Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study

[eridani]

‘
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

[Blaukraut]

1. The article mentions similar studies dating back to the early 90s. Same results.

Yet, nothing has been done to expand Medicare. On the contrary: It's always on the radar to get cut. As long as the Insurance lobby enjoys the revolving doors in DC, Medicare for All will remain out of reach, like so many progressive, common-sense ideas. Take money out of politics, then maybe we can actually see meaningful reform.

[airplaneman]

55. Yet, nothing has been done to expand Medicare?

I still hate Lieberman for having the swing vote on reducing the medicare age to 55 and voting no. Had he voted yes everyone 55 and older would have had medicare today. Being 59 and both me any my wife having medical problems I am more worried about being screwed by the medical industry and the republicans getting in office and cutting off everything. It bothers me to no end that this simply does not have to be. Health care in this country feels like rape them all into poverty for a profit. With a job and what I thought was good health care coverage my co-pays will be $15K this year alone. The thought of what it would be like without a job or insurance frightens the hell out of me.
-Airplane

[truedelphi]

2. Back in 2004, a young and apparently quite inspired

African American ran for the US Senate seat for state of Illinois utilizing this concept for his campaign.

He even said "Single Payer Universal HC is the best and most logical way to solve the health care crisis."

Don't know what happened to the guy though.

[Enthusiast]

4. He disafuckingpeared.

[area51]

8. Yes.

And my favorite part about his excuses on why we can't have single payer: because we didn't start out with it. Well, the Canadians didn't start out with the system they have now; they transitioned: so can we.

[Kennah]

48. Not disagreeing with you, but it started in Saskatchewan and spread

Took decades before the Canada Health Act was passed in 1984.

In the UK, the NHS was the nuclear option enacted in 1948.

Vermont, Oregon, California, Wisconsin, or somewhere is going to eventually enact universal health care in state.

[duffyduff]

11. It was a mirage.

That person was never there in the first place.

[progressoid]

15. I'd vote for that guy.

Oh...I did.

[Egnever]

38. He woke up to the reality that is congress.

Something you still havent done after years of being beaten over the head by it.

[Kennah]

49. We couldn't escape the numerology of 219-60-5

[truedelphi]

50. That DLC Party line is so tired

That even steroids won't help it.

[pnwmom]

3. Thanks. K & R. n/t

[Sherman A1]

5. K&R

[Wilms]

6. Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, cost insurance companies billions in first year: new study

[Melissa G]

19. +1000

[Scuba]

7. K&R

[UTUSN]

9. R#40 & K for, who's got the history about who was LBJ's healthcare guru for MediCARE?

Since the ACA has been criticized, here/too, for its origins, and since Hillary CLINTON did too, it appears that LBJ's success needs acknowledgement: Who managed it under LBJ?

[BumRushDaShow]

12. SSA and then HCFA

Health Care Finance Administration (now called CMS, with the latest name change happening under Shrub).


Here is the last portion of history leading up to its enactment (from the SSA site).

[UTUSN]

13. Thnx!1 n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. K&R Another stone to place on top the mountain we've built over decades. n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. It seems like it would be good for 2014 campaign optics, if nothing else.

[yodermon]

16. Medicare part "E" - E for Everyone

(read that moniker on DU coupla years ago, can't take credit)

[eridani]

56. I think Thom Hartmann started that one

Excellent meme for sure

[leftstreet]

17. DURec

[Rex]

18. Two of the biggest leech industries ever created

the health insurance industry and big pharma are NOT going to like this! The reason socialized medicine frightens them so much, is because MONEY counts far more to the CEOs of the leech industries than a human life. A human life is just a price number only.

[Bunnahabhain]

28. Medicare for all

does not = socialized medicine

[DirkGently]

20. But how will the insurance companies afford gold lobby statuary?

Please ... think of the insurance companies. And their statuary.

[spanone]

21. wish we lived in a political / corporate world that would allow that to happen

[bvar22]

22. And that is precisely WHY...

...no advocates for the Expansion of Medicare were allowed At-the-Table for the "discussions" about reforming Health Care in 2009.

[BrotherIvan]

23. I would get down on my knees and pray that this happens in my lifetime

It would be a game changer in so many ways for this country.

[MrModerate]

24. Yep, there's a reason that almost all other developed countries . . .

Use single-payer as their healthcare funding model.

[Bunnahabhain]

25. Are we ready for the US government to negotiate drug prices?

Do we see any unintended consequences? If so are you ready to accept them?

[LonePirate]

26. Yes. Expanding and improving coverage for all Americans outweighs any bad negotiating.

[Bunnahabhain]

27. "Bad negotiating" is not an unintended consequence

But unintended consequences will have a definite long run impact.

[LonePirate]

29. That's assuming the bad negotiating happens. It may not.

Still the benefits of Medicare for All vastly outweigh increases in some drug prices, if that were to happen. The fear of the federal government negotiating bad drug prices is nowhere near a justifiable reason to scrap Medicare for All.

[Bunnahabhain]

31. Was I unclear?

Bad negotiating has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Might I suggest you educate yourself on what an "unintended consequence" is?

