Economy New study: Medicare for all to save 5.1 trillion dollars

panamaican said:
Sure they do. Single payer means no more insurance groups. So instead of a captured market based on your insurance providers, all patients can go to all healthcare providers.

That means that the providers will now have to compete for customers directly. Doctor A will have to outcompete Doctor B to maximize customers. Hospital A will have to outcompete Hospital B to land the most popular doctors and to maximize customers.

Single payer is not the same thing as government provided healthcare.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ dude. Yes it is. If you're an entrepreneur are you getting the same information to make appropriate allocations of your limited resources if you have customers that have a choice to pay or ones that are compelled by imprisonment?
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
<JagsKiddingMe>

No, I clearly called you a cancerous polyp on the anus of a hamster.
Click to expand...

Oh, because you used none of those terms in your poorly worded whine.

















































giphy.gif
 
Greoric said:
Jesus Christ dude. Yes it is. If you're an entrepreneur are you getting the same information to make appropriate allocations of your limited resources if you have customers that have a choice to pay or ones that are compelled by imprisonment?
Click to expand...

If your customers can all pay then you compete over volume.

So, yes, you are getting all the relevant information that you need. If you have 10 customers but your competitor has 20 then you know that you need to do something to attract customers.

Also, you don't seem to understand how doctors work now. Doctors take patients who have insurance, they pre-clear the ability to pay before taking the customer. They've never had to worry about ability to pay in the past. Single payer works exactly like the current marketplace, except that instead of a fragmented insurance market, you have a consolidated insurance market.

Providers have never had to worry about that side of the process.
 
panamaican said:
If your customers can all pay then you compete over volume.

So, yes, you are getting all the relevant information that you need. If you have 10 customers but your competitor has 20 then you know that you need to do something to attract customers.

Also, you don't seem to understand how doctors work now. Doctors take patients who have insurance, they pre-clear the ability to pay before taking the customer. They've never had to worry about ability to pay in the past. Single payer works exactly like the current marketplace, except that instead of a fragmented insurance market, you have a consolidated insurance market.

Providers have never had to worry about that side of the process.
Click to expand...

No guy, they're not. If the gov't is getting compulsory payments they have no market signals to appropriate efficient allocation to the providers. The fact that they see differences in patient volume is immaterial.
 
Greoric said:
No guy, they're not. If the gov't is getting compulsory payments they have no market signals to appropriate efficient allocation to the providers. The fact that they see differences in patient volume is immaterial.
Click to expand...
Now you're changing what you were asking for. Your first question was about arranging the factors of production of healthcare. I stated that the factors of production have nothing to do with the government's role as payer. Just like the insurance companies have no role in arranging the factors of production now.

Now, you're asking about allocation to the providers. That's a different scenario. The payer has the same signals, regardless of if the payer is the government or a private insurer. Providers still have to be licensed providers, still have to register with the payer, still have to submit the records of who they've seen and what they treated them for. Fraud is still fraud, abuse is still abuse.

Nothing about the information being generated or how it is used changes just because the payer shifts from fragmented payers to single payer.
 
japman40 said:
"a new study from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-class Americans’ health spending. It’s the most robust, comprehensive study yet produced on Medicare for All, which has long been in need of easily citable research."

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders

https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all

Sounds like a no brainer

Discuss
Click to expand...

LOL, yah. Because THIS time it'll work. Didn't they say the same thing about socialism?
 
Jack V Savage said:
That's a bizarre interpretation of that passage. It's a controversial issue so it's good to have easily citable evidence on it. That's about the most blandly uncontroversial thing one can say about it, and you interpret it as some kind of statement of bias. Also note that the last major study we saw on it reached a roughly similar conclusion and was commissioned by an anti-UHC source. That America as a whole would spend less with some form of UHC is not controversial among people who study the issue.
Click to expand...

