The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

[Revmitchell]

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.


The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

In recent history, only during the height of World War II has the federal government tried to increase taxes, as a share of the economy, as fast as would be required to offset the cost of a single-payer plan, federal figures show. There are “no analogous peacetime tax increases,” says Leonard Burman, a public-administration professor at Syracuse University and a former top tax official in both the Bill Clinton administration and at the CBO. Raising that much more tax revenue “is plausible in the sense that it is theoretically possible,” Burman told me. “But the revolution that would come along with it would get in the way.”


The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All

 

[KenH]

Just lower the age for Medicare to 55 for folks like me that their employer put out to pasture before age 65 and provide a public option for those under age 55 whose employer does not provide medical insurance.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just lower the age for Medicare to 55 for folks like me that their employer put out to pasture before age 65 and provide a public option for those under age 55 whose employer does not provide medical insurance.

A rather odd position for a "libertarian"

 

[KenH]

A rather odd position for a "libertarian"

“Libertarians can oppose to single payer, but they should realize that there are libertarian ground on which to support this program. Libertarians as famous as Friedrich Hayek have express support for universal healthcare in his classic The Road to Serfdom, the Nobel Prize-winning economist argued that developed societies could take care of some basic healthcare coverage since is difficult to foresee unpredictable events in life.”

The Practical Libertarian’s Case for Single Payer Healthcare

 

[Revmitchell]

So what is the "libertarian" principle that would call for it?

 

[KenH]

So what is the "libertarian" principle that would call for it?

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.” - F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

This is in chapter 9, “Security and Freedom”.

 

[Revmitchell]

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.” - F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

In all of that nonsense where is a libertarian principle to be found. What sentence pronounces the libertarian principle?

 

[KenH]

In all of that nonsense where is a libertarian principle to be found. What sentence pronounces the libertarian principle?

I suggest you read all of chapter 9, if you are truly interested.

 

[Shoostie]

Medical costs are at least ten times higher than they should be. AI database systems should be making diagnoses all but free. A free market should be making practically all drugs cheap as candy. Letting private, sans insurance, could provide all sorts of tests dirt cheap, if they were allowed to.

So, why are we talking about medicare for all instead of dirt-cheap good-quality medical care for all?

 

[church mouse guy]

Just lower the age for Medicare to 55 for folks like me that their employer put out to pasture before age 65 and provide a public option for those under age 55 whose employer does not provide medical insurance.

Age 55 is kinda young to be getting federal help with doctor bills since most people are fairly healthy at that age, don't you agree? There is Medicaid for people who are indigent. The rich have the ability to pay for their own healthcare and I think that Social Security should be means tested. For example, I think that someone like Jeff Bezos should not get Social Security and should not get Medicare because he is worth billions. He should have to spend down his own money first and then his eligibility could be reviewed.

So the real problem is the undeserving middle-class. They need Medicare when they retire and they need Social Security. Before they retire, they need access to some sort of catastrophic medical insurance to pay for the expensive things but not necessarily for routine visits to the doctor. The government says that they are going to allow people to buy health insurance from any company in America as you already can with car insurance, but they never seem to get anything done.

Americans have a built-in cost in medicine to do research and development and it adds to the cost of medicines but it also has made America the world-leader in developing new life-saving medicines. Very few other countries have this wise provision to help with new medicines.

As a conservative, I do not want the government in charge of my medical care as they already are to a large extent because I am on Medicare. I got a checkup today (I know, I need a checkup from the neck up) and the nurse had to ask me if I had lost interest in things lately and if there had been that kind of change in my life. I told her that I had lost interest in working more than 40 hours a week. The lawyers and government bureaucrats made her ask that question.

Medicare fraud is widespread and ongoing for years. The cost to taxpayers is far more than what a person has paid into the system. Younger workers are not making much money. Union workers have not been compensated in relation to the increase in productivity. A union worker can no longer really afford a house and a car and the ability to educate his children. He probably has good health insurance still. Non-union employees have even fewer benefits or perhaps none at all. Their wages are even lower and they have little hope. Because of the high taxes both husband and wife have to work when in the past only single women had to work. Many companies have temporary employees in large numbers and those employees are usually at the bottom of the economic ladder and often have no health insurance. When you are young, you usually are well but as you age you wear out and run down.

 

[robycop3]

There are lotsa questions that gang of Demorats won't answer, but those answers are OBVIOUS !

