22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

[redqueen]

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.
...
And, if you’re thinking that having the federal government guarantee coverage to all Americans is a big deal, it’s actually not. The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs. Among other things, it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a wide range of state and local health care programs, along with private insurance for government employees and tax subsidies for private insurance.
...
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

[blue cat]

1. I'm absolutely sure that it does.

But what we have now has been fought for tooth and nail so our reality is that MFA ain’t happening anytime soon. If Trump wins re-election we will lose what little we have.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread redqueen.

[Hoyt]

3. Yes, it should save money. But, not sure a supposed 3.9% savings over 10 years is a lot of cushion

if things don't go as planned. 3.9% savings are according to the Mercatus Center ($2 T in "savings" vs. the $52 T Warren says it's going to cost).

I'd like to see us get a Public Option running. If it's as good as we think, businesses and individuals will go to it quickly giving us MFA without having to cram it down peoples throats. That action will never pass.

[thesquanderer]

5. If the same premises underly both cost projections, why not go with the one that's 3.9% cheaper?

The future is unknown either way, all you can do is project out from the same set of underlying data.

[Hoyt]

7. If you have faith in those that will manage it, I agree. Not sure I do.

[thesquanderer]

15. The other variable isn't simply a matter of whether it does or does not end up being 3.9% cheaper...

...but also that it covers everyone, and that it covers things that are typically not covered today. Those benefits have value, too.

[Hoyt]

16. I agree. Everyone needs to be convered. Question is, do we start with covering those that

can't afford coverage -- by expanding Medicare/Medicaid or increasing subsidies to ACA -- or scrap the whole system and start over when we can't even count votes in Iowa, ensure integrity of voting, almost undermined the whole ACA by screwing up the Exchange system, or go from Warren projecting the cost of MFA before Nov 2019 at $3.5 T per year to $5.2 T (a 73% increase) when her team finally took a closer look.

[redqueen]

6. Why pick the right wing think tank version to refer to? nt

[Hoyt]

8. Because that's the one in the OP. 3rd paragraph. I didn't go looking for it.

[redqueen]

10. It's the one from a right wing think tank. Says it right there.

Can't speak for others but it's not my first point of reference for democratic policy ideas.

[Hoyt]

13. Fine, you go looking for another projection. I took what is in your OP.

[Progressive dog]

4. We must set prices on doctors and hospitals with m4all

because that is how those "studies" save money.
Price controls always fail, more quickly for particularly onerous ones that impose the burden of significantly lower income on a substantial, highly educated subset of the population. It won't happen, so opinions masquerading as studies are not relevant

[redqueen]

9. Opinions masquerading as studies? What's your basis for that claim?

For reference, here's a link to the analysis you're framing as "opinion"

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

[Progressive dog]

17. My basis is the words of the "studies themselves"

Just the title of that "study" tells us that it introduces no new data and no new analysis.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

It doesn't find new information, it regurgitates previous analyses which can have no real world data to support them.
Thousands of economic analyses have shown the productivity of workers will increase under socialism. That didn't make it true.
It will be too late when the hospitals start filing for bankruptcy.

[redqueen]

18. What do you think those studies were based on? Imagination?

JFC

[Progressive dog]

19. There are no "studies".

it is a regurgitation of prior economic analyses that contradict all real world data of supply and demand.

[Hoyt]

12. Medicare and Medicaid have had set rates for decades. Setting rates doesn't bother me, although

the level of rates is a concern.

Interestingly, when Medicare first began, the rates paid to doctors were based on what they charged in the previous year. Docs got smart and started increasing their charges so fast that the government had to impose rate settings.

Worse, hospitals were basically paid whatever their costs were, there was no reason to control costs. Then, Medicare went to paying a set amount depending on the patient's diagnoses (there were adjustments if the patient's condition resulted in unexpected costs). Hospitals had to start firing staff in the early 80s and cutting back to stay within those set rates.

[Progressive dog]

20. The government can set rates for services

that it buys but in a free society cannot require anyone to continue to supply those services.

[Demsrule86]

11. You can't calculate savings if your don't know the cost.

[thesquanderer]

14. re: "The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs"

This is something I have found confusing, when people toss out these huge numbers about what MFA will cost. If it's the total cost, without adjusting the other side of the ledger for the costs that will come down (i.e. MFA *replaces* existing health costs), then it's not a fair assessment at all. The number that matters is how much MORE it will cost the government compared to continuing the way we are. Or based on articles like this, maybe how much LESS...? Or maybe the ambiguity is that you need to compare, not just the total costs, but how much of those costs come out of which pockets?