"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

The thread is about Medicare for all.

 

So no answer.

 

That is not what you specifically asked about. And drug prices and availability are obviously are involved with Medicare.

 

So you didn’t read the answer I gave you. Lol

 

Fraud is a cost. And fraud detection which Medicare is terrible at is overhead. Your costs go ~ 10 X higher for Medicare for all.

 

You gave no answer. Tens shocked.

 

The Democrats running for President claim we will be spending $3T - $4T per year on healthcare with Medicare for All. What do you claim we will spend.

 

You didn’t read the answer I gave you, lol.

 

OK, so if this is so, that Medicare for All is virtually already paid for, why doesn't Elizabeth Warren just explain that?

 

So, open borders isn't a thing anymore? It's like "last year's trendy idea"? Since the wall is becoming a reality and open borders proved to be so unpopular, I don't blame people for trying to forget it.

 

The same people who argue for an open border on our border with Mexico now argue for a border wall on the Turkey - Syria border. Breathtaking.

 

The argument is that all the healthcare dollars be transferred to the federal government and that the federal government will then administer all health care in the US. What could go wrong ??

 

Your source backs up my point. Four out of the five estimates show Medicare for all equally or exceeding what is spent on healthcare by US healthcare consumers today. That's the reality which makes my point. There is no cost savings. But with the government in charge of healthcare we will have a disaster of long wait times and exploding federal bureaucracy which is exactly what has happened in the UK.

 

I think there are significant differences in how costs are distributed based on specific decisions that get made.

Will we go there in one leap or just expand Medicare over a number of years, so change isn't jarring?

Will Medicare for all cover what it does today? Less? More? I think there will still be private insurance that people with disposable income can buy to cover stuff that others won't automatically get - similar to Medicare today and to the ststems of some other countries.

I think Warren is serious about moving in that direction, but presenting a full plan doesn't make sense. A real plan is going to require participation of congress.

Obama wanted Medicare for all. Congress said no. Instead, the bet that they could get more cooperation from Republicans if they based our system on the Republican proposal made during the Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, Republicans lost an election so seriously that they decided they needed one issue to demostrate that they still had power. Boehner and McConnell picked healthcare and worked to defeat it, even though Republicans had contributed to it's design through equal participation.

Warren and any other candidate can't fully commit to a specific design without it ending up being no more than a partisans political lightening rod on an issue where there will have to be cooperation.


The main argument to me is that every other first world country does it for WAY less than we spend. So, guessing that if WE do it it will be even MORE fabulously expensive hits me as unsupportable BS.

 

Today, we spend $3.5 T on healthcare.

So, my bet is that they are probably right - there probbly won't be much change at the outset. It will take time to work out the efficiencies that the new system will allow, so the savings in total expenditure won't necessarily be felt immediately.

But, the distribution of that cost will be different and everyone will have at least some level of coverage.

 

You actually believe that the federal government will work out the efficiencies ?? Priceless.

Coverage is not the problem. Healthcare is the problem.

 

The governments of other first world countries spend less on healthcare than US consumers of healthcare.

Of course the US government could spend less on healthcare. That's called rationing.

 

Medicare is already administering healthcare for 45 million Americans, and they are doing it very efficiently.

Today, nobody knows what coverage will be extended to those without coverage today or how much will be saved in super expensive and unneeded ER visits that are currently subsidized by government aid to hospitals and charges added to the bills of people who are insured (such as highly expensive asperin, etc.), etc.

We will need to design and cost our solution.

 

Again, we can look at how Medicare is doin with its 45 million Americans.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is a collection of 36 separate companies covering 105 million Americans.

They charge more in management and profit per customer than does Medicare, and it's no wonder. Medicare doesn't have to turn a profit, constantly compete for customers, send you advertising every week, etc. and the average number of customers for each of those companies is about 3 million.

That's not efficiency. That's multiple duplication and management heierarchy, all focused on maximizing profit.

 

I can support it- you just refuse to recognize it. Do you really think that anything private industry does will be cheaper if you give it to government? Surely you are not that naive.

 

Spending less is not rationing.

There are MANY ways to spend less.

 

Tou actually believe that ??? Priceless.

 

Again, you actually believe that ???

 

Of course it is. Those governments have a budget and the ration healthcare to meet that budget.

 

Good lord! I've never said anything approaching that.

The problem with our healthcare system is that it is in the hands of those whose primary interest is profit, NOT healthcare. Remember capitalism???

But, the result we need is healthcare.

That kind of mismatch is a characteristic of problems capitalism is not good at solving.

So, we try to add regulations to cause insurance companies to provide what we need. We say they can't discard customers who get sick. We say they have to offer a policy to anyone who asks. Etc., etc.

The insurance companies hate that, because each one of those makes it harder for them to just focus on profit. And, it cuts into dimensions where they can compete with other companies. It used to be that a company could promise not to kick someone out - pointing to competitors that did that. Now, that edge isn't available, since nobody can.

Trying to force capitalists to solve a problem where they don't get a profit is really, realy hard.

And, in this case we do need the product - even though no capitalist is going to provide it.

It's like teling some builder that they "should" solve homelessness. It's just plain nutty.

Let's remember what makes capitalism so great and also what it is not good at doing.