COST of their projects ? HIGH !

WHO wil pay for them ? WE will !

Those correct answers won't win elections, so they refuse to answer. But again, those answers are OBVIOUS !

 

[Wingman68]

There are lotsa questions that gang of Demorats won't answer, but those answers are OBVIOUS !

COST of their projects ? HIGH !

WHO wil pay for them ? WE will !

Those correct answers won't win elections, so they refuse to answer. But again, those answers are OBVIOUS !

And logical!

 

[Revmitchell]

There are lotsa questions that gang of Demorats won't answer, but those answers are OBVIOUS !

COST of their projects ? HIGH !

WHO wil pay for them ? WE will !

Those correct answers won't win elections, so they refuse to answer. But again, those answers are OBVIOUS !

The correct answer is they do not have a specific plan other than get it into place and then raise taxes as much as possible to cover claiming all the while that if we do not spend spend spend then people will die! That is their plan much like Obamacare.

 

[church mouse guy]

The correct answer is they do not have a specific plan other than get it into place and then raise taxes as much as possible to cover claiming all the while that if we do not spend spend spend then people will die! That is their plan much like Obamacare.

It makes one wonder what the Dems are thinking. Sanders, who received Israeli stents for his heart attack, is opposed to importing anything from Israel. He is a communist who got rich under capitalism. And then there is Biden, who tells so many whoopers and who has cashed in more than average on his connections and also has become very rich. Obama won't endorse Biden but Obama did endorse Justin Trudeau for Monday's Canadian election. And then there is serial liar Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School's first person of color professor (according to Harvard and Warren). With her Medicare (a program for the elderly) for all, she would, as you say, return us to something more or less like Obamacare in order to raise taxes and make the federal government even larger. It is too much government already that has caused massive public debt and an economy that could be even more robust if we could slash government spending and pay off all debt.

 

[Wingman68]

Obama won't endorse Biden but Obama did endorse Justin Trudeau for Monday's Canadian election.

Excuse me, but isn’t this meddling in a foreign election? Does ANY past or present world leader endorse someone from a country other than their own, openly? No backlash, the media still bows to the bower.

 

[Reformed1689]

AI database systems should be making diagnoses all but free.

Um, sorry, I don't want a database making a diagnosis.

 

[BenWest]

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation.

Tell us how much we are currently spending on Insurance plus federal spending plus the amount paid by people for health care, so we can check out your "republican leaning" opinion. Right now, the opinion of Republicans has been tainted by the confirmed 13,400 lies of it's Leader. Republicans are always the same. If they don't bankrupt Wall Street, they invade countries which are easy to take over. At the moment, we are running Trillions in deficit spending by the "so called" conservatives. Amen?

 

[church mouse guy]

Tell us how much we are currently spending on Insurance plus federal spending plus the amount paid by people for health care, so we can check out your "republican leaning" opinion. Right now, the opinion of Republicans has been tainted by the confirmed 13,400 lies of it's Leader. Republicans are always the same. If they don't bankrupt Wall Street, they invade countries which are easy to take over. At the moment, we are running Trillions in deficit spending by the "so called" conservatives. Amen?

Except the House has the power of the purse and it is controlled by the Dems so you should not be so hard on your friends, should you?

 

[church mouse guy]

Excuse me, but isn’t this meddling in a foreign election? Does ANY past or present world leader endorse someone from a country other than their own, openly? No backlash, the media still bows to the bower.

Obama broke with custom and tradition and diplomatic norms to interfere in Canada's election according to Ezra Levant of Rebel Media.

It like Animal Farm. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Obama is more equal. Actually, Trudeau had a dinner party for Obama in 2016 as a type of endorsement of Clinton. Trudeau also paid Obama $400,000 for a speech, so Obama probably considered himself hired to endorse Trudeau.

Canadian Liberal Party members are in New York City on a fundraiser. They work very closely with the USA Dem Party, apparently.

 

[Reformed1689]

Tell us how much we are currently spending on Insurance plus federal spending plus the amount paid by people for health care, so we can check out your "republican leaning" opinion. Right now, the opinion of Republicans has been tainted by the confirmed 13,400 lies of it's Leader. Republicans are always the same. If they don't bankrupt Wall Street, they invade countries which are easy to take over. At the moment, we are running Trillions in deficit spending by the "so called" conservatives. Amen?

There's about 13,400 lies in this post...