With all due-respect Jack, the problem was never a dearth of "easily citable research." The problem is the American public thinks this is a bad idea. Nobody actually believes it will save us money. Studies such as this always make rosy predictions about "it will save us $100 trillion dollars in the long run." Yeah, sure. Just look at Obamacare. It's a fucking disaster. Costs are higher than ever, premiums are higher than ever, quality of coverage has decreased, taxes are higher than ever, the deficit is higher than ever, the national debt is higher than ever, and it's all thank to Obamacare. This would be an even bigger disaster.
 
JamesRussler said:
With all due-respect Jack, the problem was never a dearth of "easily citable research." The problem is the American public thinks this is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Polling says otherwise (though I actually do suspect that it's more popular in the abstract than a real proposal would be).

JamesRussler said:
Nobody actually believes it will save us money. Studies such as this always make rosy predictions about "it will save us $100 trillion dollars in the long run." Yeah, sure. Just look at Obamacare. It's a fucking disaster.
Click to expand...

This is false all around. One thing that almost no one who studies the issue questions is that it would lead to Americans spending less on healthcare. And the ACA has been a spectacular success by all measures, and that's despite legislative attempts to sabotage it.

JamesRussler said:
Costs are higher than ever, premiums are higher than ever, quality of coverage has decreased, taxes are higher than ever, the deficit is higher than ever, the national debt is higher than ever, and it's all thank to Obamacare. This would be an even bigger disaster.
Click to expand...

The ACA was one of the largest debt-reducing laws ever passed, actually. High deficits (not the highest ever, BTW) now are a result of a poorly thought-out tax cut last year. Taxes are also not even close to the highest ever. Healthcare cost growth has been unprecedentedly low. You can look all of this up. Your position is based on a series of major factual errors (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that they are honest errors).
 
they're going to remove the Medicare portion of FICA then, right?

also, as i'm leaning more and more towards this as an eventuality everyday, can they set aside some of the funding for preventative nutrition and a Presidential Physical Fitness (under Arnold) type of program? The sheer amount of obese people we have in this country has been the only thing deterring me from being all in on UHC
 
JamesRussler said:
With all due-respect Jack, the problem was never a dearth of "easily citable research." The problem is the American public thinks this is a bad idea. Nobody actually believes it will save us money. Studies such as this always make rosy predictions about "it will save us $100 trillion dollars in the long run." Yeah, sure. Just look at Obamacare. It's a fucking disaster. Costs are higher than ever, premiums are higher than ever, quality of coverage has decreased, taxes are higher than ever, the deficit is higher than ever, the national debt is higher than ever, and it's all thank to Obamacare. This would be an even bigger disaster.
Click to expand...
People cannot reference Obamacare and disregard that the administration has made every effort to make it fail. That's the height of being disingenuous. Prior to attempting to undermine it so it collapses on it's own, Obamacare was doing exactly what it was tasked with doing. After the GOP decided to undermine the law, it is now doing exactly what the GOP wanted it to do.

The law as drafted was fine. The law after being sabotaged is not fine. You can't put that on the original version as passed. The blame lies entirely with the GOP.

And the American public doesn't think this is a bad idea.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/mos...edicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/new-poll-majority-of-gop-voters-support-medicare-for-all.html
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/po...tion-drug-pricing-medicare-for-all-proposals/

Americans are fairly solid in favoring this concept.
 
JamesRussler said:
Good one! LOL!
Click to expand...

What models or analysis are you looking at that contradicts that?

CBO calculates $143B reduction in debt in the first decade with bigger effects down the road, and obviously that repeats infinitely. And that's without giving it credit for the overall cost-growth slowdown. Back when repeal was on the table, the CBO was projecting a $350B increase in debt in the first decade of repeal (different numbers are because of the different timeframes).
 
Last edited:
There's a lot to absorb there and I am encouraged by findings that show net savings but Jesus motherfucking Christ I hate taxing long-term capital gains at ordinary income tax rates. This will certainly have wide ranging effects on investments and the economy as a whole, aside from seeming unfair to me. I'm not arguing against increasing taxes on capital but that change is flat out....harsh.

I also like that there is a transition plan for displaced insurance industry workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,904
Messages
55,454,053
Members
174,785
Latest member
ljae89

Share this page

Back
Top