Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 01, 2018

According to [a] 200-page analysis of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Medicare for All Act of 2017, the researchers found that "based on 2017 U.S. healthcare expenditure figures, the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP, without accounting for broader macroeconomic benefits such as increased productivity, greater income equality, and net job creation through lower operating costs for small- and medium-sized businesses."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

According to the 200-page analysis (pdf) of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Medicare for All Act of 2017, the researchers found that "based on 2017 U.S. healthcare expenditure figures, the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP, without accounting for broader macroeconomic benefits such as increased productivity, greater income equality, and net job creation through lower operating costs for small- and medium-sized businesses."

The most significant sources of savings from Medicare for All, the researchers found, would come in the areas of pharmaceutical drug costs and administration.

In a statement, Pollin said his research makes abundantly clear that the moral imperative of guaranteeing decent healthcare for all does not at all conflict with the goal of providing cost-effective care.

Https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/11/30/easy-pay-something-costs-less-new-study-shows-medicare-all-would-save-us-51-trillion

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If so, it is time.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-30 08:56 PM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY MONTECORE AT 2018-11-30 07:15 PM | FLAG: Have they said how much people will have to pay in taxes to fund this? I have a feeling that those of us who pay federal income taxes will not be happy with the cost - especially as the 'fiscal' pain will not be carried by all and I guess those not paying for it will be all for it.

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-11-30 10:59 PM | Reply

"Have they said how much people will have to pay in taxes to fund this? "

In the macro equation, once you factor in what they're paying for health insurance, less than they're paying now. As it currently stands, all of America collectively pays for all of America's health.

"especially as the 'fiscal' pain will not be carried by all"

GTFOH. If you were worried about equal fiscal pain, you would've been on the front lines protesting the new tax code. Every taxpayer in your household borrowed $11,000, just so we could give 82% of it away to the world's wealthiest 1%.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-30 11:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I have a feeling that those of us who pay federal income taxes

Stop acting like you're special, tool bag.

I pay federal income taxes and see this as worth it.

Enact this and cut military funding by at least 50% at we'll finally be making headway to fiscal sanity.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-01 01:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

The most significant sources of savings from Medicare for All, the researchers found, would come in the areas of pharmaceutical drug costs and administration.

While this study is using 2017 expenditure data, the main costs and where savings can be accrued haven't really changed since the Institute of Medicine published their study back in 2009 ...

U.S. Healthcare Costs: where the money is going
resources.nationalacademies.org

If you go thru the above IOM link, it'll show that even in 2009 US Healthcare administration costs were $190 billion per year -- Unnecessary Services $210 billion per year. Regarding pharmaceutical costs, that's part of Unnecessary Services stemming from the over-prescription of drugs.

As for regulating Big Pharma to reduce drug pricing, I'm all for it.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-12-01 07:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Medicare4all will benefit the poor and people with private health insurance. It will hurt those in private health insurance because that is where the savings will come from. It will also make US companies that provide health care more competitive and give freedom to workers that are chained to a job only to keep their healthcare.

The only people against Medicare4all are people benefiting from the private insurance industry and selfish ----- that already have theirs.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-01 10:29 AM | Reply

"Have they said how much people will have to pay in taxes to fund this?"

For you? Zero, you get the VA.

For people with commercial insurance, the question you should be asking is how will their insurance premiums compare?

Now, since most private sector insurance is paid for by the employer, with the employee only paying fifty bucks a paycheck or whatever, the employers will probably just pocket those savings, leaving the employee with a co-pay that now covers their Medicare.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-01 11:59 AM | Reply

#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-12-01 11:59 AM | REPLY: Do you think this can be done without using federal income taxes, which we pay - do you?

#8 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-12-01 01:42 PM | Reply

"Have they said how much people will have to pay in taxes to fund this? I have a feeling that those of us who pay federal income taxes will not be happy with the cost - especially as the 'fiscal' pain will not be carried by all and I guess those not paying for it will be all for it."

In Australia that costs the average taxpayer 2%.

#9 | Posted by zarnon at 2018-12-01 02:07 PM | Reply

Msgt,

What do you think the difference will wash out at?

I'm betting it'll be a net gain even for tax payers as they pay less out of pocket for both care and insurance (if there's an option to have additional insurance over the basic medicare for all then maybe not, but that will be the buyer's choice and you're all about choice, no?).

So even with a few extra percentage points paid in taxes they'll have more money in their pocket at the end of the day.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-01 02:13 PM | Reply

" Do you think this can be done without using federal income taxes, which we pay - do you?"

I think for those who are not rich, the savings will more than pay for the tax hit.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-01 02:25 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-12-01 02:13 PM | FLAG: Will it wash out? I hope it does, but doubtful. Medicare already has fiscal problems and that is with individuals paying in, [in advance] along with employer match, for on average, 40+ years before they can get/utilize it at approx age 65. Now add a couple hundred million more where many have paid in little or none to the system [and who knows how many illegals]. Also remember that approx 44% of working adults pay in no income taxes so guess where the fiscal burden of carrying them and their dependents must fall. That is why I have my doubts.