[LonePirate]

33. Your unintended consequences stance is merely an argument against Medicare for All.

The worst case scenario of the government negotiating drug prices is nothing compared to the good that would come from Medicare for All.

Your original statement reads like a fear tactic from insurance companies or the GOP.

[Bunnahabhain]

34. Why do you refuse to go find out what an unintended consequence is?

And is Robert Reich now spreading fear tactics from insurance companies or the GOP?

Why, when faced with concepts you fail to understand, do you say such silly things?

And I have not taken a "stance" about unintended consequence I merely asked if folks were ready for them. To ask an intelligent question is a bad thing for you?

[LonePirate]

36. I fully understand the term. I am simply rejecting any worst case scenarios based on them.

You are framing unintended consequences as negatives against Medicare for All. Or perhaps you're playing Devil's Advocate with an attempt to state the obvious that some bad changes will accompany the good ones. Regardless of your motive, I simply do not believe that the sum of all negative unintended consequences will outweigh the benefits of Medicare for All. It's simple cost benefit analysis on a grand scale.

[LonePirate]

41. You asked if people wanted the government to negotiate drug prices. Let's follow that.

What happens if the government fails at negotiations? Prices will increase due to several possible factors, such as elevated contractual prices, reduced supplies, fewer generic alternatives (or maybe no generic alternatives), reduced competition and more monopolies in the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Then there are other negative unintended consequences such as job losses in the pharmaceutical industries and the much larger consequence of increased illnesses and deaths from those who cannot afford the increased drug prices. These are but a few. I welcome you to cite more as you have offered none yourself.

Despite all of these, none of them in total outweigh the benefit of Medicare for All. You seem to disagree with that assertion otherwise you wouldn't have broached the subject of unintended consequences. I don't fear them nearly as much as I recognize the massive good that will come from giving everyone in this country affordable (and hopefully quality) healthcare.

Then again, maybe, just maybe, the government succeeds at its negotiations and this fearmongering is for naught.

[Bunnahabhain]

44. How can the government fail?

If the federal government controls the US market for pharmaceuticals how can it not negotiate lower prices? I mean, not even Dubya could fuck that up. Why would supplies reduce in your scenario of increased prices? Do you even know what a generic is? (Hint: that is a function of patent law.) You are just flailing away and not connecting with anything.

I am enjoying how you keep telling me what my position is.

And one last time...the negotiation process is not where the meat of this issue with drugs is. It's a given drug prices will go down if the federal government steps in to negotiate what their prices will be on a national basis.

[LonePirate]

47. You're the one not connecting with anything. You tossed out a hypothetical and refused to support it

You have offered up nary a reason why you are concerned about or resistant to the government negotiating drug prices - and that was your initial (albeit implied) statement.

You harped on me about your ridiculous claim of unintended consequences which is what to lead to the discussion of what would happen if the government screwed up the negotiations, be it stupidly agreeing to higher prices or refusing to cover generic drugs or accepting whatever horrible clause (no compete clauses?) the pharmaceutical companies might add to the contracts. If someone like Max Baucus is doing the negotiating, then we have plenty to fear with possible bad deals for the public.

Further, your initial claim was ridiculous because you are now stating that lower prices will certainly result from the negotiations which pretty much negates your initial concern. Lower prices mean better health for Americans and more lives saved which is the ultimate goal.

Please feel free to step forward and explain your concern about the government negotiating prices because you have done nothing to support your stance, unless you're arguing the obvious. The absurdities I highlighted don't outweigh the benefits so give it your best shot.

[think]

53. After listening to the side effects on the teletube I avoid

most big pharma products like the plague..

[twitr_patter]

30. if only the report were correct...

Existing Medicare patients cannot easily find a doctor in many cities because Medicare doesn't pay enough to make it worthwhile for the doctor to treat them. Some of you I am sure think the solution to that is to force the doctors to treat them. Such coercion is illegal, but don't let that stop you. Consider instead the huge difference between what the government promised with Obamacare - rates will go down, you can keep your doctor, etc - and it turns out those things (and lots of others) aren't true. Also consider the excellent record of the Veterans Administration hospitals. It's true the VA isn't killing as many patients these days as they used to, but then it's been a long time since we've seen articles complimenting the VA on good care. Think about this. Drop a lot of new patients on a medical system which is already short doctors. Pay the doctors less to treat them. Do you seriously think that will result in wonderful medicine? How long are you prepared to wait for an appointment - which is the problem with medicine in Europe and Canada. People smart enough to be doctors are smart enough to do something that pays more than medicine in those places, and that's what will happen here. The proposed system is expected to "save" 592 billion dollars. From where is that money coming? Hospitals? Doctors? They're going to add 44 million new patients, chop over a half-trillion from current spending, and have money left over. Yep - that seems logical to me - especially given how wonderfully the Obamacare program is rolling out. Health care is a legitimate issue, and legitimate issues require legitimate solutions. Adding tens of millions of patients and cutting a half-trillion in spending isn't likely to be such a solution.

