Does an insurance model work for healthcare?

[Wry Catcher]

You keep insisting you cannot find any study to confirm what you propose. I get the idea already. You don't need to keep repeating you are wrong. That is obvious.

For the record, I asked for any study showing that universal preventive care would be cost effective. So far you have failed to offer such a thing. You deflect to the health situation in France. Or a vaccine given one time. Neither one is applicable here.
I can offer a counter though. You would think that monthly breast exams by women would be a real money saver. After all, early detection is key, right?
Well turns out that is not the case. Study by the Swedish Institute of Health confirmed this.
jClassic straw man arguments along with your usual lies. Never did I mention France and monthly exams for breast cancer is both absurd and dangerous.
The other things you propose are easy.
Government does not produce jobs. It costs jobs because it must raise the price of everything in the form of taxation and regulation.
Prove it. Money spent on bridges, highways and other transportation projects benefits commerce

Tax cuts to encourage people to work harder create more economic activity. The US, Ireland, and a few dozen other examples have all confirmed this.
Bullshit. If true the Bush tax cuts would not have resulted in high unemployment and the Great Recession
The US military provides the best tool for national defense. Which party has consistently enlarged it? Which party has consistently cut it?
Which party sent our troops into harms way unprepared in a war of choice?

Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by producing better adjusted children. Therefore any other arrangement is sub-optimal. Bullshit. Provide proof, a study which proves children raised by same sex parents are healthier, wealthier and wiser as adults

Supply side economics--see above.
See how well Reagan and Bush II balanced the budget on supply side theory.

The GOP will balance the budget. The Democrats will prevent this though. See current news stories on the budget battle to confirm this.

The Tea party is not the GOP. Look at studies of TP membership. Also the party's chosen candidates tended to lose to TP candidates in the primaries last year.
The Tea Party is a subset of the Republican Party, and has moved the party far, far right.

G-d exists because the universe exists. Same as you know there is a watchmaker because you have a watch. G-d also has a sense of humor because he lets you post here.

Prove God exists. Don't rely on Descartes, for it's obvious you don't think.

You failed to refute a single thing I wrote. Total, utter and complete failure on your part.
Monthly breast exams are dangerous? Rly??

In particular, a smaller number now self-identify as Republicans, and some 50 percent declare a different political affiliation.

Report: Tea Party Activists Enthusiastic, But Political Affiliations Vary | Personal Liberty Digest

Nice try Rabbi. I particularly like your proof of the existence of God. You're even dumber than I thought and that's very very dumb.

 

[Wry Catcher]

True. But how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you? If you don't care enough to take care of yourself, why should anyone else?

I suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway. The alcoholic diabetic will continue to recieve medical treatment as will others who believe they are too healthy to pay for it now, and end up in the hospital when injured in an accident. The robber shot and not killed will be treated in a hospital, and we also pay for the sheriff's deputies who stand guard 24-7 while he recovers.

The fact that you don't care about me or others is the basis for another conversation. I understand the New Right rejects social contract theory. I disagree; I reject Objectivism as a practical or humanistic theory of government.

That is the problem with what you think objectivism is. Objectivism does not say I'm not supposed to care about you. It says you don't have the right to MAKE ME care about you financially. Objectivism says your hardship does not entitle you to my property.

Not exactly. In my humble opinon Objectivism is antithetical to Christianity, yet the New Right seems to embrace both. Of course I'm not required to care about you, and in theory I dont'; sadly I was raised to care for others even hypocrites.

 

[The Rabbi]

Prove God exists. Don't rely on Descartes, for it's obvious you don't think.

You failed to refute a single thing I wrote. Total, utter and complete failure on your part.
Monthly breast exams are dangerous? Rly??

In particular, a smaller number now self-identify as Republicans, and some 50 percent declare a different political affiliation.

Report: Tea Party Activists Enthusiastic, But Political Affiliations Vary | Personal Liberty Digest

Nice try Rabbi. I particularly like your proof of the existence of God. You're even dumber than I thought and that's very very dumb.

This coming from someone who is, what? Oh for 10? Maybe Oh for 10,fuckingthousand.
You cannot defend your statements. You cannot refute anyone else's statements. And the best you can do is call names.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You failed to refute a single thing I wrote. Total, utter and complete failure on your part.
Monthly breast exams are dangerous? Rly??

Report: Tea Party Activists Enthusiastic, But Political Affiliations Vary | Personal Liberty Digest

Nice try Rabbi. I particularly like your proof of the existence of God. You're even dumber than I thought and that's very very dumb.

This coming from someone who is, what? Oh for 10? Maybe Oh for 10,fuckingthousand.
You cannot defend your statements. You cannot refute anyone else's statements. And the best you can do is call names.

You're an asshole and a liar Rabbi. If that constitutes calling you names so be it. I've noticed and point out your signature line, so I don't feel any need to justive anything I post to a piece of shit like you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nice try Rabbi. I particularly like your proof of the existence of God. You're even dumber than I thought and that's very very dumb.

This coming from someone who is, what? Oh for 10? Maybe Oh for 10,fuckingthousand.
You cannot defend your statements. You cannot refute anyone else's statements. And the best you can do is call names.

You're an asshole and a liar Rabbi. If that constitutes calling you names so be it. I've noticed and point out your signature line, so I don't feel any need to justive anything I post to a piece of shit like you.

Yes, an asshole for pointing out you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and cannot defend a single statement you make.
A liar for posting the truth about things and you.
To review: There is no evidence, none at all, that any universal preventive health scheme would actually save money. There is no evidence that any proposition DickCatcher has formulated is true. The opposite would seem to be the case. When confronted he simply gets abusive.

 

[Bfgrn]

In some ways it is different. I may suffer a heart attack and die while removing invasive honeysuckle from my yard without costing my insurance comoany anything. Then again I may catch cancer and linger on for a decade of expensive treatment.

Just like auto insurance companies my health insurance company hires actuaries and others to figure out that risk and charge accordingly.

Different than automobiles which keep becoming safer this cheaper healthcare costs keep going up. Darn it, I want that new $100,000 sometimes it works chemo treatment which did not even exist in my grand dad's time for example.

