basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,014
- 2,220
- Banned
- #1
A recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system would radically improve people’s lives: Americans would be paid higher wages, work fewer hours, save on medical expenses, retire earlier, and experience better health outcomes.
Under a single-payer system, the government would insure everyone, but doctors and hospitals would still be privately-owned. Single-payer would save the United States significant money overall — because the current system is enormously wasteful, inefficient, and designed to make investors and corporate executives wealthy.
www.levernews.com
www.cbo.gov
excerpts from CBO's own words:
“Households’ health insurance premiums would be eliminated, and their out-of-pocket health care costs would decline… Administrative expenses in the health care sector would decline, freeing up productive resources for other sectors and ultimately increasing economy-wide productivity… Longevity and labor productivity would increase as people’s health outcomes improved.”
“Workers would choose to work fewer hours, on average, despite higher wages because the reduction in health insurance premiums and (out-of-pocket) expenses would generate a positive wealth effect that allowed households to spend their time on activities other than paid work and maintain the same standard of living.”
“That wealth effect would boost households’ disposable income, which they could then split between increased saving and nonhealth consumption. Although hours worked per capita would decline, the effect on GDP would be offset under most policy specifications by an increase in economy-wide productivity, an increase in the size of the labor force, an increase in the average worker’s labor productivity, and a rise in the capital stock.”
“States could respond to the (ensuing) budget surplus by growing their rainy-day funds (at least temporarily), reducing state tax rates, increasing spending on government purchases or public services, or a combination of all three.”
Under a single-payer system, the government would insure everyone, but doctors and hospitals would still be privately-owned. Single-payer would save the United States significant money overall — because the current system is enormously wasteful, inefficient, and designed to make investors and corporate executives wealthy.
The Government Just Admitted An Inconvenient Truth
A GOP-led budget office details how corporate-run health care is crushing workers — and how Medicare for All would boost the economy.
www.levernews.com
Economic Effects of Five Illustrative Single-Payer Health Care Systems: Working Paper 2022-02 | Congressional Budget Office
CBO used a general-equilibrium, overlapping-generations model to analyze the economic and distributional implications of five illustrative single-payer health care systems. The working paper builds on previous CBO studies about single-payer health care systems.
www.cbo.gov
excerpts from CBO's own words:
“Households’ health insurance premiums would be eliminated, and their out-of-pocket health care costs would decline… Administrative expenses in the health care sector would decline, freeing up productive resources for other sectors and ultimately increasing economy-wide productivity… Longevity and labor productivity would increase as people’s health outcomes improved.”
“Workers would choose to work fewer hours, on average, despite higher wages because the reduction in health insurance premiums and (out-of-pocket) expenses would generate a positive wealth effect that allowed households to spend their time on activities other than paid work and maintain the same standard of living.”
“That wealth effect would boost households’ disposable income, which they could then split between increased saving and nonhealth consumption. Although hours worked per capita would decline, the effect on GDP would be offset under most policy specifications by an increase in economy-wide productivity, an increase in the size of the labor force, an increase in the average worker’s labor productivity, and a rise in the capital stock.”
“States could respond to the (ensuing) budget surplus by growing their rainy-day funds (at least temporarily), reducing state tax rates, increasing spending on government purchases or public services, or a combination of all three.”
