Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates [View all]dgauss
(882 posts)13. It doesn't sound like Himmelstein is just picking numbers to fit his preference.
For example, insurance overhead:
Holahan [from the Urban Center] assumes that insurance overhead would be reduced to 6 percent of total health spending from the current level of 9.5 percent. They base this 6 percent estimate on figures for Medicares current overhead, which include the extraordinarily high overhead costs of private Medicare HMOs run by UnitedHealthcare and other insurance firms. However, Sen. Sanders proposal would exclude these for-profit insurers, and instead build on the traditional Medicare program, whose overhead is less than 3 percent. Moreover, even this 3 percent figure is probably too high, since Sanders plan would simplify hospital payment by funding them through global budgets (similar to the way fire departments are paid), rather than the current patient-by-patient payments. Hence a more realistic estimate would assume that insurance overhead would drop to Canadas level of about 1.8 percent. Cutting insurance overhead to 2 percent (rather than the 6 percent that Holahan projects) would save an additional $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
So he is basing his numbers on a currently existing system that more closely resembles what Sanders is proposing. He also does this with hospital administration and doctors billing, which would involve even greater savings.
If people choose to accept the Urban Center's numbers but dismiss a critique of those numbers and call it a day, that may be what is being picked to fit a preference.
The bottom line is that I'd like to see a lot more analysis of the numbers, including from the CBO, and a LOT of discussion around it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Urban Institute's Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates [View all]
melman
Sep 2017
OP
That says "industry funders are Cigna and Pfizer", it doesn't say how much. Plus...
George II
Sep 2017
#46
At least yours is reasonably current, not six years old, and has no mention of Cigna or Pfizer...
George II
Sep 2017
#87
Wait...Keynsian ecomomics is now a hall-mark of "the conservative wing of the Democratic party?"
Expecting Rain
Sep 2017
#61
How did you do that? I typed out the breakdown of their funding below (sans last two, got tired!!!)
George II
Sep 2017
#36
If the information being provided is inaccurate, it would sound that way. But...
George II
Sep 2017
#59
But if a corporation touches anything, it becomes impure! Unless it has been blessed of course
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#113
Your link provides no evidence of significant funding. No dollar amounts, and no corporate donors
pnwmom
Sep 2017
#68
It doesn't sound like Himmelstein is just picking numbers to fit his preference.
dgauss
Sep 2017
#13
The ACA is a renamed "Romney care" that the GOP called Obamacare to play to the racism
guillaumeb
Sep 2017
#45
No, the ACA is the ACA, nicknamed "Obamacare". Has nothing to do with Romneycare except...
George II
Sep 2017
#47
Most countries do it with multi-payer system, some of which use private insurance companies to
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#97
Obama also said that it would not be wise to go directly to Single Payer from our current system
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#98
He did. He also pushed for a public option, which a couple Senators killed.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#102
I guess that he didn't actually think it was the "only moral, fiscal" solution.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#104
it's a "rabbit hole" to point out that the ACA has its origins in a Heritage Foundation proposal?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#89
Do you folks forget that between Reagan and Bush (not sure which, probably the first) were...
George II
Sep 2017
#65
I really don't. It connected the ACA with Presidents Reagan and Bush, which occurred almost....
George II
Sep 2017
#72
When people go see the doctor for checkups and get regular dental care
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#52
And someone who doesn't understand that when you pay for something with cash
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#88
And a Single Payer System isn't going to magically create more health care spending.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#91
"People do worry about their health and they will use more care if it is free"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2017
#96
Actually, the increase in the number of people using health care is a cost issue in implementation
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#108