Then we have the problem that unlike in Biblical times we dont lime seeing the sick and diseased on the street waiting dor the son of god to heal them. Hospitals in America more or less must treat the poor.

So I dunno.

Hospitals may treat the poor and uninsured, but NOT for free. Everyone who has health insurance pays over $1,000 extra per year to cover those costs.

 

[Bern80]

I suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway. The alcoholic diabetic will continue to recieve medical treatment as will others who believe they are too healthy to pay for it now, and end up in the hospital when injured in an accident. The robber shot and not killed will be treated in a hospital, and we also pay for the sheriff's deputies who stand guard 24-7 while he recovers.

The fact that you don't care about me or others is the basis for another conversation. I understand the New Right rejects social contract theory. I disagree; I reject Objectivism as a practical or humanistic theory of government.

That is the problem with what you think objectivism is. Objectivism does not say I'm not supposed to care about you. It says you don't have the right to MAKE ME care about you financially. Objectivism says your hardship does not entitle you to my property.

Not exactly. In my humble opinon Objectivism is antithetical to Christianity, yet the New Right seems to embrace both. Of course I'm not required to care about you, and in theory I dont'; sadly I was raised to care for others even hypocrites.

Well which is it Wry? I asked you:

how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you?

To which you replied I am OBLIGATED to take care of you because you......

suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway.

So does seem you indeed are telling me I have a financial obligation to your health care. Now you're saying I don't. Which is it?


You're right. To be true a true christian makes it pretty tough to be an objectivist. Unfortunatly for you you're talking about a group of people that doesn't really exist so it makes for a rather weak argument. A true objectivist would never describe themselves as a christian and a devout christian probably doesn't even know what an objectivist is. This group of Randian christians (a paradox if ever there was one) you describe is nothing more than a conjured up group on your part to bolster your position.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is the problem with what you think objectivism is. Objectivism does not say I'm not supposed to care about you. It says you don't have the right to MAKE ME care about you financially. Objectivism says your hardship does not entitle you to my property.

Not exactly. In my humble opinon Objectivism is antithetical to Christianity, yet the New Right seems to embrace both. Of course I'm not required to care about you, and in theory I dont'; sadly I was raised to care for others even hypocrites.

Well which is it Wry? I asked you:

how does the greater importance you place on it translate into on obligation on my part to take care of you?

To which you replied I am OBLIGATED to take care of you because you......

suppose the obvious answer is we pay for medical care anyway.

So does seem you indeed are telling me I have a financial obligation to your health care. Now you're saying I don't. Which is it?


You're right. To be true a true christian makes it pretty tough to be an objectivist. Unfortunatly for you you're talking about a group of people that doesn't really exist so it makes for a rather weak argument. A true objectivist would never describe themselves as a christian and a devout christian probably doesn't even know what an objectivist is. This group of Randian christians (a paradox if ever there was one) you describe is nothing more than a conjured up group on your part to bolster your position.

"Randian Christians" has a nice ring to it, I like that better than my description of such as Callous Conservatives. Of course there is no organized group which carries this label but they do exist and post regularly on this message board, mostly echoing each other.

Two characteristics readily identify them, selfishness and selfrighteousness blended into an immutable ideology seasoned with hate and fear. As abstract as you may find this concept, it exists. I understand your concept of a "true Christian" and fully agree one who believes in the message of Jesus Christ (as I learned as a child) does not hold to the values of the current iteration of Republicans; but in fact they label themselves as such and hold views incongruent with what the Nuns taught in the Catholic Catechism of my youth.

I might add there are some (few I hope) Chiristian sects which preach hate and that you cannot deny. The fact that you or I see the obvious contradiction does not prevent them from advertising themselves as Christians or receiving the tax advantages of a non-profit.

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

 

[Sallow]

It works..but badly.

 

[Gadawg73]

Current actuarial tables for those over age 50 are cost basis factoring:
No risk spreading is involved and this is shocking. Why? The disease care model that the doctors have set up with hospitals, specialists and therapy cost an average of 240K+ per American past the age of 50 for care for the rest of their lives on average. 120K for the last 18 months of their lives on average.
They have hospital beds to fill. 60% of all health care dollars goes for 4% of the population with the majority of those over the age of 60. 8 of the 9 major diseases they die from are PREVENTABLE.
But where is the profit motive for doctors and hospitals if a fraction of those health care dollars are used equitably as other nations do TO PREVENT DISEASE?
Today, insurance companies have to get the big bucks out of the age 50+ crowd to pay for the disease care of the over 60 crowd. An 80 year old man receiving a heart operation costs over 100K. Go to Fort Myers, Fla and see what I am talking about or any other city in America where the elderly live. The entire communites are supported by assisted living facilities, doctors, hospitals and therapy.
At age 50 to age 65 now expect to pay over 200K in premiums for a good health care policy over the next 16 years based on those increases over the last 25 years of 15% a year.
Americans are dumbasses. We have allowed the disease care industry to grow from 4% of GNP in the 60s to almost 20% today.
And some Americans claim this is a good thing and needs no changes.
Fact is current health care where a 3rd party, the insurance company, makes the rules AND PAYS THE BILLS, is a wasteful model to the core. Fraud is rampant.
Government would be no better but when the government is paying the bill as in government employees, retirees and poor then they should be government treated outside the public sector.
If they don't like it then they can pay for their own. And don't BS about the Medicare premiums. That may cover 3% of the entire budget for that.
In its current form health care costs will be what will bankrupt this country.
And it ain't government. It is government keeping things as they are and doing nothing.
Group health care paid for by insurance companies has ruined American "health" care.

 

[The Rabbi]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

 

[Ropey]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

That must be the most moronic response I have read here The Rabbi. There is not a possibility that your mind is of the quality necessary for Rabbinical studies.

Your logic is clearly lacking if you believe your last paragraph.

 

[RDD_1210]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

That must be the most moronic response I have read here The Rabbi. There is not a possibility that your mind is of the quality necessary for Rabbinical studies.

