Bernie Sanders's $32 trillion Medicare-for-all plan is actually kind of a bargain

[babylonsister]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare

Bernie Sanders’s $32 trillion Medicare-for-all plan is actually kind of a bargain
The federal government would spend a lot more money on health care, but overall US health spending would be about the same as otherwise projected.
By Dylan [e-mail]@vox.com Jul 30, 2018, 2:40pm EDT


$32 trillion.

That is how much federal spending would increase over 10 years under Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill, according to a brand-new estimate from the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Before you question the source (like Sanders did), you should know the left-leaning Urban Institute came up with the exact same number in 2016.

It sure sounds like a lot of money, and conservatives hopped all over the figure on Monday morning. But there are a lot of ways to think about $32 trillion — and one might be that it’s actually kind of a bargain.

Mercatus is projecting a $32 trillion increase in federal spending, above current projected government expenditures, from 2022 to 2031.

In terms of overall health care spending in the United States over the same period, however, they are actually projecting a slight reduction.

There is the rub. The federal government is going to spend a lot more money on health care, but the country is going to spend about the same.

“Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. “It’s not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial.”

(One concern is whether cuts to prescription drug spending would discourage medical innovation. It’s simply hard to know — Mercatus projects a $61 billion drop in drug spending in one year, but there would still be hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on medications.)

When you consider a universal single-payer program would 1) cover every single American, eliminating uninsurance and 2) provide much more robust benefits, covering more services than get covered right now, then it starts to look like a good deal.

[marble falls]

1. I believe the saving will be even bigger in the sense of a "dime of prevention is worth a dollar ...

of cure".

[babylonsister]

2. I'm thinking SIGN ME UP!! nt

[TexasTowelie]

3. I've read an article to the contrary.

One of the assumptions is that the number of people that have a disease/medical condition remains constant and there is a decrease in costs due to the reasons mentioned above such as preventative care and lower drug costs.

The article stated that with free or more affordable care then more people will be diagnosed with some type of malady because they were unwilling to pay the costs for preventative care. Therefore, you have a segment of the population that was not having any impact on either government spending or national health care spending that will need to be factored into the calculations.

I also question as to whether more people will be visiting doctors unnecessarily if they no longer have any "skin" in the game for conditions that they would just "tough out" instead.

What I do expect is that a tiered system will continue as it does today: a system paid for by government through Medicare/Medicaid/indigent care/uninsured care; standard care similar to the silver and gold plans; and the platinum plans for the wealthy. I don't see the wealthy giving up their high quality care, but I could see where the lower two tiers could be combined with continuing calls from the wealthy to cut benefits each time Congress meets.

I recognize the necessity of good health care, but I'm dubious of any projections without knowing the assumptions that go with that projection.

[marble falls]

4. And I read this one today here on DU...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210942389

Koch-backed study finds 'Medicare for All' would save U.S. trillions
An estimated cost of $32.6 trillion over 10 years is less than the US would spend over the next 10 years under the current system.
ADDY BAIRD
JUL 30, 2018, 1:56 PM

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/


A single-payer Medicare for All system would reduce the amount the U.S. spends on health care by more than $2 trillion, a Koch brothers-funded study released Monday found.

Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University — a libertarian think tank backed by the Koch brothers — projected that the Medicare for All plan championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would cost the government $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

The study did conclude, however, that Medicare for All would result in significant savings for the government because of lower prescription drug costs, saving $846 billion over the next decade. Streamlined administrative costs under the plan would save another $1.6 trillion, the researchers at the Mercatus Center found.

<snip>