Some Democratic candidates support Medicare for All.

[guillaumeb]

The US corporate controlled media prefers to frame the issue as "higher taxes" and ignores that total spending for healthcare would drop.

The media prefers to use the anti-tax meme, a meme that the GOP has pushed for 100 years.

This Libertarian meme treats all taxes as illegal takings, and not as spending on necessities.

The fact is, every other industrialized country spends less than the US per capita on healthcare.

And yes, Medicare for All would require higher taxes, but the reason for that is that insurance premiums would be greatly reduced, making for a net gain for families.

So any time a moderator asks if Medicare for All would result in higher taxes, the candidate should respond that total healthcare spending per person will drop, resulting in a net savings.

Edited to add:

One might be able to say that on average, each family will pay less, and the Canadian system would be a good basis for comparison.

But people also must understand that the US system is the most expensive system per capita in the industrialized world. With poorer health results as well.

What seniors on Medicare pay would be one way to approach this.

The short answer is that the average American with "original Medicare" (Parts A and B) can expect to pay a total of $7,620 out of pocket for healthcare expenses this year.
However, that number doesn't tell the whole story. Some of this amount comes from Medicare premiums, and some includes various costs such as prescription medications. In addition, total healthcare costs vary considerably by age and overall quality of health.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average-americans-annual-medicare-bill.aspx?Cid=tLseHi

By contrast:

According to data from OECD, the US spent $10,209 on healthcare per capita, or per person, in 2017. That's more than any other country in OECD's 36-country consortium, and over $2,000 more than Switzerland, the second-highest spending country.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-healthcare-countries-ranked-2019-3

Looking at these articles, there is a difference of $2,500 per person. And seniors spend more per person than the average, so one might reasonably expect to see even better savings.

[wasupaloopa]

1. Give me proof of what you are saying. Show me an independent study that supports what you say!

Until you can prove what you say it is nothing but fairy tales.

You expect people to take a risk that they are not prepared to take.

Amy health care bill will be a bipartisan compromise.

[guillaumeb]

2. With pleasure:

How U.S. Healthcare Spending Per Capita Compares With Other Countries [Infographic]


https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/08/08/how-us-healthcare-spending-per-capita-compares-with-other-countries-infographic/#44030f43575d

[guillaumeb]

3. And this:

The United States spends the most money per person on healthcare.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-healthcare-countries-ranked-2019-3

And there are many such studies. Single payer is cheaper.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. But that's not very convincing by itself. What I'd like to see

is an analysis something like this:

The average family (define average) currently pays X dollars per year for health care, including premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Medicare For All will result in a tax increase for that family of Y dollars, and they will also have to pay Z dollars in premiums and copays. Since X > Y+Z, they will be better off with MFA.

I want to see realistic numbers, not rosy promises.

[guillaumeb]

5. Understood. People want some idea.

One might be able to say that on average, each family will pay less, and the Canadian system would be a good basis for comparison.

But people also must understand that the US system is the most expensive system per capita in the industrialized world. With poorer health results as well.

What seniors on Medicare pay would be one way to approach this.

The short answer is that the average American with "original Medicare" (Parts A and B) can expect to pay a total of $7,620 out of pocket for healthcare expenses this year.
However, that number doesn't tell the whole story. Some of this amount comes from Medicare premiums, and some includes various costs such as prescription medications. In addition, total healthcare costs vary considerably by age and overall quality of health.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average-americans-annual-medicare-bill.aspx?Cid=tLseHi

By contrast:

According to data from OECD, the US spent $10,209 on healthcare per capita, or per person, in 2017. That's more than any other country in OECD's 36-country consortium, and over $2,000 more than Switzerland, the second-highest spending country.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-healthcare-countries-ranked-2019-3

Looking at these articles, there is a difference of $2,500 per person. And seniors spend more per person than the average, so one might reasonably expect to see even better savings.

[guillaumeb]

6. I edited my post to add my answer to you.

Thank you for the question.

[TexasTowelie]

7. The reason that I don't argue the point that total healthcare spending per person will drop

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2019, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

is because it is based primarily upon the assumption that reducing administrative costs is the only factor involved with reducing spending per patient cost. It doesn't examine whether changes in patient behavior will increase the number of visits for medical care. There isn't any real way to measure the amount of unmet demand accurately so the politicians aren't going to argue the point for fear of being completely in error.

If I know that I'm going to have to spring for a co-pay to see a physician, then I'm to avoid seeing a doctor if possible. There are also a litany of diagnostic tests that I've avoided because of the co-pays and deductibles. So if I decide that I can now seek medical care that I deferred because there is no personal cost or to take it to extremes, if I'm a hypochondriac that schedules doctor visits because I'm infatuated with my doctor, then the total medical cost has increased from $0 to x dollars.

Without a way to account for changes in patient behavior any theoretical proposal is just that--theory. I suspect that the increased demand for doctor visits and diagnostic testing will actually have an inflationary effect in the health professions which leads to higher costs per patient since there will be a larger demand chasing the same limited group of services and procedures.

[guillaumeb]

8. From my post:

What seniors on Medicare pay would be one way to approach this.

The short answer is that the average American with "original Medicare" (Parts A and B) can expect to pay a total of $7,620 out of pocket for healthcare expenses this year.
However, that number doesn't tell the whole story. Some of this amount comes from Medicare premiums, and some includes various costs such as prescription medications. In addition, total healthcare costs vary considerably by age and overall quality of health.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average-americans-annual-medicare-bill.aspx?Cid=tLseHi

By contrast:

According to data from OECD, the US spent $10,209 on healthcare per capita, or per person, in 2017. That's more than any other country in OECD's 36-country consortium, and over $2,000 more than Switzerland, the second-highest spending country.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-healthcare-countries-ranked-2019-3

Looking at these articles, there is a difference of $2,500 per person. And seniors spend more per person than the average, so one might reasonably expect to see even better savings.