Your logic is clearly lacking if you believe your last paragraph.

Rabbi is a self-admitted racist and as stubborn as they come. Don't expect a logical response from him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

LOL, at least you didn't lie and write you think I'm a moron; you also believe in God but couldn't offer any evidence for such a belief.
My wife and I had our kids innoculated against childhood disease. I presume you would not, correct?

 

[The Rabbi]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

LOL, at least you didn't lie and write you think I'm a moron; you also believe in God but couldn't offer any evidence for such a belief.
My wife and I had our kids innoculated against childhood disease. I presume you would not, correct?

So do I understand you correctly, that you believe universal cradle to grave prophylactic care would be cost effective because you innoculate your kids? Is that about it?

 

[The Rabbi]

* * *

I see a single payer system providing preventative health services as a benefit to all. It does not mean I support eliminating private insurance or that all doctors and healthcare providers work for the government. It simply means all citizens would have the right to avail themselves to prophylactic care from cradle to grave, for reasons stated previously.

I believe you're a moron. And I have a firm basis for my belief. What firm basis do you have for your belief that providing universal preventative health service would be a benefit to all?

LOL, at least you didn't lie and write you think I'm a moron; you also believe in God but couldn't offer any evidence for such a belief.
My wife and I had our kids innoculated against childhood disease. I presume you would not, correct?

And the evidence keeps mountign you are grossly mistaken. What a shocker!
Study: Prostate cancer test doesn't cut death risk - Yahoo! News

 

[editec]

FYI, Rab...

Your claim that no studies suggest that single universal health care insurance would save money is completely UNTRUE.

Whether you make this claim out of sheer ignorance, or simply because you are mendacious is, of course, something only you can say.

But you, per usual, when it comes to pretty much everything having to do with real world economics, are totally wrong

June, 1991 General Accounting Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage" ("Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States," 85 pages, HRD-91-90, full text on-line at U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved." ("Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicare’s Payment Rates") [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]April, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan." ("Single-Payer and All-Payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare’s Payment Rates" CBO memorandum, 60 pages[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]) [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]
[/FONT]July, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Enactment of H.R. 1300 [Russo’s single payer bill] would raise national health expenditures at first, but reduce spending about 9 percent in 2000. As the program was phased in, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care services. Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline. The bill contains many of the elements that would make its limit on expenditures reasonably likely to succeed, including a single payment mechanism, uniform reporting by all providers, and global prospective budgets for hospitals and nursing homes." ("Estimates of Health Care Proposals from the 102nd Congress" CBO paper, July 1993, 57pages) [/FONT]
[/FONT]December, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]S491 (Senator Paul Wellstone’s single payer bill) would raise national health expenditures above baseline by 4.8 percent in the first year after implementation. However, in subsequent years, improved cost containment and the slower growth in spending associated with the new system would reduce the gap between expenditures in the new system and the baseline. By year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline. ("S.491, American Health Security Act of 1993") [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. "For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Even more important, greater efficiency and improved cost containment would become possible, leading to sizable savings in the future. The impediment to fundamental reform in health care financing is not economic, but political. Political will, not economic expertise, is what will bring about this important change." ("An Equitable Way to Finance Universal Coverage– Edie Rasell, M.D. PhD, International Journal of Health Services, 1999, pgs 179-188). [/FONT]
[/FONT]State Studies
November 1994: New Mexico
Single Payer could save $151.8 million and cover all the uninsured
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin consulting group was hired to perform a fiscal study of alternative reform plans for the state of New Mexico. The study looked at single payer, managed competition, and an individual and employer-mandate. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study concluded that a single-payer system with modest cost-sharing was the only plan that would cover all the uninsured and save over $150 million per year (estimates given for [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1998). Such a plan could be financed with a payroll tax of 7.92 percent (employer 80 percent/employee 20 percent) and a 2 percent tax on family income. If patient cost sharing was eliminated, the single payer program would cover all the uninsured for a net increase in costs of $9.1 million. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The group’s estimates of administrative savings were very conservative, about half of what other estimates have found. Thus, it is likely that a single payer program in the state of New Mexico could provide coverage for all the uninsured with no increase in current health resources. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]:"The Financial Impact of Alternative Health Reform plans in New Mexico" by Lewin-VHI, Inc. November 14, 1994. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]April 1995: Delaware
Single Payer would save money in Delaware
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A fiscal study of single payer in Delaware by Solutions for Progress found that Delaware could save $229 million in the first year (1995). In ten years, the cumulative savings would exceed $6 billion, over $8,000 for every person in Delaware. "The benefit package for the single-payer system modeled in the report will cover all medically necessary health services" with "virtually no co-payments nor any out-of-pocket health expenditures for any covered benefit." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study’s authors’ note that they used a low estimate for administrative savings while using a high estimate for increased costs for utilization in order to assure a high margin for error and adequate funding. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]: "Single-payer financing for Universal Health Care in Delaware: Costs and Savings" prepared for the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, April 1995 is 11 pages. Solutions for Progress, 215-972-5558. Two companion papers are also available: "Health Expenditures in Delaware Under Single-Payer Financing" and "Notes for Delaware Health Care Costs and Estimates for the Impact of Single Payer Financing." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]December 1998: Massachusetts
Two fiscal studies of single payer for the Massachusetts Medical Society show savings & benefits:
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Lewin Group Solutions for Progress/Boston University School of Public Health (SFP/BUSPH) "In early 1997, the Massachusetts Medical Society retained the services of two consulting teams to independently analyze the relative costs of a Canadian style single-payer system, and the current multi-payer health care system in Massachusetts." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]"While Lewin and SFP/BUSPH reports differed in their orientations and methodologies, they reached similar conclusions. First, a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1.8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system. Secondly, these savings are of such a magnitude that the available funds would be sufficient to insure universal coverage in the state and provide comprehensive benefits including outpatient medications and long-term care and eliminate all out-of-pocket payments (co-payments, deductibles)." [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]"The major difference in the studies findings had to do with the timing of achieving the cost savings. SFP/BUSPH estimated that the savings could be in the first year of implementation of the system. Lewin felt the savings would begin in year six." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]: Massachusetts Medical Society House of Delegates Report 207, A-99 (B). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]