[uppityperson]

43. Family in Europe, friends in Canada wait periods are less than mine in USA is with private ins.

"How long are you prepared to wait for an appointment - which is the problem with medicine in Europe and Canada. "

Yes, they have to wait for non-urgent things rather than going for the instant gratification people seem to demand here in the USA. But for regular appointments? They get in at least as fast as I do here in the USA with insurance. Having to wait a week for an urgent health problem like a bladder/kidney infection (happened recently, though I was told I could go to the ER and they'd pass the cost on to others) is wrong.

What "44 million new patients" do you mean are going to be added to the health care system? Do you mean those who don't have insurance, instead use emergency rooms without paying, those costs passed on to others?

[creeksneakers2]

45. There are lots of stories out

there about rates going down with Obamacare. I understand the Republicans are highlighting instances where costs went up and the Democrats are highlighting instances where costs went down. It will take a while to know which is true.

Who lost their doctor? Mine is the same. I get insurance through my work and haven't seen any differences.

Has it been a long time since articles complimented the VA?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-hard-to-top-veterans-health-care-2010-06-02

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9100/index1.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK49104/#executivesummary.s6

[truedelphi]

65. Welcome to DU. Totally agree! I was amazed when so many

Democrats here (and maybe it should be "Democrats"??) were applauding the cuts to MediCare. Those totalled 500 billions of dollars!
[h2][font color=red]

THAT IS HALF A TRILLION BUCKS!

[/h2][/font color=red]

I worked inside the health industry from 1989 to over a decade and a half later. Even way, way back in 1993, doctors were refusing to admit new MediCare patients, as the payments schedule was too low. So why should anyone applaud the idea of making doctor payments even lower?

How it is a good thing that Medicare took cuts, while the Biggest Banks and Financial institutions received over 15 trillions of dollars at the very same time that Obama wanted these cuts?

And experts state that some 4.7 trillions of these dollars of loans to Big finance will not be repaid.

Of course, it's no big deal, is it? The PTB plan on repaying the treasury by getting our Social Security out from under us!

[burnodo]

32. Sorry, no. That's not the plan. Obama has the ACA

Sit down. Shut up. Be quiet. The ACA will make it possible for a medicare-for-all within 40 or 50 or 60 years. GOTV 2014.

[ProSense]

40. One doesn't

"Sorry, no. That's not the plan. Obama has the ACA
Sit down. Shut up. Be quiet. The ACA will make it possible for a medicare-for-all within 40 or 50 or 60 years. GOTV 2014."

...have to disparage the ACA to support single payer.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372091

[burnodo]

64. despite your self-linking

ACA is all kinds of disparageable considering the conductor didn't bother talking about the best plan in the first place

[Corruption Inc]

35. Facts that concern every single person in the U.S. = REC'D!

Too bad we live in an era of corruption and will likely never see many of the things most Americans need.

[GlashFordan]

39. K + R

[ProSense]

42. This is good information, and

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

...it addresses the fact that Medicare needs to be upgraded to apply to everyone.

The biggest challenge is getting members of Congress to agree on the funding, which is a significant change to financing the health care system. See table 7 in the PDF: http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[LonePirate]

51. Yeah, the funding changes would be challenging as no R would agree to any of them.

[limpyhobbler]

46. It's time for this.

[Kennah]

52. OECD Health data is damning

http://www.oecd.org/health/

U.S. spends 17.7% of GDP on health whereas the OECD average is 9.3% of GDP

Second highest nation is the Netherlands at 11.9%

OECD nations, other than the U.S., cover everyone. We pay almost double the OECD average, we had 50 million uninsured before the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 26 million uninsured after, and we do NOT have the best outcomes.

[Warpy]

54. We might still get it but it will take many years

of the ACA sucking the obscene profit out of for profit health insurance for us to get it. Insurance companies and investors have to decide together that it's just not worth it any more.

They'll be happy to turn us over to Medicare in a decade or two.

[eridani]

58. ACA also allows states to implement single payer in 2017

Why wait for the sociopathic political elite in red states to act? The best thing some of the saner states can do is to set a good example. This process worked in Canada.

[obxhead]

59. BS

The ACA allows a far higher profit margin than the biggest ins co's have run on for decades.

In the end price fixing will become the rule to maximize profits.

[obxhead]

57. but but but

What would the poor insurance companies do? Won't you please think about the billionaires?

[Uncle Joe]

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

[RedCappedBandit]

61. If only TPTB listened to THIS Friedman...

[Lugnut]

62. K&R! K&R! K&R! n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

63. Us Canuks figured that out decades ago

.
.
.

Can't lose your home or savings here for stuff like heart attacks and cancer, and most procedures don't cost a dime - funded mostly by income tax contributions during our lifetimes.

Homeless and people on social assistance get the same benefits whether or not they ever contributed a dime.

And the poor get an added bonus, necessary prescribed medication is paid for.

But the Administration in the USA is loathe to admit someone like Canada has a better idea - the Admin will spend millions, er WASTE millions, Billions skirting around a system that works pretty good -

remember - ya got big pharma down there - they put a lot of $$ into your government's elected officials pockets . . .

don wanna screw that up now do we??

CC

[suffragette]

66. Eridani, thanks for never giving up on this

Solid K&R from me.