Posted on 07/29/2018 10:14:27 PM PDT by blueplum
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.
That’s trillion with a “T.”
The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Perfect!
Let’s go with it, because, um, Americans, deserve, like, free stuff & stuff!
This assumes that all current clinics and hospitals would remain ‘operational’. I don’t see that happening if you go to Medicare-for-all.
If you drew a 25-mile circle around your house on day one, with four public hospitals and ten public clinics...the dynamics would change within three years. Most of the clinics would downsize and only handle certain issues. At least one of the hospitals would shutdown entirely because of the limit on profits. Cancer-treatment? You might find one single option within fifty miles of your home.
The cost would rapidly decrease as the units downsize or limit their ‘products’. You’d finally get affordable care...but find that it’s marginal care at best.
Is this based on it being free?
They could charge a market rate so it self-funds like the post office. It should work as a crappy HMO alternative to Obamacare.
We take in about $3.4T in revenue each year. This medicare for all deal would cost $3.2T a year.
That’s all...
Bernie, put a sock in it. No make it five...
You’d also have to force doctors and nurses and specialists to accept Medicare-based wages. And that will never happen, not with the cost of being educated and maintaining certification in those specialties. What you’ll end up with is boutique care, closed private practices where doctors pick and choose their clientele. And, you’d have to indemnify the hospitals from lawsuits because they won’t be able to afford them. Regional centers with long waiting lists staffed by imported PAs of questionable training will take care of the ‘little people’ - the equivalent of nursing home level care.
You can look at how German doctors viewed their situation over the past thirty years. At some point around 2005, some international HR-medical folks arrived and began to recruit German doctors. In a period of 18 months, they took 5,000 German doctors outside of the country for public/private service in other countries (Australia, US, Norway, etc). It made a fairly big dent in public healthcare....requiring the Germans to go and recruit outside of the country, and to increase the pay-situation.
Same deal with German nurses. They wake up in their mid-30s to realize the pay will never get much better, and find that various other countries will offer greatly improved wage situations.
These people are drop dead nutz. They have blinders on and don’t “see” what’s happening in Canada and the UK.
Regarding estimates ? They don’t have a clue.
Vermont dropped single payer after a few years study because the starting estimate was $4.3 billion a year and didn’t know how to pay for it. Their state budget is 4.9 billion a year.
California estimated 400 billion a year to start. ( Remember, California sux at estimating - high speed rail already over budget and now at 77 billion and start date pushed to 2033)
California’s state budget is 201 billion.
So this medicare for all. Is that like universal health care by another name?
Politfact points out that those who "paid into" medicare, really paid between 13% to 14% of what they get out of it. The rest is paid for by younger workers who will never benefit from it. The same holds for Social Security. From the SSA, Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries, In 1940, the ratio was 159.4 working to 1 person receiving benefits. In 2013, it was 2.8 to 1. Human nature being what it is, both of them will have to go broke first, before anyone comes up with a solution.
they are going to pay for it all by implementing a carbon tax on everything
Medicare as it is blows up the whole budget in a few years.
Carbon taxes are most especially a tax on the poor since all costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Now if the Commie Dems want to admit they are for taxing the daylights out of the poor so they can call something ‘free’, let them say it publically so they can be lambasted publically.
As far as we should be concerned, the US has pre-paid its carbon tax in spades in the form of offering technology, science, medicine and Christian values to a world that was still 80% primitive at the turn of the 20th century.
Yeah. That’ll work...
According to the US governments Budget/Accounting numbers, in 2015 the Federal government spent 1.14 trillion for healthcare, excluding the VA. Healthcare spending at the Federal level has been growing at an average annual rate of between 8-9%. for at least the last 25 years. Medicare/Medicaid will break the Federal budget within the next 6-7 years given it’s present trajectory. EVERY so-called healthcare plan presented has been nothing more than a payment plan with NOTHING about controlling healthcare costs. Even with the supposed cost controls within Medicare/Medicaid those programs are increasing in cost every year. Unless true market principles are injected within the medical industry, the cost of healthcare will continue to increase. If it goes towards ‘socialized medicine’ then expect limitations on what you will receive.....more so than what is experienced now.
sort of. Except medicare only allows one ‘wellness’ visit a year, limits other coverage, has copays, a deductible and a donut hole, and, RX medicines, vision and dental are a separate, self-pay policy (unless you choose HMO which limits geographic coverage). So, universal-care lite, or, imo, less benefits than welfare folk receive on Medicaid.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/condition-15/insurance/medicare-coverage
I also don’t buy the argument of lower administrative costs.
The employees of the government agency will most likely be unionized and impossible to fire-even for sleeping on the job. Most if not all health care workers including doctors will unionize and a federally run program with slow down in terms of purchasing the newest and fastest computers etc.
Isn’t Medicare only available to citizens 65 and older?
Aren’t the asshat journalists and/or liberals (I know that’s redundant) really talking about Medicaid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.