[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Full text of the studies are available online at: Massachusetts Medical Society | Home [/FONT]​

[/FONT]December, 2002: Massachusetts
Single Payer only plan to cover all and save money in Massachusetts
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]In the summer of 2001, the legislature allocated $250,000 to develop a plan for "universal health care with consolidated financing" for Massachusetts. The pro-HMO consulting [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]firm LECG studied three options; only the single-payer option met the study criteria. Despite their industry bias LECG reported 40 percent of every health care dollar spent in the state of Massachusetts goes to administrative costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The initial LECG report had two major flaws: It did not include the costs of taking care of the uninsured in the non-single-payer plans, and it did not take into consideration the huge administrative savings possible under single-payer. If these factors are taken into account, single payer is the only plan to cover everyone and save money. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]:To get the full report e-mail: [email protected] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]June, 2000: Maryland
Single Payer Would Save Money in Maryland
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A single-payer system in the state of Maryland could provide health care for all residents and save $345 million on total health care spending in the first year, according to a study by the D.C. based consulting firm Lewin, Inc. The study also found that a highly regulated "pay or play" system (in which employers either provide their workers with coverage or pay into a state insurance pool) would increase costs by $207 million. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Editors’ Note: The pro-business Lewin group probably underestimated the administrative savings from single payer and overestimated the administrative savings (and hence understated the costs) of their "pay or play" model. Data from hospitals in Hawaii, where there are only a few major insurers, suggest that if you have more than one payer, there are few administrative savings. However single-payer systems in Canada, the U.K., Sweden and other countries have garnered administrative savings substantially larger than assumed by Lewin. Hence the estimate by Lewin that single-payer universal coverage would cost $550 million less to implement in the first year than "pay or play" is high. [/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Full text of the study available online at: — Maryland Health Care for All Coalition" [/FONT][/FONT]
August 2001: Vermont
Universal Health Care Makes "Business Sense"
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Single-payer universal health coverage could save Vermonters more than $118 million a year over current medical insurance costs and cover every Vermonter in the process, according to a study paid for by a federal grant and prepared for the Office of Vermont Health Access by the Lewis Group. "Our analysis indicates that the single payer model would cover all Vermont residents, including the estimated 51,390 uninsured persons in the state, while actually reducing total health spending in Vermont by about $118.1 million in 2001 (i.e., five percent). These savings are attributed primarily to the lower cost of administering coverage through a single government program with uniform coverage and payment rules" [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Analysis of the Costs and Impact of a Universal Health Care Coverage Under a Single Payer Model for the State of Vermon," The Lewin Group, Inc. Full text of the study is available on-line at: www.dsw.state.vt.us/districts/ovha/spgappendixf.pdf [/FONT][/FONT]
April 2002: California
State Health Care Options Project
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study of nine options for covering California’s seven million uninsured by the conservative D.C.- based consulting firm of Lewin, Inc found that a single payer system in California would reduce health spending while covering everyone and protecting the doctor-patient relationship. Three of the nine options analyzed by Lewin for their fiscal implications included single payer financing. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1) A proposal by James Kahn, UCSF, Kevin Grumbach, UCSF, Krista Farley, MD, Don McCanne, MD, PNHP, and Thomas Bodenheimer, UCSF, would cover nearly all health care services including prescription drugs, vision and dental for every Californian through a government-financed system while saving $7.6 billion annually from the estimated $151.8 billion now spent on health care. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]2) A second proposal by Ellen Shaffer, UCSF- national health service- Would reform both financing of and the delivery system so that every Californian has a "medical home", that is, a primary care physician with an ongoing relationship with that patient. Like the Kahn et al proposal, it saves about $7.5 billion through various efficiencies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]3) The third by Judy Spelman, RN, and Health care for All, covers care for every Californian in a manner similar to the Kahn et al proposal but eliminates all out-of-pocket costs. Its cost savings are estimated at $3.7 billion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]All three proposals stabilize the health care system, reduce paperwork, and protect the doctor-patient relationship by eliminating the role of for-profit HMOs and insurers. The Kahn et al proposal envisions that the not-profit Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest integrated health system, would continue. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.health-access.org/hcop.htm [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond](See also February 2005 report, to follow in this handout) [/FONT][/FONT]
December 2002: Maine
Single Payer an economically feasible option for Maine
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The June 2001 Maine legislature created a nineteen member Health Security Board to develop a single payer system for Maine. In July, the Board contracted with the consulting firm Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, (MPA) firm to study the feasibility of single payer in the state. The firm found that single payer would cost about the same amount as the current system, while covering all 150,000 uninsured residents. Depending on the benefits provided by the system, single payer would cost the same as current state health spending, or increase health spending by 5 percent. (Note, the consultants were very conservative when estimating administrative savings, which could more than offset the 5 percent increase). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Estimates from the model indicate that, under current policy, health care spending in Maine will continue on a path of steady increase—rising by 37 percent between 2001-04 and by 31 percent between 2004-08. The model projects that a single-payer health system would produce a net increase in total health care spending under most benefit designs that MPA estimated, but this increase in spending would decline over time as the system realizes savings through global budgeting, reductions in administrative costs, and enhanced access to primary and preventive care." [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"By reducing administrative spending and increasing overall demand for health care, a single payer system would generate some change in employment in Maine… However a single payer plan would improve health sector productivity by redistributing jobs from administrative to clinical positions." [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"In summary, a single payer system appears to be economically feasible for Maine." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, "Feasibility of a Single-Payer Health Plan Model for the State of Maine" Final report 12/24/03/, MPR Ref No: 8889-300, 80 pages. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/mainefeasibility.pdf [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]November 2002: Rhode Island [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Single Payer would save $270 million in Rhode Island [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study of single-payer in Rhode Island by analysts with Boston University School of Public Health and the consulting firm Solutions for Progress found that current health spending in Rhode Island is 21.5 percent above the national average and that incremental reforms cannot solve the state’s health problems. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Solutions for Progress studied two models of single payer reform one with consolidated financing alone, and one with consolidated financing combined with "professionalism within a budget." They found that without health care reform, Rhode Island’s costs would continue to rise, while both models of single-payer could provide universal coverage while saving an estimated $270 million in the first year. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]At first, the administrative and bulk purchasing savings have the largest impact. But over time, slowing the rate of inflation to 4 percent by making health professionals responsible for using resources prudently, ("professionalism within a budget") has a larger impact. Over six years, they estimate that consolidated financing alone would save $4.4 billion, while single payer with "professionalism within a budget" delivery system reform would save over $6.6 billion. Again, both models of single payer would provide coverage for all the uninsured and improve coverage for all Rhode Islanders. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]: "Rhode Island Can Afford Health Care for All: A Report to the Rhode Island General Assembly" On-line at Health Reform Program | Health Policy & Management. For copies of this report, please contact Alan Sager or Deborah Socolar or phone the Health Services Department at (617) 638-5042. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]October 2003: Missouri
Single Payer Would Save $1.3 billion in Missouri
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Missouri Foundation for Health conducted a study on "health care expenditures and insurance in Missouri". A single payer health care plan in the state of Missouri would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. "Assuming the universal health care plan adopted a benefit package typically found in the state, spending among the uninsured and underinsured would rise by nearly $1.3 billion when fully implemented. On the other hand, the use of a streamlined single claims and billing form (electronically billed) would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. As a result health care spending would decline by approximately $1.7 billion." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Even if the state would adopt a more generous benefit package-one more generous than 75 percent of all private insurance benefits in the state-overall spending would decline. Overall health care spending would likely decline by $ 1.3 billion under the streamlined administrative structure." [/FONT]​