Yes there will be a cost associated with replacing the current, profit centered system, but the human cost grows every year.

And, medical bankruptcies would disappear. Another hidden cost of the current system.

[TexasTowelie]

9. And none of the statistical data that you presented

responds to my point about patient behavior. Since pent-up and deferred demands for services is an unknown variable, it is impossible to measure what impact that would have on overall medical costs if M4A is adopted.

Comparing the costs in the U.S. with medical costs in other countries is a meaningless exercise since there are differences in our system to compared to other countries because of the availability of more technology, state-of-the-art facilities, along with a more litigious society which results in greater insurance costs and more diagnostic testing since doctors face the exposure of being sued if something unfortunate happens.

And while bankruptcies might be eliminated, the fact remains that someone will still have to pay for the bill which under M4A will be the taxpayer. At what point do you believe that taxpayers will want to continue paying hefty bills for someone in their 70s to receive medical care? As much as Bernie has been an advocate for M4A, at what point does a decision need to be made to keep an elderly person alive with expensive surgeries and long-term care who isn't a nationally known politician? And what about someone younger such as myself? By most people's calculations, I don't have any economic value since I'm part of the long-term unemployed and could be justifiably classified as a burden on society. Am I so important that I should expect taxpayers to continue to pay to keep me alive or would those limited resources be better spent on someone who is a contributor to society instead?

[guillaumeb]

10. To the point about patient behavior,

or more properly, Americans actually receiving health care that they previously could not afford, should we hope that these poorer Americans continue to not receive healthcare?

We already pay for the millions who do not have healthcare in higher taxes.

Should we insist that everyone deserves healthcare as a human right, or do we continue with the current, dysfunctional system?

[TexasTowelie]

11. Well, you changed the argument that M4A would reduce overall costs

to a philosophical argument that everyone deserves healthcare as a human right (despite what costs that may incur). That makes my point about why I'm not going around making statements saying M4A would reduce overall costs.

While I agree that health care is a basic human right, we shouldn't pretend that providing that benefit won't introduce an unknown variable that will likely increase costs.

[guillaumeb]

12. What is the "cost" of healthcare is vague.

What is the cost of people dying due to delayed or non-existent treatment?

What is the cost of medical bankruptcies?

What is the cost of the stress associated with the lack of access to healthcare?

What is the cost of lower life expectancies?

[TexasTowelie]

13. The questions that you are asking

only reinforce my point as to why I'm not going out and pretending that it will reduce overall medical costs. You even admitted that the cost for the examples that you provided is vague. The questions that you ask do not have tangible costs that can be identified and again rely primarily on the philosophical belief that all medical care should be paid for regardless of cost. So you are asking me (and other DUers) to make a case that costs that the average medical cost per capita will be reduced when it is plainly evident that someone who goes from having no medical costs to having a medical bill that someone (be it the patient or the government) has to pay.

But I will attempt to respond to your questions:

What is the cost of people dying due to delayed or non-existent treatment?

If the person never sought treatment, then the additional medical costs are zero. There may be other non-tangential losses such as loss of companionship or an employer may have a cost if a valued employee dies and has to be replaced, but those are not quantifiable medical expenses.

What is the cost of medical bankruptcies?

Minimal costs as medical providers have to rely on collection agencies to have the costs paid. However, most medical providers know that once a debt is turned over to collection agencies then the likelihood of getting paid diminishes significantly and they write off those expenses. The costs related to bankruptcies are effectively shifted from the health care system to the legal system.

What is the cost of the stress associated with the lack of access to healthcare?

Zero. The courts in some states don't even award damages for non-economic damages such as stress when adjudicating tort claims. Even if there are costs, those costs are not a component of how it will affect health care costs unless the patient needs additional care like psychiatric expenses or more aggressive treatment of the physical injuries.

What is the cost of lower life expectancies?

Cannot be determined and also non-tangible. In my personal situation, it probably would result in lower costs to have a lower life expectancy since I don't produce anything that shows that I have economic value to society. I suspect that may also be true for most retirees. A counter-argument would be what expenses would be avoided with lower life expectancies, including more potentially expensive medical procedures and the elimination of retirement expenses (if you broaden the scope from containing medical costs to containing all costs which you have done with several of your questions).


You're welcome to make an argument that M4A will result in lower medical costs, but seeing how that argument is debatable I won't be joining you in pushing your point. We can make the argument for M4A based on it being a humane policy and the correct thing to do on a philosophical and ethical basis, but trying to make an argument on a financial basis is full of pitfalls.

[myohmy2]

15. +1

...no amount of obscuration by some will make this shitty healthcare system work or smell good...

" And yes, Medicare for All would require higher taxes, but the reason for that is that insurance premiums would be greatly reduced, making for a net gain for families. "

...we need to clean house, start over and freshen up healthcare with Medicare For All...

"...a net gain for families."

...is what we need...

[PhoenixDem]

14. This is like saying

that if all cars are made by the same company, the prices will drop and we'll have better cars.

[guillaumeb]

16. Not at all.

No one is talking about socialized medicine, where the government owns and operates the healthcare system.

[PhoenixDem]

17. The purse controls what kind of medical care one gets

You see that with HMOs which give lousy care. MFA will be one giant HMO and doctors will have to obey it.