posted by justincredible

Also from the report:

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentive the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

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

Weird that boatshoes would have left that super important piece out. So it costs that absurd amount after significant reductions to reimbursements?  Does it say how they could ever fund it besides tax increases?

I'm also certain my employer insurance is 10000 times better than what Medicare for all would offer. Also, haven't we all seen how the VA works? 

You mean he neglected to acknowledge that the books are cooked? Imagine my surprise.

posted by iclfan2

Also add in their other beliefs of free college and a living wage. Keeping my money in my pockets is my number 1 political care. I don't want "Power" in the hands of the people, who are mostly idiots.

That is a perfectly fine viewpoint. I just think it is likely inaccurate that the world collapse if the United States had similar economic policies to European countries. 

posted by jmog

Considering a study at George Mason calculated the cost at over $32 trillion over 10 years (yes, that's trillion with a T) or over $3T/year...I wouldn't say Venezuela would be far off if government spending went that far.

 

The current system is NOT medicare for most as more people are still on private or employee provided health care and not on government health care.

 

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

 

49% on employee based health care

7% bought their own

That's 56% on private

19% on Medicaid

14% on Medicare

2% on other public

That's 35% on public health care

(9% uninsured).

 

So, how are we already "medicare for most"? Statistics don't back up your asertation. 

You're right. I was wrong about "Medicare For Most." Let's Call it Socialism for a Third then. 

posted by justincredible

Also from the report:

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentivize the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

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

I'm sure that will be part of the equation. Part of the reason other countries pay less for healthcare is they use the bargaining power of their governments to pay their providers a lot less. In our system the provider networks like Cleveland Clinic, etc. have the major bargaining power and extract much higher prices. As the old trope goes - we pay way more and are less healthy than other countries. 

posted by iclfan2

Weird that boatshoes would have left that super important piece out. So it costs that absurd amount after significant reductions to reimbursements?  Does it say how they could ever fund it besides tax increases?

I'm also certain my employer insurance is 10000 times better than what Medicare for all would offer. Also, haven't we all seen how the VA works? 

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

Indeed - would you libertarian minded folk be getting the vapors over lower provider salaries (much of which is unearned economic rent in our system where provider networks have all the power) if - well gee - instead Rand Paul came out with a healthcare proposal that would cost by way of lower provider salaries through much greater free market competition than our current system of massive provider monopolies?

My guess is no. Whether it is a more libertarian solution or a more "socialist" solution - for America's healthcare system to be more efficient and cost less - providers will have be to paid less. One side says let's find away for that to happen by introducing market forces - the other side says let's give the government more bargaining power than the providers to set lower prices. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

You mean he neglected to acknowledge that the books are cooked? Imagine my surprise.

Afraid not friend. I doubt you'd call it "cooking the books" if Rand Paul's plan forecasted lower provider salaries due to increases in competition, etc. 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

 

Maybe you didn't "leave it out" per se, but I'm still having trouble how a study can conclude something will cost less, but only because the government forces the markets to accept a lower reimbursement. 

posted by BoatShoes

Afraid not friend. I doubt you'd call it "cooking the books" if Rand Paul's plan forecasted lower provider salaries due to increases in competition, etc. 

 

Nice straw man. 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" -  

Best case scenario is you didn't read the whole thing, but most likely is you purposely were being misleading.    LOL at thinking this plan would make healthcare cheaper, but also provide us the same quality (or better) of healthcare.  
 

posted by BoatShoes

How did I "leave it out" - if that's part of the assumptions then so be it lol. I didn't write the thing - just pointing out a libertarian study showed that medicare for all (with the assumptions you mention) would cost less for the economy as a whole. 

Indeed - would you libertarian minded folk be getting the vapors over lower provider salaries (much of which is unearned economic rent in our system where provider networks have all the power) if - well gee - instead Rand Paul came out with a healthcare proposal that would cost by way of lower provider salaries through much greater free market competition than our current system of massive provider monopolies?

My guess is no. Whether it is a more libertarian solution or a more "socialist" solution - for America's healthcare system to be more efficient and cost less - providers will have be to paid less. One side says let's find away for that to happen by introducing market forces - the other side says let's give the government more bargaining power than the providers to set lower prices. 

3 paragraphs of CYA, come on O-Trap, no diatribe just admit you left it out because it didn't fit your narrative.

I'd take a much harder look at expatriating.  The truth is that most of us are willing to live in a system that we don't entirely agree with, and the amount of compromise we're willing to make will vary, but that might be beyond what I'd see as a manageable leak in the ship either way.

So I might look at getting my ass somewhere else.  Maybe Andorra, Uruguay, or Mauritius.