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: "A Universal Health Care Plan for Missouri", the full report can viewed at Missouri Foundation for Health : Requeste Page Not Found [/FONT]​

​

[/FONT]June 2004: Georgia
Single Payer in Georgia would reduce healthcare spending
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A fiscal study by the Virginia-based Lewin Group found that Single Payer health would cover all Georgia residents and save $716 million annually. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The "SecureCare" program would offer residents a comprehensive benefits package that includes long-term care and prescription drug coverage. It would be financed by replacing [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]health insurance premiums with a combination of payroll and income taxes as well as modest new tobacco, alcohol and sales taxes. " Nearly all Georgia families would pay less for health care than they are today for much better coverage. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin Group, Inc. "The Georgia SecureCare Program: Estimated Cost and Coverage Impacts" Final report 10/21/03. Full text of the study available online at: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.pnhp.org/news/lewinanalysis.pdf [/FONT]
[/FONT]February 2005: California
California could save $344 billion over 10 years with single payer
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study by the Lewin Group, finds that singlepayer would save California $343.6 billion in health care costs over the next 10 years, mainly by cutting administration and using bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said the report "demonstrates that we can do it. We need the will to do it. It makes insurance affordable for everybody." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Fact Sheet - Lewin Group Report, January 19, 2005 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Health Care for All Californians Act: Cost and Economic Impacts Analysis [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin report, prepared by an independent firm with 18 years of experience in healthcare cost analysis, affirms that we can create a fiscally sound, reliable state insurance plan that covers all Californians and controls health cost inflation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin report shows that all California residents can have affordable health insurance; and that, on average, individuals, families, businesses and the state of California, all of whom are now burdened with rising insurance costs, will save money. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* In February, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-23) will introduce the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (CHIRA), based on these findings. CHIRA, based on the Lewin Report model will insure every Californian and allow everyone to choose his or her own doctor. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings Overall [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin report model would achieve universal coverage while actually reducing total health spending for California by about $8 billion in the first year alone. Savings would be realized in two ways: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1. The Act would replace the current system of multiple public and private insurers with a single, reliable insurance plan. This saves about $20 billion in administrative costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]2. California would buy prescription drugs and durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs) in bulk and save about $5.2 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for State and Local Governments [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* In addition, state and local governments would save about $900 million, in the first year, in spending for health benefits provided to state and local government workers and retirees. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Aggregate savings to state and local governments from 2006 to 2015 would be about $43.8 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for Businesses [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Employers who currently offer health benefits would realize average savings of 16% compared to the current system. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for families [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Average family spending for health care is estimated to decline to about $2,448 per family under the Act in 2006, which is an average savings of about $340 per family. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Families with under $150,000 in annual income would, on average, see savings ranging between $600 and $3,000 per family under the program in 2006. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Cost Controls [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* By 2015, health spending in California under the Act would be about $68.9 billion less than currently projected. Total savings over the 2006 through 2015 period would be $343.6 billion. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Savings to state and local governments over this ten-year period would be about $43.8 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Comprehensive Benefits [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin Report assumes an insurance plan that covers medical, dental and vision care; prescription drug; emergency room services, surgical and recuperative care; orthodontia; mental health care and drug rehabilitation; immunizations; emergency and other necessary transportation; laboratory and other diagnostic services; adult day care; all necessary translation and interpretation; chiropractic care, acupuncture, case management and skilled nursing care. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Efficiencies [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin Report shows that efficiencies in the system make these superior [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]benefits available while generating savings. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Freedom to Choose [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]*The Lewin Report model assumes the consumer’s freedom to choose his or her [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]own care providers. This means that each Californian will be free to change jobs, start a family, start a business, continue education and or change residences, secure in the knowledge that his or her relationships with trusted caregivers will be secure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: "Full text of the study available online at: Health Care for All - Santa Barbara[/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]For more information please go to the following link: http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/kuehl/ [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]______________________________________________________________________ [/FONT][/FONT]
Major fiscal consulting groups
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin Group, Washington DC (703) 269-5500 – most highly recommended [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Mathematica Policy Research Group (609) 799-3535 [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Health Reform Program, Boston University (617) 638-5042 [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Solutions for Progress (215) 972-5558 [/FONT]​

[/FONT]

source

Instead of just making shit up, lad, perhaps you ought to actually TRY to learn something

I suggest you start here

Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[Bern80]

FYI, Rab...

