Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats

[TPS]

3 hours ago, PearlHowardman said:

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/07/study_medicare_for_all_projected_to_cost_326_trillion.html

 

Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

 

That's trillion with a "T."

 

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.

 

Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.

 

Maybe a little context? According to this article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u-s-healthcare-spending-to-climb-5-3-percent-in-2018-agency-idUSKCN1FY2ZD

we spent about $3.5 trillion in 2017, which is expected to rise by 5.5%\year through 2026. That means we will spend over $40 trillion over the next 10 years compared to $32.6 trillion under the Medicare for all plan where everyone is insured. This is roughly a trillion per year cheaper...

Edited July 31, 2018 by TPS

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, TPS said:

Maybe a little context? According to this article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u-s-healthcare-spending-to-climb-5-3-percent-in-2018-agency-idUSKCN1FY2ZD

we spent about $3.5 million? in 2017, which is expected to rise by 5.5%\year through 2026. That means we will spend over $40 trillion over the next 10 years compared to $32.6 trillion under the Medicare for all plan where everyone is insured. This is roughly a trillion per year cheaper...

Let's not conflate what our federal budget or annual receipts are alongside Medicare for everyone.

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

The new faces of batshit crazy ?

[TPS]

27 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Let's not conflate what our federal budget or annual receipts are alongside Medicare for everyone.

Thanks, that was $3.5 trillion in 2017 in total healthcare spending in the US. The point, the Medicare for all proposal would reduce total US healthcare spending by almost $1 trillion/year relative to the current system over the next 10 years.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, TPS said:

Thanks, that was $3.5 trillion in 2017 in total healthcare spending in the US. The point, the Medicare for all proposal would reduce total US healthcare spending by almost $1 trillion/year relative to the current system over the next 10 years.

My point was the federal government is not spending 3.5 trillion a year on healthcare now and that your projection is too much apples vs. oranges.

[TPS]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

My point was the federal government is not spending 3.5 trillion a year on healthcare now and that your projection is too much apples vs. oranges.

The projection is straightforward, and it's given all the time when comparing the US system to all other advanced countries with universal healthcare, ours is more expensive and does not insure all citizens. If someone is going to evaluate what it will cost, then you must compare it to the cost of what it will replace. While "funding" it would create a shocking (to some) increase in the government's budget, higher "taxes" would be offset by lower expenditures for businesses and households. For example, about 20% of corporations' total wage compensation goes to paying healthcare benefits. While they would pay higher taxes to fund Medicare for all, they would no longer need to pay those benefits. They would experience a net gain since the system's overall costs are lower. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, TPS said:

The projection is straightforward, and it's given all the time when comparing the US system to all other advanced countries with universal healthcare, ours is more expensive and does not insure all citizens. If someone is going to evaluate what it will cost, then you must compare it to the cost of what it will replace. While "funding" it would create a shocking (to some) increase in the government's budget, higher "taxes" would be offset by lower expenditures for businesses and households. For example, about 20% of corporations' total wage compensation goes to paying healthcare benefits. While they would pay higher taxes to fund Medicare for all, they would no longer need to pay those benefits. They would experience a net gain since the system's overall costs are lower. 

I understand all of that, but you know that a great deal of people will not be satisfied with the level of healthcare.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

She was a good story at first, but is now suffering from over exposure.  Sort of like Nasty Nate in the Chargers game.  At least Coach McDermott had sense to put a stop to it at half time.

Channeling Sarah Palin.  Maybe she'll be the 2020 VP candidate.

47 minutes ago, TPS said:

The projection is straightforward, and it's given all the time when comparing the US system to all other advanced countries with universal healthcare, ours is more expensive and does not insure all citizens. If someone is going to evaluate what it will cost, then you must compare it to the cost of what it will replace. While "funding" it would create a shocking (to some) increase in the government's budget, higher "taxes" would be offset by lower expenditures for businesses and households. For example, about 20% of corporations' total wage compensation goes to paying healthcare benefits. While they would pay higher taxes to fund Medicare for all, they would no longer need to pay those benefits. They would experience a net gain since the system's overall costs are lower. 

The problem with single payer is the quality in care will decrease for many because of affordability.  I don't see a way around it.  Are people willing to sacrifice quantity (everybody's insured) for quality?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.

 

So?

 

Inviting Ocasio-Cortez to a conference is probably the most kooky thing the UMAA's ever done.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Looks like the caliphate of Michiganistan is having a conference and they invited moonbat? 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, joesixpack said:

Looks like the caliphate of Michiganistan is having a conference and they invited moonbat? 

 

Will she wear a burka, so as to not offend her woke audience as she spouts meaningless (and stupid) drivel?

[keepthefaith]

19 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not splitting hairs.  States regulate insurance.  That's not hair-splitting, that's an important point.

