 1/4 our size.

mmmmm i just love the population meme

the idea that public healthcare wouldn't work because too many people dude is so fundamentally stupid i literally can't even
---

FreshSushi posted...

s0nicfan posted...

SwordMaster13X posted...

If this isn't a good plan, then what's the right plan?

Or perhaps a more fundamental question: Is it even possible to provide adequate and even coverage to 325 million people? The best plans in the world work in extremely small, homogeneous countries that are 2% the population of the US, and among equivalent countries in terms of size and diversity, the US has by far the best healthcare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

The first country you hit that isn't basically third world is Japan, which is already half the pop of the US, followed by Germany at about 1/4 our size.

mmmmm i just love the population meme

the idea that public healthcare wouldn't work because too many people dude is so fundamentally stupid i literally can't even

Why is it so stupid? There are real logistical challenges to scaling, both in terms of quality and quantity of access, let alone data storage, heterogeneity of needs, etc. Scale has drastic impacts on everything from physics to economics, and every field knows it.

I'm not saying it's not worth trying, but to try and solve the problem WITHOUT considering scale is a fool's errand.
---

Something that I'd be interested to know from US citizens. Would you be willing to have lower defence spending if it meant having that increase in health spending?

At what point would it be worth having health care that doesn't require the hoops that are to jump through currently?

Would you be willing to pay a higher tax or have a reduction in other services?
---

Hicks233 posted...

Something that I'd be interested to know from US citizens. Would you be willing to have lower defence spending if it meant having that increase in health spending?

At what point would it be worth having health care that doesn't require the hoops that are to jump through currently?

Would you be willing to pay a higher tax or have a reduction in other services?

If there was incontrovertible proof that the extra spending would actually fix the problems? Of course. The issue is that 52% of the US budget goes to entitlements and only 16% goes to defense, so the meme that all our money goes into the military is bunk anyway. I'd want proof that throwing another 10% on top of that 52% is actually going to make things better, because evidence suggests that, at least in the US, simply throwing more money at the problem doesn't actually fix anything.
---

Hicks233 posted...

Something that I'd be interested to know from US citizens. Would you be willing to have lower defence spending if it meant having that increase in health spending?

I would if our president didn't go around stoking flames
---

But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the reports tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out. This is a strategy that already appears to be working, as the Associated Press headline reads: Study: Medicare for all projected to cost $32.6 trillion.
---

Bernie Sanders just said whatever came into his head, without any thought for knowledge of whether or not it was feasible.

He and the majority of his constituents seemed to be under the impression that we would just print more money without any consequence of economic in/deflation. Bernie Sanders has ideals, not ideas.
---

southcoast09 posted...

Bernie Sanders just said whatever came into his head, without any thought for knowledge of whether or not it was feasible.

He and the majority of his constituents seemed to be under the impression that we would just print more money without any consequence of economic in/deflation. Bernie Sanders has ideals, not ideas.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
---

Hicks233 posted...

Would you be willing to pay a higher tax or have a reduction in other services?

No American would, which is why nobody who proposes single-payer in America actually says they'd be required to.

If leftists in America actually suggested the major tax increases required to pay for socialized medicine, it wouldn't have any support whatsoever.
---

ledbowman posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Bernie Sanders just said whatever came into his head, without any thought for knowledge of whether or not it was feasible.

He and the majority of his constituents seemed to be under the impression that we would just print more money without any consequence of economic in/deflation. Bernie Sanders has ideals, not ideas.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

And none of those actually could be paid for just by his proposals.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the reports tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out. This is a strategy that already appears to be working, as the Associated Press headline reads: Study: Medicare for all projected to cost $32.6 trillion.

The headline is acurate - the government would have to spend $32 Trillion more.
---

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report
---

so basically the reason we can't have a conservation is that everyone is a dick that wants to be right more than they want to learn something new or share new information with others

is the take away from this topic
---

Balrog0 posted...

so basically the reason we can't have a conservation is that everyone is a dick that wants to be right more than they want to learn something new or share new information with others

is the take away from this topic

Yeah pretty much.
---

Balrog0 posted...

so basically the reason we can't have a conservation is that everyone is a dick that wants to be right more than they want to learn something new or share new information with others

is the take away from this topic

I tried. I was told I was stupid for asking what I thought was a good, discussion-focused question:
s0nicfan posted...

Or perhaps a more fundamental question: Is it even possible to provide adequate and even coverage to 325 million people? The best plans in the world work in extremely small, homogeneous countries that are 2% the population of the US, and among equivalent countries in terms of size and diversity, the US has by far the best healthcare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

The first country you hit that isn't basically third world is Japan, which is already half the pop of the US, followed by Germany at about 1/4 our size.

---

Iodine posted...

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report

It does not, in any way, say that.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Iodine posted...

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report

It does not, in any way, say that.

