- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- 11,167
22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States have been conducted recently. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system.
Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration.
Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance companies individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with thousands of hospitals and doctors. On top of that, they rely on different billing procedures — and this puts a costly burden on providers.
Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...XhHSIJ9BcUSvoytdh1N6IjPqLFoBqXtPqUxIRFHmz3MGI
So, we know that the United States pays twice as much as anyone else for healthcare under our current system... and we know that every analysis ever done has shown that single payer would lower costs significantly.
But we bull-headedly insist on a system where:
1. We pay twice as much
2. 80 million people are uninsured or under insured
3. Half a million people a year go medically bankrupt
4. We lose our insurance if we lose our jobs
All because... Why?
"Muh socialism!!!!"
How dumb are we?
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system.
Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration.
Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance companies individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with thousands of hospitals and doctors. On top of that, they rely on different billing procedures — and this puts a costly burden on providers.
Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...XhHSIJ9BcUSvoytdh1N6IjPqLFoBqXtPqUxIRFHmz3MGI
So, we know that the United States pays twice as much as anyone else for healthcare under our current system... and we know that every analysis ever done has shown that single payer would lower costs significantly.
But we bull-headedly insist on a system where:
1. We pay twice as much
2. 80 million people are uninsured or under insured
3. Half a million people a year go medically bankrupt
4. We lose our insurance if we lose our jobs
All because... Why?
"Muh socialism!!!!"
How dumb are we?
Last edited:
