Healthcare

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
5,703
7
Bristol, TN
Interesting. A conservative think tank says overall medical costs (including vision and dental) under a single payer would save $2T - even if we ensure everyone and there are no copays/deductibles. Maybe single payer really is the way to go.

Does Bernie Sanders?s health plan cost $33 trillion - or save $2 trillion?

But Sanders is right that the study concludes that his plan would reduce overall spending on health care in the United States. Most U.S. spending on health care is done through the private sector. Sanders's plan would transition virtually all of that spending to the public sector, dramatically increasing government expenditures on health care while also reducing national health-care spending overall, according to the report.

"The primary effect here is the expansion of the federal government," Blahous said. His report questions whether it would be "desirable or practicable" for the federal government to so dramatically increase its spending on health care, given that the increase would dwarf many of the government's other spending priorities.

But to single-payer advocates, there is no obvious difference to the average American between sending their money to a private insurer through premiums and sending it to the government through higher taxes.

On its current trajectory, the United States is projected to spend $7.65 trillion annually on health care by 2031, according to the Mercatus study. That number would drop to $7.35 trillion if Sanders's plan were implemented, the study found. Over time, that adds up to a net savings of about $2.1 trillion.

"It's a surprisingly positive view of Medicare for All from a very conservative research institute," Larry Levitt, a health-care expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said of the Mercatus report. "According to the analysis, you could provide universal coverage with no patient cost-sharing and actually spend less on health care than we would under the status quo."
 

coop74

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2015
264
3
Alcoa TN
"there is no obvious difference to the average American between sending their money to a private insurer through premiums and sending it to the government through higher taxes." except it is your choice till it becomes taxes...
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
302
3
Pasadena
"there is no obvious difference to the average American between sending their money to a private insurer through premiums and sending it to the government through higher taxes." except it is your choice till it becomes taxes...

Or until you go looking for a Dr. that you want to establish a working relationship with...preferably one that you can actually understand when they speak...
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
775
8
Morgantown, WV
"there is no obvious difference to the average American between sending their money to a private insurer through premiums and sending it to the government through higher taxes." except it is your choice till it becomes taxes...
This. I've broken fingers, a wrist once, and have always just fixed myself up at the CVS. I put in six stitches with fishing line after a bad cut on the side of my thumb. Dumb? My choice? Doesn't matter. I saved a shit ton of money for sure.

I'll be for forced taxation to pay for medical care as soon as we are forcing people to mitigate future costs (and therefore higher taxes) by a mandatory 5 am rise and shine, fall out into the streets so your neighbors can report you if you don't and exercise for an hour, as well as a complete ban on sugary foods, candies, snackie-poos, sodas, corn chips, and anything else unhealthy...

Kinda like the left's "tax the rich" strategy, if you eat shitty foods and don't exercise then we increase your taxes...

I mean if the taxpayers are funding it then best value for their dollar should be strictly adhered to.