Your claim that no studies suggest that single universal health care insurance would save money is completely UNTRUE.

Whether you make this claim out of sheer ignorance, or simply because you are mendacious is, of course, something only you can say.

But you, per usual, when it comes to pretty much everything having to do with real world economics, are totally wrong

June, 1991 General Accounting Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage" ("Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States," 85 pages, HRD-91-90, full text on-line at U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved." ("Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicare’s Payment Rates") [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]April, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan." ("Single-Payer and All-Payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare’s Payment Rates" CBO memorandum, 60 pages[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]) [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]
[/FONT]July, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Enactment of H.R. 1300 [Russo’s single payer bill] would raise national health expenditures at first, but reduce spending about 9 percent in 2000. As the program was phased in, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care services. Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline. The bill contains many of the elements that would make its limit on expenditures reasonably likely to succeed, including a single payment mechanism, uniform reporting by all providers, and global prospective budgets for hospitals and nursing homes." ("Estimates of Health Care Proposals from the 102nd Congress" CBO paper, July 1993, 57pages) [/FONT]
[/FONT]December, 1993 Congressional Budget Office
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]S491 (Senator Paul Wellstone’s single payer bill) would raise national health expenditures above baseline by 4.8 percent in the first year after implementation. However, in subsequent years, improved cost containment and the slower growth in spending associated with the new system would reduce the gap between expenditures in the new system and the baseline. By year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline. ("S.491, American Health Security Act of 1993") [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. "For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Even more important, greater efficiency and improved cost containment would become possible, leading to sizable savings in the future. The impediment to fundamental reform in health care financing is not economic, but political. Political will, not economic expertise, is what will bring about this important change." ("An Equitable Way to Finance Universal Coverage– Edie Rasell, M.D. PhD, International Journal of Health Services, 1999, pgs 179-188). [/FONT]
[/FONT]State Studies
November 1994: New Mexico
Single Payer could save $151.8 million and cover all the uninsured
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin consulting group was hired to perform a fiscal study of alternative reform plans for the state of New Mexico. The study looked at single payer, managed competition, and an individual and employer-mandate. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study concluded that a single-payer system with modest cost-sharing was the only plan that would cover all the uninsured and save over $150 million per year (estimates given for [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1998). Such a plan could be financed with a payroll tax of 7.92 percent (employer 80 percent/employee 20 percent) and a 2 percent tax on family income. If patient cost sharing was eliminated, the single payer program would cover all the uninsured for a net increase in costs of $9.1 million. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The group’s estimates of administrative savings were very conservative, about half of what other estimates have found. Thus, it is likely that a single payer program in the state of New Mexico could provide coverage for all the uninsured with no increase in current health resources. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]:"The Financial Impact of Alternative Health Reform plans in New Mexico" by Lewin-VHI, Inc. November 14, 1994. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]April 1995: Delaware
Single Payer would save money in Delaware
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A fiscal study of single payer in Delaware by Solutions for Progress found that Delaware could save $229 million in the first year (1995). In ten years, the cumulative savings would exceed $6 billion, over $8,000 for every person in Delaware. "The benefit package for the single-payer system modeled in the report will cover all medically necessary health services" with "virtually no co-payments nor any out-of-pocket health expenditures for any covered benefit." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The study’s authors’ note that they used a low estimate for administrative savings while using a high estimate for increased costs for utilization in order to assure a high margin for error and adequate funding. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]: "Single-payer financing for Universal Health Care in Delaware: Costs and Savings" prepared for the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, April 1995 is 11 pages. Solutions for Progress, 215-972-5558. Two companion papers are also available: "Health Expenditures in Delaware Under Single-Payer Financing" and "Notes for Delaware Health Care Costs and Estimates for the Impact of Single Payer Financing." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]December 1998: Massachusetts
Two fiscal studies of single payer for the Massachusetts Medical Society show savings & benefits:
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Lewin Group Solutions for Progress/Boston University School of Public Health (SFP/BUSPH) "In early 1997, the Massachusetts Medical Society retained the services of two consulting teams to independently analyze the relative costs of a Canadian style single-payer system, and the current multi-payer health care system in Massachusetts." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]"While Lewin and SFP/BUSPH reports differed in their orientations and methodologies, they reached similar conclusions. First, a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1.8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system. Secondly, these savings are of such a magnitude that the available funds would be sufficient to insure universal coverage in the state and provide comprehensive benefits including outpatient medications and long-term care and eliminate all out-of-pocket payments (co-payments, deductibles)." [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]"The major difference in the studies findings had to do with the timing of achieving the cost savings. SFP/BUSPH estimated that the savings could be in the first year of implementation of the system. Lewin felt the savings would begin in year six." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]: Massachusetts Medical Society House of Delegates Report 207, A-99 (B). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]

[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Full text of the studies are available online at: Massachusetts Medical Society | Home [/FONT]​

