YES and it would also mean “county hospital” care for everyone! Long waiting times to see a doctor and hospital wards with 12 beds!
Long before there was Health Insurance there was “no charge” county hospitals for those that couldn’t afford private hospitals and/or did not have HC insurance which btw was a lot cheaper back in the 60’s because it wasn’t regulated to the hilt by the IRON HAND of Government!
Deregulating HC insurance would cut medical costs even more then that study.
$200 billion a year isn’t exactly a wash. But also, even if it was, providing coverage for an additional 30 million people is hardly a wash in terms of results.
And yet, every other developed nation with more regulated systems cost a fraction of our system. You people don’t live in reality.
Over 4 trillion… it’s a wash.
Further, we all know how ESTIMATES – no matter how detailed and precise – rarely hit the target in actuality. Reality could be more, or could be less. History is pretty clear what is more likely.
That’s one of the factors that will impact reality vs estimates.
I’d be pretty surprised to find any accountant assert that 5+% is immaterial.
Tomorrow another study will show that “medicare for all” will cost 5% more, and then you’ll change your mind.
You’ll note, too, that the estimates in the current study are predicated on predicted success with the goverment’s ability to negotiate new prices with medical providers and pharma manufacturers. There are so many variables in the formation of the predictions and estimates that it’s a fool’s errand to take them precisely.
Yup. As far as I’m concerned, a 5% difference in estimates based on predictions is a wash. You’re lucky I’m taking the predictions at face value at all, given the propensity of practically anything government-run to result in staggering cost overruns.
Sorry, but the Mercatus Center missed this one by a long shot. The current per capita cost is already higher than the average cost they are quoting as attaining over 10 years. Proponents of this nonsense insist there will somehow be these “administrative savings”. This is not technically possible due to the impact of Rational Choice Theory on the proposed program and is borne out by the fact the federal government has repeatedly admitted to the public that it has had no luck whatsoever in controlling the “administrative costs” associated with Medicare, the VA, SSI, Medicaid, etc.
I just got through reading through the auditor’s report on the VA. Once again (and without any dispute I might add) the auditor found the VA has not been able to create, much less sustain, any financial controls on the VA budget that would provide budget management and reductions (page 108 of the auditor’s report in the financial section).
The real math on this proposal is likely to end up well-north of our best-case scenario number of $52 trillion (expected-case being $71 trillion and worst-case being $107 trillion).
You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts and the fact is Rational Choice cannot be removed from human behavior or markets and this single factor will always prevent socialism from accomplishing any of its lofty goals - only the ceasing of power and then maintenance of said power until the money runs out.
Sorry, cannot be made to work. Sounds good to those who are ignorant of structure finance and the laws of economics, but the reality is it is not technically possible to make your idea workable in its current form. There is a way to provide universal healthcare, but it cannot be done in this fashion and be monetarily sustainable. See the discussion further below if you would like more information, please.
Have a nice day, adroit.
What is the way to provide universal health care?
I’m all for just implementing the Dutch model.
That why I went into the er with the flu and waited 3 hours to be seen and I have health insurance.
.■■■■■■■ stupid point is stupid
anyone who thinks our current system is working needs their head examined. there is a reason pretty much teh rest of the world has a government run single payer system. It works…
they have lower health care costs and longer life expectancys.
Its time to expand medicare to cover all. and get rid of people goign to the hospital and having no idea what it will end up costing …
Seeing as this uses the Bernie Sanders plan it could be tweaked to cost less and keep insurance companies going.
Dental eyeglasses and prescription drugs for people under 65 could be excluded .
Why is your premise that we must? You ask the question as if the questioned person accepts the premise.
Maybe the real problem is expecting the ER to treat the flu.
The post that I replied to said
“ There is a way to provide universal healthcare, but it cannot be done in this fashion and be monetarily sustainable“
So back off on the sanctimony a little bit my man.
These geezers are getting worse than the old ladies jumping into conversations with only bothering to hear one side.
You are leaving out a big part of the equation. Many hospitals provide services that go unpaid by people that do not have insurance. Driving up the cost for Medicare and health insurance.
Calculations not accounting for GP care are meaningless.
The basic problem with health care in the US revolves around the fact that there are so many obese and drug dependent people involved in using the health system.
There are things we can learn from the European concept like reliance on the pharmacist in diagnosis and the expanded use of clinical care that can reduce the cost of medical care but that is just touching the edges of the problem.
The problem centers on the fat people and the drug dependent people who overwhelm the system and until that particular problem is solved, insurance rates will continue to rise.
Can I assume that you trust the studies produced by Mercatus?