It is right there in the numbers: we would pay less overall under this system than the status quo.
---

it does say that... it also correctly mentions that providers are unlikely to just sit back and take the lower rates of reimbursement. if recent politics means anything, the left has generally wanted to increase reimbursement rates in Medicare and Medicaid
---

southcoast09 posted...

Bernie Sanders just said whatever came into his head, without any thought for knowledge of whether or not it was feasible.

He and the majority of his constituents seemed to be under the impression that we would just print more money without any consequence of economic in/deflation. Bernie Sanders has ideals, not ideas.

At least he knows what globalism is.
---

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Iodine posted...

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report

It does not, in any way, say that.

It is right there in the numbers: we would pay less overall under this system than the status quo.

... if everyone pays thousands of dollars a year in taxes
---

darkjedilink posted...

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Iodine posted...

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report

It does not, in any way, say that.

It is right there in the numbers: we would pay less overall under this system than the status quo.

... if everyone pays thousands of dollars a year in taxes

incorrect.

Some people are paying literally thousands now for their family--those people would pay less.

Some people just don't have insurance at all, they're paying the mandate penalty. They'd pay more under Bernie's system but not thousands more. They're already paying that money. We're just diverting it from private subsidies into public health care.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Iodine posted...

In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanderss most recent Medicare-for-All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report

It does not, in any way, say that.

It is right there in the numbers: we would pay less overall under this system than the status quo.

... if everyone pays thousands of dollars a year in taxes

incorrect.

Some people are paying literally thousands now for their family--those people would pay less.

Some people just don't have insurance at all, they're paying the mandate penalty. They'd pay more under Bernie's system but not thousands more. They're already paying that money. We're just diverting it from private subsidies into public health care.

How do you figure we're supposed to come up with 3.6 Trillion in additional revenue per year without massive tax increases?
---

According to the report itself, it would actually save us 2 trillion over 10 years.

So TC and whomever reports that bullshit 36 tril figure are clueless.
---

ZMythos posted...

According to the report itself, it would actually save us 2 trillion over 10 years.

So TC and whomever reports that bullshit 36 tril figure are clueless.

The 36 trillion figure is accurate, it's just less than what were paying now.
---

darkjedilink posted...

How do you figure we're supposed to come up with 3.6 Trillion in additional revenue per year without massive tax increases?

Tyranthraxus posted...

it's less than what were paying now.

---

ledbowman posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Bernie Sanders just said whatever came into his head, without any thought for knowledge of whether or not it was feasible.

He and the majority of his constituents seemed to be under the impression that we would just print more money without any consequence of economic in/deflation. Bernie Sanders has ideals, not ideas.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

Thats all a bunch of guff that his administration made up to cover his ass.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

darkjedilink posted...

How do you figure we're supposed to come up with 3.6 Trillion in additional revenue per year without massive tax increases?

Tyranthraxus posted...

it's less than what were paying now.

The 47 percent of Americans that don't pay taxes won't see it that way, and you're not being genuine if you claim otherwise.

Besides - after the shitshow that was Obamacare, after everything Dems said about it turning out to be false, how much leeway do you think Americans are going to give the government?
---

http://theweek.com/speedreads/787724/bernie-sanders-thanks-koch-brothers-accidentally-making-case-medicare-all
---

justaguy3492 posted...

http://theweek.com/speedreads/787724/bernie-sanders-thanks-koch-brothers-accidentally-making-case-medicare-all

The Koch bros are business guys, and there's a pretty decent argument that corporate America would be a bit better off overall if every corporation ever didn't have to also be involved in healthcare.

Employer-provided insurance is only nominally tax-exmept. It's still a "tax" that most employers have to pay, just for having employees.

Balrog0 posted...

Antifar posted...

Our current system would cost $300 billion more to cover fewer people

http://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-300-billion/

The reports methods are pretty straightforward. Blahous starts with current projections about how much the country will spend on health care between 2022 and 2031. From there, he adds the costs associated with higher utilization of medical services and then subtracts the savings from lower administrative costs, lower reimbursements for medical services, and lower drug prices. After this bit of arithmetic, Blahous finds that health expenditures would be lower for every year during the first decade of implementation. The net change across the whole 10-year period is a savings of $303 billion.

You'd just rather pay premiums and co-pays than taxes.

well that site won't work for me, but it is fairly straightforward that you can cover a lot more people if you slash the amount you pay for services... it isn't rocket science

if you really wanted to bring down the costs, we'd be advocating for medicaid for all which (in addition to having a more generous benefits package in general than medicare) pays about 61% of what medicare does to providers

Can you elaborate more on the differences in funding and coverage for Medicare and Medicaid? If you dont mind. Why does Medicaid pays 61% of what Medicare does?
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Can you elaborate more on the differences in funding and coverage for Medicare and Medicaid? If you dont mind. Why does Medicaid pays 61% of what Medicare does?

Medicaid is a state and federal partnership, which means that the federal government covers a share of the costs and the state government covers a share as well. Wealthier states are expected to pay more while poorer states pay less. The exact percent that the federal government covers varies by state and is known as an FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage)

Because Medicaid has traditionally been designed as health insurance for the poor, there are very modest premiums and co-pays in Medicaid. Basically none any where. This has only recently started to change much, when we expanded Medicaid to cover a much wider definition of 'poor' than it did before.

Medicare is a health benefit program tailored to the retired. The federal government pays for a lot of it, but the beneficiaries themselves are not expected to be poor, so there are things like co-pays. But because the elderly are a powerful interest group, Medicare has a very old and outdated structure such that hospital services, outpatient services, and prescription drugs are covered by different 'parts' (parts A, B, and D respectively) which literally no other insurance program has done since at least the 80s.

The influence of seniors and the influence of state governments also explains why Medicare pays much higher rates than Medicaid. Old people benefit from higher reimbursement rates in Medicare because more physicians take it. States benefit from lower reimbursement rates in Medicaid because it makes it cheaper for the state budget.
---

justaguy3492 posted...

http://theweek.com/speedreads/787724/bernie-sanders-thanks-koch-brothers-accidentally-making-case-medicare-all

Was that before or after he called it a hit piece?
---

Balrog0 posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Can you elaborate more on the differences in funding and coverage for Medicare and Medicaid? If you dont mind. Why does Medicaid pays 61% of what Medicare does?

Medicaid is a state and federal partnership, which means that the federal government covers a share of the costs and the state government covers a share as well. Wealthier states are expected to pay more while poorer states pay less. The exact percent that the federal government covers varies by state and is known as an FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage)

Because Medicaid has traditionally been designed as health insurance for the poor, there are very modest premiums and co-pays in Medicaid. Basically none any where. This has only recently started to change much, when we expanded Medicaid to cover a much wider definition of 'poor' than it did before.

Medicare is a health benefit program tailored to the retired. The federal government pays for a lot of it, but the beneficiaries themselves are not expected to be poor, so there are things like co-pays. But because the elderly are a powerful interest group, Medicare has a very old and outdated structure such that hospital services, outpatient services, and prescription drugs are covered by different 'parts' (parts A, B, and D respectively) which literally no other insurance program has done since at least the 80s.

The influence of seniors and the influence of state governments also explains why Medicare pays much higher rates than Medicaid. Old people benefit from higher reimbursement rates in Medicare because more physicians take it. States benefit from lower reimbursement rates in Medicaid because it makes it cheaper for the state budget.

Thank you!
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Hicks233 posted...

Something that I'd be interested to know from US citizens. Would you be willing to have lower defence spending if it meant having that increase in health spending?

I would if our president didn't go around stoking flames

Isn't the left the ones who think we need to hold drills with S. Korea? Or how we need to be in Syria to support the rebels against Assad's 'regime'? Or how we should be in Africa to fight against Islamic groups like Boko Harem, etc?
All of ^ costs money to do.

Also, the whole 'Russia is bad', but then I guess they're not bad enough to be considered a military threat that we should be prepared for (which is what pouring money into the defense spending bill helps prepare us for)

HiddenRoar posted...

Isn't the left the ones who think we need to hold drills with S. Korea? Or how we need to be in Syria to support the rebels against Assad's 'regime'? Or how we should be in Africa to fight against Islamic groups like Boko Harem, etc?

The left absolutely does not believe in American imperialism. That's like, the one thing we're able to agree upon
---

Antifar posted...

HiddenRoar posted...

Isn't the left the ones who think we need to hold drills with S. Korea? Or how we need to be in Syria to support the rebels against Assad's 'regime'? Or how we should be in Africa to fight against Islamic groups like Boko Harem, etc?

The left absolutely does not believe in American imperialism. That's like, the one thing we're able to agree upon

So why do they want war in Syria and Russia, and believe we need to rattle our sabers at North Korea?
---

watch tc froth at the mouth at the prospect of nuking NK when trump admits he was duped by KJU

darkjedilink posted...

So why do they want war in Syria and Russia, and believe we need to rattle our sabers at North Korea?

They do not! You're thinking of liberals, some of whom have given up whatever anti-war pretenses they had to reflexively oppose Trump.

Here are leftist outlets making that distinction:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21210/liberals-are-attacking-trump-from-the-right-on-north-korea.-heres-why-they
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21072/senate_democrats_Donald_Trump_Syria_airstrikes_war_Chuck_Schumer
https://thebaffler.com/latest/peace-as-armageddon-shorrock
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/04/syria-war-us-intervention-bombing-trump
---

Alphamon posted...

watch tc froth at the mouth at the prospect of nuking NK when trump admits he was duped by KJU

Since I hate nukes, why would I?

If and when KJU shows legitimate deception, we should respond militarily, but nukes are rarely the answer, and won't be in NK.
---