[/FONT]December, 2002: Massachusetts
Single Payer only plan to cover all and save money in Massachusetts
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]In the summer of 2001, the legislature allocated $250,000 to develop a plan for "universal health care with consolidated financing" for Massachusetts. The pro-HMO consulting [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]firm LECG studied three options; only the single-payer option met the study criteria. Despite their industry bias LECG reported 40 percent of every health care dollar spent in the state of Massachusetts goes to administrative costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The initial LECG report had two major flaws: It did not include the costs of taking care of the uninsured in the non-single-payer plans, and it did not take into consideration the huge administrative savings possible under single-payer. If these factors are taken into account, single payer is the only plan to cover everyone and save money. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]:To get the full report e-mail: [email protected] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]June, 2000: Maryland
Single Payer Would Save Money in Maryland
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A single-payer system in the state of Maryland could provide health care for all residents and save $345 million on total health care spending in the first year, according to a study by the D.C. based consulting firm Lewin, Inc. The study also found that a highly regulated "pay or play" system (in which employers either provide their workers with coverage or pay into a state insurance pool) would increase costs by $207 million. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Editors’ Note: The pro-business Lewin group probably underestimated the administrative savings from single payer and overestimated the administrative savings (and hence understated the costs) of their "pay or play" model. Data from hospitals in Hawaii, where there are only a few major insurers, suggest that if you have more than one payer, there are few administrative savings. However single-payer systems in Canada, the U.K., Sweden and other countries have garnered administrative savings substantially larger than assumed by Lewin. Hence the estimate by Lewin that single-payer universal coverage would cost $550 million less to implement in the first year than "pay or play" is high. [/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Full text of the study available online at: — Maryland Health Care for All Coalition" [/FONT][/FONT]
August 2001: Vermont
Universal Health Care Makes "Business Sense"
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Single-payer universal health coverage could save Vermonters more than $118 million a year over current medical insurance costs and cover every Vermonter in the process, according to a study paid for by a federal grant and prepared for the Office of Vermont Health Access by the Lewis Group. "Our analysis indicates that the single payer model would cover all Vermont residents, including the estimated 51,390 uninsured persons in the state, while actually reducing total health spending in Vermont by about $118.1 million in 2001 (i.e., five percent). These savings are attributed primarily to the lower cost of administering coverage through a single government program with uniform coverage and payment rules" [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Analysis of the Costs and Impact of a Universal Health Care Coverage Under a Single Payer Model for the State of Vermon," The Lewin Group, Inc. Full text of the study is available on-line at: www.dsw.state.vt.us/districts/ovha/spgappendixf.pdf [/FONT][/FONT]
April 2002: California
State Health Care Options Project
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study of nine options for covering California’s seven million uninsured by the conservative D.C.- based consulting firm of Lewin, Inc found that a single payer system in California would reduce health spending while covering everyone and protecting the doctor-patient relationship. Three of the nine options analyzed by Lewin for their fiscal implications included single payer financing. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1) A proposal by James Kahn, UCSF, Kevin Grumbach, UCSF, Krista Farley, MD, Don McCanne, MD, PNHP, and Thomas Bodenheimer, UCSF, would cover nearly all health care services including prescription drugs, vision and dental for every Californian through a government-financed system while saving $7.6 billion annually from the estimated $151.8 billion now spent on health care. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]2) A second proposal by Ellen Shaffer, UCSF- national health service- Would reform both financing of and the delivery system so that every Californian has a "medical home", that is, a primary care physician with an ongoing relationship with that patient. Like the Kahn et al proposal, it saves about $7.5 billion through various efficiencies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]3) The third by Judy Spelman, RN, and Health care for All, covers care for every Californian in a manner similar to the Kahn et al proposal but eliminates all out-of-pocket costs. Its cost savings are estimated at $3.7 billion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]All three proposals stabilize the health care system, reduce paperwork, and protect the doctor-patient relationship by eliminating the role of for-profit HMOs and insurers. The Kahn et al proposal envisions that the not-profit Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest integrated health system, would continue. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.health-access.org/hcop.htm [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond](See also February 2005 report, to follow in this handout) [/FONT][/FONT]
December 2002: Maine
Single Payer an economically feasible option for Maine
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The June 2001 Maine legislature created a nineteen member Health Security Board to develop a single payer system for Maine. In July, the Board contracted with the consulting firm Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, (MPA) firm to study the feasibility of single payer in the state. The firm found that single payer would cost about the same amount as the current system, while covering all 150,000 uninsured residents. Depending on the benefits provided by the system, single payer would cost the same as current state health spending, or increase health spending by 5 percent. (Note, the consultants were very conservative when estimating administrative savings, which could more than offset the 5 percent increase). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Estimates from the model indicate that, under current policy, health care spending in Maine will continue on a path of steady increase—rising by 37 percent between 2001-04 and by 31 percent between 2004-08. The model projects that a single-payer health system would produce a net increase in total health care spending under most benefit designs that MPA estimated, but this increase in spending would decline over time as the system realizes savings through global budgeting, reductions in administrative costs, and enhanced access to primary and preventive care." [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"By reducing administrative spending and increasing overall demand for health care, a single payer system would generate some change in employment in Maine… However a single payer plan would improve health sector productivity by redistributing jobs from administrative to clinical positions." [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"In summary, a single payer system appears to be economically feasible for Maine." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, "Feasibility of a Single-Payer Health Plan Model for the State of Maine" Final report 12/24/03/, MPR Ref No: 8889-300, 80 pages. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/mainefeasibility.pdf [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]November 2002: Rhode Island [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Single Payer would save $270 million in Rhode Island [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study of single-payer in Rhode Island by analysts with Boston University School of Public Health and the consulting firm Solutions for Progress found that current health spending in Rhode Island is 21.5 percent above the national average and that incremental reforms cannot solve the state’s health problems. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Solutions for Progress studied two models of single payer reform one with consolidated financing alone, and one with consolidated financing combined with "professionalism within a budget." They found that without health care reform, Rhode Island’s costs would continue to rise, while both models of single-payer could provide universal coverage while saving an estimated $270 million in the first year. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]At first, the administrative and bulk purchasing savings have the largest impact. But over time, slowing the rate of inflation to 4 percent by making health professionals responsible for using resources prudently, ("professionalism within a budget") has a larger impact. Over six years, they estimate that consolidated financing alone would save $4.4 billion, while single payer with "professionalism within a budget" delivery system reform would save over $6.6 billion. Again, both models of single payer would provide coverage for all the uninsured and improve coverage for all Rhode Islanders. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]: "Rhode Island Can Afford Health Care for All: A Report to the Rhode Island General Assembly" On-line at Health Reform Program | Health Policy & Management. For copies of this report, please contact Alan Sager or Deborah Socolar or phone the Health Services Department at (617) 638-5042. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]October 2003: Missouri
Single Payer Would Save $1.3 billion in Missouri
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Missouri Foundation for Health conducted a study on "health care expenditures and insurance in Missouri". A single payer health care plan in the state of Missouri would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. "Assuming the universal health care plan adopted a benefit package typically found in the state, spending among the uninsured and underinsured would rise by nearly $1.3 billion when fully implemented. On the other hand, the use of a streamlined single claims and billing form (electronically billed) would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. As a result health care spending would decline by approximately $1.7 billion." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]"Even if the state would adopt a more generous benefit package-one more generous than 75 percent of all private insurance benefits in the state-overall spending would decline. Overall health care spending would likely decline by $ 1.3 billion under the streamlined administrative structure." [/FONT]​

