Quantcast
Koch Brothers own study says that Universal Healthcare is cheaper than current US system

Forums - Politics Discussion - Koch Brothers own study says that Universal Healthcare is cheaper than current US system

Saving of over $2 trillion from what the United States as a whole would spend under the existing system.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

The Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch Brothers, has done a cost analysis of the Medicare For All bill put forward by Bernie Sanders. The report concluded it would cost $32.6 trillion over ten years. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan voiced the common conservative response that this was a prohibitively expensive proposal, but as Matt Bruenig pointed out in Jacobin, this sum would be a saving of over $2 trillion from what the United States as a whole would spend under the existing system.

 

Last edited by Rab - on 31 July 2018

Around the Network

Single payer NOW!!!

If the USA can afford $700 billion on military spending (which btw needs to be cut in half) then it can afford this as well.



Proud to be a Californian.

More people talking nonsensical numbers like Cortez? 😂 It would increase the federal budget commitments by 32 trillion in it's first ten years.... What part of "by 32 trillion" don't some people understand? That's 32 trillion more in taxes to the middle class and rich.

The 2 trillion reduction in national health expenditure over ten years is wrong because it's based on Bernie's assumption that we can lower all payment rates to medicare payment rates. Blahous pointed out that can't be achieved. It would actually increase the NHE by 6 trillion. Other studies have similar numbers.



Just for comparative cost, US is virtually the only country without a Universal Healthcare System (UHS), almost every study that takes in the full complexity of the real costs shows that there is savings to be gained when using a UHS



Aeolus451 said:

More people talking nonsensical numbers like Cortez? 😂 It would increase the federal budget commitments by 32 trillion in it's first ten years.... What part of "by 32 trillion" don't some people understand? That's 32 trillion more in taxes to the middle class and rich.

The 2 trillion reduction in national health expenditure over ten years is wrong because it's based on Bernie's assumption that we can lower all payment rates to medicare payment rates. Blahous pointed out that can't be achieved. It would actually increase the NHE by 6 trillion. Other studies have similar numbers.

Yeah, and that's absolutely ridiculous. With any Universal Healthcare system, price controls would also come into play. As such, the costs would go down significantly.

Even so, does it matter if the cost for something is paid through taxes or directly from your pocketbook? It still ends up being paid. And, if other countries' experiences are to be believed, you'd end up paying less than half of what you are now.



Around the Network
Rab said:

Just for comparative cost, US is virtually the only country without a Universal Healthcare System (UHS), almost every study that takes in the full complexity of the real costs shows that there is savings to be gained when using a UHS

That's false. The costs would go up.



Aeolus451 said:
Rab said:

Just for comparative cost, US is virtually the only country without a Universal Healthcare System (UHS), almost every study that takes in the full complexity of the real costs shows that there is savings to be gained when using a UHS

That's false. The costs would go up.

So what you are saying is the US is dumber then the rest of the developed world since the can't implement a UHS without lowering cost.  Well no shit Sherlock everybody already knew that.



Make the rich and middle class foot the tax bill for universal health care for all. Universal Healthcare has worked effectively in Europe and it can work in the USA.



xbebop said:
Aeolus451 said:

More people talking nonsensical numbers like Cortez? 😂 It would increase the federal budget commitments by 32 trillion in it's first ten years.... What part of "by 32 trillion" don't some people understand? That's 32 trillion more in taxes to the middle class and rich.

The 2 trillion reduction in national health expenditure over ten years is wrong because it's based on Bernie's assumption that we can lower all payment rates to medicare payment rates. Blahous pointed out that can't be achieved. It would actually increase the NHE by 6 trillion. Other studies have similar numbers.

Yeah, and that's absolutely ridiculous. With any Universal Healthcare system, price controls would also come into play. As such, the costs would go down significantly.

Even so, does it matter if the cost for something is paid through taxes or directly from your pocketbook? It still ends up being paid. And, if other countries' experiences are to be believed, you'd end up paying less than half of what you are now.

With Bernie level of price controls, the innovation and development of meds, tech and medical procedures would stagnate. The US literally pays it forward for everyone in terms of innovation in healthcare. Some of the higher expenses is from higher consumption of healthcare and expensive new medical treatments. The US would never allow price controls for many reasons. Even most dems don't support this because they looked at the cost analysis and realized what it would cost.

Taxes would have to go up expeditiously to pay for the same healthcare at a higher price overall. It would go up by 6 trillion in costs.



Chris Hu said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's false. The costs would go up.

So what you are saying is the US is dumber then the rest of the developed world since the can't implement a UHS without lowering cost.  Well no shit Sherlock everybody already knew that.

Considering the EU is having money problems and falling apart, it can keep that shit.

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/932962/EU-news-debt-bad-loans-financial-crisis-European-Commission-Valdis-Dombrovskis