Koch-Funded Study shows USA would save $2 Trillion/Decade on medicare for all
61 replies, posted
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/30/koch-funded-hit-piece-backfires-shows-medicare-all-would-save-300-billion-over-ten
Judging by the headlines alone, it would appear that the newly published study projecting that Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) widely popular Medicare for All plan would cost $32.6 trillion over the next decade was conducted by an official, neutral body seeking the facts, not pushing an agenda.
Read a bit further, though, and you'll discover that the analysis—released Monday morning—was produced by the George Mason University-based Mercatus Center, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing billionaires Charles and David Koch, who have previously expressed support for abolishing Medicare and Medicaid entirely.
"This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers' response to the growing support in our country for a 'Medicare for All' program," Sanders said in response to the study, which was penned by Charles Blahous, who previously worked as a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush.
But as Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project notes—though absent or buried in much of the initial reporting—even the Koch brothers' numbers, which Sanders says are vastly inflated, demonstrate that the "U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket healthcare expenses" while saving "a whopping $2 trillion" in the process.*
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1024074723385401344
Also imagine how much we save. If we moved away from Fee For Service. And also transitioned into Pay For Performance.
yeah, but... socialism!
I can't wait to hear Republicans talk about how choice and personal responsibility are worth 200 billion dollars a year and who knows how many lives.
Majority of people want it, the Kochs accidentally showed it's a good financial decision, just do it.
It just makes sense, everyone pays less if they essentially all pay into the same insurance provider.
Call study biased... by citing a biased source. What wonderful fairness. Here, how about looking at an actual news source on the study: https://apnews.com/09e06d686a1a481fa76e3fd91f3fcbc2
Some quotes:
"The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said."
"The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of “Medicare for all” from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders’ 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of the earlier studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.
“It’s showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it’s going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending,” said Thorpe. “Even though people don’t pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who’ll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums.” Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration."
I did never understand that, most people do argue taxes would go up for this type of system. The same people don't want to pay this extra amount of tax...but I asked them but you're okay paying 200 a paycheck for premiums? You would pay less even with increased taxes. It sounds like a no brainer, except for the CEOs who stand to lose a lot of money.
"but it would bankrupt the country by encouraging everyone to quit their jobs and have billions of brown people immigrants flood the US for free treatment! these people don't know a thing
about economics! must be deep state propaganda!"
Worrying that 90% of the news stories I've seen around this all mention how the plan would cost $33 trillion, but nothing of the cost savings.
But that 32 trillion could go towards even more military spending, only to "mysteriously" go unaccounted for! We have to get priorities straight! /S
The media and the right-wing love to throw around the $32 trillion price tag without context because it's a big scary number and oh my god how can we afford that?! But what they don't tell you is that our current system costs $49 trillion over the same ten year period. Do the math.
When talking about Medicare for All, it is important to distinguish between two concepts: national health expenditures and federal health expenditures. National health expenditures refer to all health spending from any source whether made by private employers, state Medicaid programs, or the federal government. It is national health expenditures that, according to the report, will decline by $2.054 trillion.
Federal health expenditures refer to health spending from the federal government in particular. Since the federal government takes on nearly all health spending under Medicare for All, federal health expenditures will necessarily go up a lot, $32.6 trillion over the ten-year period according to Blahous.
National health expenditures include federal health expenditures. The "medicare for all" plan means the government footing the bill for healthcare directly, so it should come as no surprise that federal side sees a 32 trillion increase.
The sources don't directly disagree: the AP source simply leaves out this critical detail to act as a smear piece.
Damn they went cheap on the number fudging
Don't forget tax cuts for the rich!
Look at it this way, that's 2 trillion most they could be using to subside gas/coal and build useless warships.
Yes, what would happen if we let all those non-Aryans in? The Master Race might die out via genetic mixing and if that happens, then... Jesus might not invite us to his "cool kids/races" party when we get to heaven, I think... ? VOTE REPUBLICAN!
When people talk about the cost of a government program, they're ALWAYS talking about the federal cost of the program. That's just common parlance. It's not a "smear."
When congress votes to raise the military budget, they don't say, "Oh, this will cause lots of private industry to get more money, which balances against the greater cost to the government. So it's actually revenue neutral." No, you say, "This will cost the government X amount." The amount private people make off the law is a separate question. In the same way, this study found that Medicare for all will cost $32 trillion. That's the increased government spending necessary, just like every other bill that gets passed. Whether it also saves private people money is a secondary question separate from the cost.
So it would be more efficient, to be less efficient?
The overall economic savings work out the same either way. The country would end up in a better place with less wasted wealth during a time period where surely people need all of their financial savings as much as ever due to the obvious price gouging going on in many american industries and businesses
I'm fine with people making the argument that it's better to have the government spend the money in order to save some money overall. I'm just pointing out that there's nothing "smeary" to talk about the government cost without accounting for private gains. That's what we do with basically every government program.
Also koch funded btw. So your callout of allegedly biased sources by pointing to biased sources isn't missed on this crowd.
Also it assumes you'd do nothing to get sensible healthcare prices and just bend over and take it.
Again, the rest of the world has it figured out just fine. Get out of the stone age.
But America's such a special case it can't do anything more civilised countries do without fucking it up royally. At least, that's what Americans have told me; prolly a bit too down on themselves.
The institute has some Koch funding, but this specific study isn't funded specifically by Koch. The AP article also says that the numbers are comparable to what other people have found.
So, that means the study is all the more correct?
”But Bernie is just an idealist with no plans on how to implement policies which could actually work!”
Shock and horror, being nice to people is actually beneficial!
Not to the particular corporations that own the government.
I always found that disingenuous because, certainly, he'd be the sort of President who'd find top-shelf advisors and solicit the fuck out of their educated opinions.
To be fair, I've noticed this nasty trend in society even online nowadays where people argue and debate in a "sudden death" manner - if you don't have an answer for every single challenge against what you're arguing and/or can't back up every minor detail of your argument with some sort of impeccable source, your opposition will take that as a victory and claim your entire argument is negated. Too many people are getting their conversation skills from high school debate club... or internet forums (which are basically a more profane version of the former).
Are you for or against universal health coverage? Your weaselly contrarianism gets really tiring after a while.
Bet you a coin that he's gonna say he's for universal health coverage but is just very persistent in pointing out perceived flaws in the interest of fairness.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.