[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: "A Universal Health Care Plan for Missouri", the full report can viewed at Missouri Foundation for Health : Requeste Page Not Found [/FONT]​

​

[/FONT]June 2004: Georgia
Single Payer in Georgia would reduce healthcare spending
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A fiscal study by the Virginia-based Lewin Group found that Single Payer health would cover all Georgia residents and save $716 million annually. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The "SecureCare" program would offer residents a comprehensive benefits package that includes long-term care and prescription drug coverage. It would be financed by replacing [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]health insurance premiums with a combination of payroll and income taxes as well as modest new tobacco, alcohol and sales taxes. " Nearly all Georgia families would pay less for health care than they are today for much better coverage. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin Group, Inc. "The Georgia SecureCare Program: Estimated Cost and Coverage Impacts" Final report 10/21/03. Full text of the study available online at: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]http://www.pnhp.org/news/lewinanalysis.pdf [/FONT]
[/FONT]February 2005: California
California could save $344 billion over 10 years with single payer
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]A study by the Lewin Group, finds that singlepayer would save California $343.6 billion in health care costs over the next 10 years, mainly by cutting administration and using bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said the report "demonstrates that we can do it. We need the will to do it. It makes insurance affordable for everybody." [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Fact Sheet - Lewin Group Report, January 19, 2005 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Health Care for All Californians Act: Cost and Economic Impacts Analysis [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin report, prepared by an independent firm with 18 years of experience in healthcare cost analysis, affirms that we can create a fiscally sound, reliable state insurance plan that covers all Californians and controls health cost inflation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin report shows that all California residents can have affordable health insurance; and that, on average, individuals, families, businesses and the state of California, all of whom are now burdened with rising insurance costs, will save money. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* In February, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-23) will introduce the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (CHIRA), based on these findings. CHIRA, based on the Lewin Report model will insure every Californian and allow everyone to choose his or her own doctor. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings Overall [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin report model would achieve universal coverage while actually reducing total health spending for California by about $8 billion in the first year alone. Savings would be realized in two ways: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]1. The Act would replace the current system of multiple public and private insurers with a single, reliable insurance plan. This saves about $20 billion in administrative costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]2. California would buy prescription drugs and durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs) in bulk and save about $5.2 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for State and Local Governments [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* In addition, state and local governments would save about $900 million, in the first year, in spending for health benefits provided to state and local government workers and retirees. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Aggregate savings to state and local governments from 2006 to 2015 would be about $43.8 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for Businesses [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Employers who currently offer health benefits would realize average savings of 16% compared to the current system. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Savings for families [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Average family spending for health care is estimated to decline to about $2,448 per family under the Act in 2006, which is an average savings of about $340 per family. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Families with under $150,000 in annual income would, on average, see savings ranging between $600 and $3,000 per family under the program in 2006. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Cost Controls [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* By 2015, health spending in California under the Act would be about $68.9 billion less than currently projected. Total savings over the 2006 through 2015 period would be $343.6 billion. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* Savings to state and local governments over this ten-year period would be about $43.8 billion. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Comprehensive Benefits [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin Report assumes an insurance plan that covers medical, dental and vision care; prescription drug; emergency room services, surgical and recuperative care; orthodontia; mental health care and drug rehabilitation; immunizations; emergency and other necessary transportation; laboratory and other diagnostic services; adult day care; all necessary translation and interpretation; chiropractic care, acupuncture, case management and skilled nursing care. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Efficiencies [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]* The Lewin Report shows that efficiencies in the system make these superior [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]benefits available while generating savings. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Freedom to Choose [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]*The Lewin Report model assumes the consumer’s freedom to choose his or her [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]own care providers. This means that each Californian will be free to change jobs, start a family, start a business, continue education and or change residences, secure in the knowledge that his or her relationships with trusted caregivers will be secure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Source: "Full text of the study available online at: Health Care for All - Santa Barbara[/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]For more information please go to the following link: http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/kuehl/ [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]______________________________________________________________________ [/FONT][/FONT]
Major fiscal consulting groups
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]The Lewin Group, Washington DC (703) 269-5500 – most highly recommended [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Garamond,Garamond]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Mathematica Policy Research Group (609) 799-3535 [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Health Reform Program, Boston University (617) 638-5042 [/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond,Garamond]Solutions for Progress (215) 972-5558 [/FONT]​

[/FONT]

source

Instead of just making shit up, lad, perhaps you ought to actually TRY to learn something

I suggest you start here

Physicians for a National Health Program

Predictions aren't evidence of anything, ed. How's Mass. doing by the way?

Real world economics? That's rich. Real world economics says, when you subisidize something, which is essentially what government single payer does, costs go up, not down. At least with private insurance a private business is sensative to those costs. And you single payer cheer leaders actually believe that by shifting the reimbursement role to an entity that is less cost sensitive, costs will go down? You are clearly in no position to be attempting to educate anyone about real world economics........lad.

 

[Cuyo]

Predictions aren't evidence of anything, ed. How's Mass. doing by the way?

Mass doesn't have single payer. Not even close. And a 'Study,' which is what Rabbi has been clamoring for, is only good for predictions. I don't think a preemptive 'Study' is generally capable of providing proof.

 

[Bern80]

Predictions aren't evidence of anything, ed. How's Mass. doing by the way?

Mass doesn't have single payer. Not even close. And a 'Study,' which is what Rabbi has been clamoring for, is only good for predictions. I don't think a preemptive 'Study' is generally capable of providing proof.

But there are real world studies of other countries that have some form of single payer, like France (though it is more of a hybrid). Unfortunately what one would find there is that its government health care system is running deficits in the billions of dollars.