 

And while you may be able to tailor other insurance types to your needs, you can't do it outside state regulatory requirements, and you can't buy an out-of-state insurance plan.  You can't live in Florida and buy a homeowner's policy in MD, because the MD policy won't meet Florida regulations.  When you buy insurance, no matter what you buy, you are buying a policy that is in some way tailored for your state.  No matter the insurance.  Feel free to go to Nationwide and check how the auto insurance policies differ from state to state.  Then consider how they handle the different requirements for claims processing and complaints from different states.  Or peruse how the different states regulate life insurance policies and claims.

 

And furthermore, how do you get around the simple fact, when "selling health insurance across state lines," that health insurance is heavily tied to networked providers these days?  How marketable is that cheap North Dakota plan in Georgia, when all the providers are in friggin' North Dakota?  That's the same problem the "single payer" idiots never consider: health care is delivered locally, and health insurance is structured to reflect that.  

 

There's nothing new here.  I'll say this and will move on.  I'm neither in the camp that wants to keep health insurance as it is nor go to a Canadian style government provided program.  There is a lot of room for improvement in our private health insurance and health care markets.  I'd like to see regulations substantially eased so that market disrupters can offer better alternatives. 

 

 

17 hours ago, TPS said:

Thanks, that was $3.5 trillion in 2017 in total healthcare spending in the US. The point, the Medicare for all proposal would reduce total US healthcare spending by almost $1 trillion/year relative to the current system over the next 10 years.

 

The devil is in the detail.  I'd have to see the numbers to get anywhere close to believing this. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

There's nothing new here.  I'll say this and will move on.  I'm neither in the camp that wants to keep health insurance as it is nor go to a Canadian style government provided program.  There is a lot of room for improvement in our private health insurance and health care markets.  I'd like to see regulations substantially eased so that market disrupters can offer better alternatives. 

 

 

 

The devil is in the detail.  I'd have to see the numbers to get anywhere close to believing this. 

Even a Koch Brother's backed study of Bernie's Medicare for All program found it would save the US about two trillion over the next decade while covering everybody.  Again.  The problem is to make it work economically and cover everybody...some will lose the high quality healthcare they currently have.  Taxes will also go up.

[row_33]

everyone agrees they should:

 

think real hard

 

and try to be more efficient

 

and cover more people

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

18 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I understand all of that, but you know that a great deal of people will not be satisfied with the level of healthcare.

 

And what would stop those people from purchasing the healthcare they feel comfy with? I'm sure you're aware that the United States unique, privatized healthcare system generates mediocre AT BEST results in relation to the rest of the industrialized world.

 

This chick is proposing nothing radical or even unpopular. The majority of people like a living wage. The majority of people like taxing the uber rich. The majority of people like universal healthcare. Yet Republicans continue to win elections. Why? Very simple; because Democrats are too chickensh*t to espouse true liberal ideology.  

 

If minimum wage were adjusted for inflation to match it's inception, it would be closer to 20/hr than 15. But we'll compromise.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

And what would stop those people from purchasing the healthcare they feel comfy with? I'm sure you're aware that the United States unique, privatized healthcare system generates mediocre AT BEST results in relation to the rest of the industrialized world.

 

This chick is proposing nothing radical or even unpopular. The majority of people like a living wage. The majority of people like taxing the uber rich. The majority of people like universal healthcare. Yet Republicans continue to win elections. Why? Very simple; because Democrats are too chickensh*t to espouse true liberal ideology.  

 

If minimum wage were adjusted for inflation to match it's inception, it would be closer to 20/hr than 15. But we'll compromise.

Then the purported savings wouldn't actually be there then, right? You should probably know what the discussion is about before joining in.

[Nanker]

Medicare for all. Are you advocates under the impression that it would be completely paid for by the "government"? 

Medicare consists of at least three separate insurances.

Medicare Part A covers (some) hospital charges.

Medicare Part B covers (some) charges from medical professional providers.

Medicare Part Rx covers (some) pharmaceutical charges.

 

Everyone who works for several years gets Medicare Part A - which the Feds pick up the tab for - because you paid for this while you were working. https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html

 

Part B coverage is very skimpy and the payment for that is means tested - You get charged an Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) each month if you earn more than $85k.  So most folks get a "Supplemental" policy which is wholly paid for by the individual. You can choose a plan that fits your needs best from what's offered you. But YOU will be paying the premiums. https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

 

Rx coverage's base rate is $134 per month and its coverage is also skimpy - but you can shop for a provider that has the formulary which is the best match for what drugs you take. Not all drugs are covered, there are deductibles, and some are very expensive. Again, you pay the premiums for your drug coverage and this too is means tested. So you will pay more if you trip the IRMAA.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

 

Check it out: https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/index.html

 

Medicare ain't cheap, and it sure as hell isn't "Free."

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Even a Koch Brother's backed study of Bernie's Medicare for All program found it would save the US about two trillion over the next decade while covering everybody.  Again.  The problem is to make it work economically and cover everybody...some will lose the high quality healthcare they currently have.  Taxes will also go up.

 

Would taxes go up as much as my insurance premium costs?

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Would taxes go up as much as my insurance premium costs?

Taxes would approximately double.