#12 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-12-01 02:27 PM | Reply

"Medicare already has fiscal problems and that is with individuals paying in, [in advance] along with employer match, for on average, 40+ years before they can get/utilize it at approx age 65"

Just like private insurance earns a profit every time you pay in but don't go to the doctor.
Difference is, in Medicare, the profits just get plowed back into paying claims.
Private insurance skims your premiums and gives them to Wall Street.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-01 02:29 PM | Reply

"Also remember that approx 44% of working adults pay in no income taxes so guess where the fiscal burden of carrying them and their dependents must fall."

Where would you want it to fall?
People who earn so little as to not pay income tax can't really afford to pay much else in the way of taxes, can they?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-01 02:30 PM | Reply

"In Australia that costs the average taxpayer 2%."

That would be more than acceptable to me and I think most tax paying Americans. And yes, I have paid taxes for about the last 50 years.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-01 03:10 PM | Reply

"People who earn so little as to not pay income tax can't really afford to pay much else in the way of taxes, can they?"

Such people already qualify for Medicaid and are receiving free healthcare anyway.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-01 03:19 PM | Reply

"approx 44% of working adults pay in no income taxes"

Thanks, Republicans!

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-01 03:28 PM | Reply

#17 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-12-01 03:28 PM | FLAG: Thank You, as if you pay attention to the below data, apparently more people have risen in income if comparing now vs 2015.

An estimated 45.3% of American households -- roughly 77.5 million -- will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group.Apr 18, 2016
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
www.marketwatch.com

#18 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-12-01 04:16 PM | Reply

I guess many here believe that our government can actually bring in a new program within projected cost as they have always done in the past [like obamacare]........

#19 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-12-01 04:18 PM | Reply

I think most Americans would be willing to pay extra in taxes if it meant medicare for all. Then if the rich want extras they can buy supplemental insurance. Most other developed countries have it why not us? I personally hate the employer modeled healthcare we have. I just went through having to switch coverages because my employer didn't have offer what I had last year. So now I need to find a new doctor and double the deductible. It sucks.

#20 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-12-01 06:45 PM | Reply

"An estimated 45.3% of American households -- roughly 77.5 million -- will pay no federal individual income tax"

Most of which are young, so they haven't hit their earnings potential, or old, so they are done earning.
taxfoundation.org

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-01 09:50 PM | Reply

#18
Please tell us the three biggest reasons that number has risen in recent years.

I'll give you a hint: they were brought to you by -- in order -- Republicans, Republicans, and Republicans.

Only an idiot floods the valley and then complains about water in the valley.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-01 11:55 PM | Reply

"I think most Americans would be willing to pay extra in taxes if it meant medicare for all"

But what about the folks who will be forced to pay extra to get worse coverage?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-02 12:35 AM | Reply

But what about the folks who will be forced to pay extra to get worse coverage?

First you'll have to show that a single-payer will result in you getting less coverage.

You might have to pay extra.

I pay 15.00 a month for my health insurance at my job.
I would probably pay more in taxes for a health care plan that covers everyone.

I would gladly do it. I care what happens to the rest of my fellow Americans regardless of whether "I got mine".

I also realize, under the current plan, that I am one serious illness from losing my job and my gold-plated coverage.

Under a single payer system everyone's cost of care will decrease. We will cover everyone at 2/3 the cost just by following the example of Australia (among other countries).

#24 | Posted by zarnon at 2018-12-02 09:41 AM | Reply

So Zarnon, we follow the money. The one trillion dollars savings has to come out of someone's pocket, or at least no go into it. So who looses the benefit of all that money?

#25 | Posted by jdmeth at 2018-12-02 01:42 PM | Reply

So who looses the benefit of all that money?

#25 | POSTED BY JDMETHS

Why health insurance companies, of course. Duh. All they do is handle the money (and skim a bunch of it off the top). They only make money when they deny health care.

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-12-02 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I guess many here believe that our government can actually bring in a new program within projected cost as they have always done in the past [like obamacare]........#19 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2018-12-01 04:18 PM | FLAG: DOH!!

Of course we believe that... because it is possible...

You just need to park your ignorance and adapt.

#27 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-12-03 10:36 AM | Reply

There hasn't been ANY plan to replace another plan that doesn't have studies behind it saying how great it is and how much we will save. And then studies start surfacing of how bad the plan will be and how it will do the opposite.

Studies are useless these days when done in conjunction with political ideas.

#28 | Posted by humtake at 2018-12-03 11:53 AM | Reply

This is all very good but we have to save those beautiful clean Insurance jobs! What about the poor Health Insurance CEOs!?

How will they get their $100 million paychecks for skimming off the misery of others?

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-12-03 12:16 PM | Reply

"Why save money when you can spend money?" -- Republican Proverb

#30 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-03 12:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort