Healthcare for all would cost $32 TRILLION over 10 years.

[Vandalshandle]

Medicare for all doesn't cost the government a cent. It is paid for by workers and employers. Most of universal health care would also be paid for by the beneficiaries.

So how much do beneficiaries have to pay to afford a system that will cost upwards of 5.3 trillion dollars a year. There are just over 300 million americans. You do the math.

First, I see no link to your 5.3 trillion dollars. Second, every industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, except the US. I suspect that they don't need magic wands to do it.

If you read the report that was out out showing that Medicare for all will cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years, that number is predicated on a 40% cut in payments to providers.

There is mechanism under the current Medicare system that allows Congress to cut payments to provider, but because providers threaten to stop treating patients with reduced payments, Congress has NEVER (not once) cut payments to providers.

When you consider that and other unrealistic projections within the Medicare For All plan, it's clear that Medicare For All will cost much more than 32 trillion over 10 years. Looking logically at the actual costs, 53 trillion 0ver 10 years is my projection (and it's probably low).

I'm trying to remind people that 3.2 trillion is an unreasonably low number, but I guess we 'll see what it actually costs soon.

Still it's painful either way, so feel free to show me the how just over 328 million people are going to come up with even 3.2 trillion dollars a year...

I hope to god that all the countries in Europe don't find out that they have not been able to afford their universal health care since WW2!!!!!!!!

 

[MedfordMan]

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?

 

[debbiedowner]

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?

If you are referring to mutual insurance companies many certainly do pay dividends.

The basics of insurance dividends

 

[Slashsnake]

No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Why would there need to be set premiums, rate negotiations, claims, and disputes?

People will carry a healthcare card with a specific number on it to identify them, which gets put into the computer system - you can automate this entire system. Need blood work? The receptionist places your number into the computer and the government pays it, and then you're given a receipt. Will it get abused? Maybe... But so does every other sector the government controls.

There's no negotiating prices with Uncle Sam, the doctor's office gets paid what they get paid - if the doctor's office doesn't like it, they either go out of business, or they're told to go fuck themselves.

What is there to dispute? Again, the doctor's office gets paid what the government wants them to get paid - there's no negotiations, no networking, so there's no need for disputes. The government will just pay out whatever claims the doctor's office sends them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You know what would save even more money? The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You know what would save even more money? The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.

 

[Meathead]

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture.

This is where I stopped reading.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Why would there need to be set premiums, rate negotiations, claims, and disputes?

Heh.. seriously??

There's no negotiating prices with Uncle Sam, the doctor's office gets paid what they get paid - if the doctor's office doesn't like it, they either go out of business, or they're told to go fuck themselves.

LOL - or they lobby government for increases. That's the kind of world you all are trying to create, a world where our income depends not on pleasing customers, but on how much political influence we can bring to bear. No thanks.

 

[MedfordMan]

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Why would there need to be set premiums, rate negotiations, claims, and disputes?

People will carry a healthcare card with a specific number on it to identify them, which gets put into the computer system - you can automate this entire system. Need blood work? The receptionist places your number into the computer and the government pays it, and then you're given a receipt. Will it get abused? Maybe... But so does every other sector the government controls.

There's no negotiating prices with Uncle Sam, the doctor's office gets paid what they get paid - if the doctor's office doesn't like it, they either go out of business, or they're told to go fuck themselves.

What is there to dispute? Again, the doctor's office gets paid what the government wants them to get paid - there's no negotiations, no networking, so there's no need for disputes. The government will just pay out whatever claims the doctor's office sends them.

Are you aware that Medicare already has a high rate of fraud, fraud which drives the cost of health care up?

Medicare also doesn't cover everything. The current projected cost of Medicare for all is predicated on the idea that not every treatment people want or doctors are willing to provide is covered. If you plan is to cover everything you can double or triple that cost, minimally.

Since the majority of treatment is palliative (makes you feel better) and not curative this won't save any money in the long run. In fact, as people's expectations change it's likely to drive costs up.

Medicare already sets rates, but if you set the rates too low you remove the incentive for some people to become doctors, they might become lawyers instead (for example). Your system doesn't work if there aren't doctors to provide the health care, particularly specialists (ie. surgeons, etc.).

Of course human nature suggests that unscrupulous doctors will augment their income with fraud and enterprising doctors will augment their income by maximizing the volume of patients through their practice by decreasing face to face contact and time with patients.

You anger is noteworthy. Solving tough challenges is hard. Of course for every complex problem there is a simple solution, which is usually wrong.

 

[MedfordMan]

And how do you propose to remove the for profit insurance companies? Medicare doesn't do that. Do you have another model in mind?

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?

If you are referring to mutual insurance companies many certainly do pay dividends.

The basics of insurance dividends

In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.

 

[dblack]

In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

So, is everyone with a 401k evil? Or just those who have money in insurance stock?

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.

It's important to understand that Medicare doesn't avoid private insurance companies. In fact, the top insurance companies are getting most of the revenue from it.

Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits

And we're not talking about supplemental insurance here. Medicare is actually farmed out to these companies. It's a corporate feeding trough. It's hard to see how "Medicare for All" would be any different, despite their claims.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy

 

[danielpalos]

You know what would save even more money? The government getting out of the health care industry altogether.

applied socialism actually makes command economic sense for the military.

 

[debbiedowner]

Single payer government run healthcare. Eliminate the middle men, which is all health insurance companies are. Direct payments to providers.

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?

If you are referring to mutual insurance companies many certainly do pay dividends.

The basics of insurance dividends

In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.

You had no link on the above post.

 

[presonorek]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

Outlaw health insurance. Watch the cost of health care plummet.

Nevermind. That will never happen. The American people are brainwashed by Blue Cross Blue Shield and their clever marketing. Health Insurance is apparently a necessity. It's the same reason we celebrate Halloween. Halloween is neither an American holiday or a Christian holiday. Yet we celebrate it because some marketeer found a way to make money. As long as Americans are suckers for health insurance, the price of medical services will continue to rise.

 

[MedfordMan]

You do realize that even under a single payer system you need employees to set premiums, negotiate rates with providers, process claims, handles disputes, combat fraud, etc.

just because you cut out the insurance company the system does not just magically run itself.

Of course not, but you don't need a different set for each company, and you don't have to support a billion dollars worth of CEOs and directors and you no longer have to pay dividends to stockholders or arrange for half billion dollar golden parachutes.

you need a certain amount of employees to handle a certain amount of claims, no matter if one company is administering the claims of multiple companies doing it. I believe your overstating the savings due to possible duplication, while simultaneously ignoring the additional costs which arise when public sector employees do the work less efficiently than private sector employees.

To have a billion dollar worth of insurance CEO's you have to have a 1,000 insurance employees making 1 million or more. Like most folks erroneously chiming in on this issue, I question whether you really understand the mathematics involved when we're talking about economics on this scale.

In addition the "exorbitant" nature of many CEO salaries are driven by stock options they receive, the value of which exponentially increase the amount of their pay.

In a government run system you won't have stock options inflating CEO salaries, but that doesn't necessarily translate to savings because stock options are not costs to the insurer.

It gets worse because stock market returns increase the value of premiums collected before they are paid out. A government run system will never be funded sufficiently to have claims reserves, so the money paid in will be instantly paid out without making any interest in the interim, which eliminates a means by which private insurers make their premiums stretch to pay claims.I

Finally, you reference golden parachutes. I question whether the cost of a handful of favorable buyouts to CEO's would ultimately be a greater cost than retirement benefits to thousands of employees substantially more lucrative than what would be paid to private sector employees, especially as the value of these employee pensions multiplies exponentially over time.

Solving the dividend problem is even simpler. Mutual companies run like any other companies, but they don't pay dividends. Why not simply limit the market to Mutual companies rather than scrapping the whole system?

Even better why doesn't the government create their own company and compete in the open market. If their model truly has the massive cost savings you allege wouldn't it be easy for the government run company to corner the market very quickly?

If you are referring to mutual insurance companies many certainly do pay dividends.

The basics of insurance dividends

In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.

You had no link on the above post.

I was referring to your link.

I didn't attach a link.

 

[MedfordMan]

In the prior post the poster was referring to dividends paid to evil and nefarious investors, not the return of premiums paid back to individual policy holders (something the prior poster would be celebrate).

So, is everyone with a 401k evil? Or just those who have money in insurance stock?

Note to folks following this thread. The devil is in the details, so be sure to read the links (or better the source information the link refers to) to make sure the link actually says what the poster says (or infers\implies) it says.

It's important to understand that Medicare doesn't avoid private insurance companies. In fact, the top insurance companies are getting most of the revenue from it.

Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits

And we're not talking about supplemental insurance here. Medicare is actually farmed out to these companies. It's a corporate feeding trough. It's hard to see how "Medicare for All" would be any different, despite their claims.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy

I don't think shareholders are evil, but the tone of Crepitus' (ie. the other poster) post suggests he\she thinks share holders are evil.

I realize that your bound and determined to keep makIng the point that Medicare currently uses private insurers to administer the program.

I don't dispute that argument, but that point has been made and that point is not necessary to my argument, which is not matter who administers payment to health care providers, there are costs that remain constant.

Universal health care is expensive and there is no magic way to create savings that change that reality.

Ultimately, the only question for those who want health care is how do we pay for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

We would save hundreds of billions by not paying the profit vampires in the insurance industry.

Savings that would quickly evaporate due to union represented claims adjusters being paid more than the private market would bear and receiving unsustainable Cadillac pension plans.

Removing the need to maintain a fiscally responsible combined ratio, efficiency would decline further eliminating any reduction in costs.

No, we would be taking the private, for profit insurance industry out of the equation.

That doesn't magically translate into savings, if your costs go up.

Why would costs go up? Removing the for profit insurance companies would save him bdreds of billions of dollars.

Are you really this Uninformed?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

Do us a favor and play on your closest freeway.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So I can’t put a link on this because I was just watching this on TV during a panel discussion.

So what they said was that 32 trillion sounds like a lot unless you look at the big picture. If you take all the money spent now to insurance companies and take the money that is used for eyeglasses and hearing aids and all that other kind of stuff and put it all together and then, in its place, healthcare for everyone, the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years.

But the savings would be trillions.

So what they were saying was that over the next 10 years we’re going to spend way more than 32 trillion anyway.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we just follow the GOP plan of let the fukers die, then we will probably save some money.

Depending on how many Americans die, potentially we could save a lot of money. Thank God the rich ones will be OK.

LOLOLOL

$32 Trillion "only sounds like a lot"

Lolol

 

[dblack]

I realize that your bound and determined to keep makIng the point that Medicare currently uses private insurers to administer the program.

My apologies it's tiresome, but they're selling this Medicare for All business as though it will take for-profit insurance companies out of the equation, and that's just not how Medicare works.

Universal health care is expensive and there is no magic way to create savings that change that reality.

Ultimately, the only question for those who want health care is how do we pay for it.

Agreed.