True. Sanders says taxes would go up, but hasn't specified by how much. However, Sanders is using the term Medicare inappropriately for his Medicare-For-All proposal. His proposal has no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-pays. Medicare has all of those things. It also eliminates private coverage while Medicare depends on it, in two ways. First, there's Medicare Advantage plans. Second, Medicare's viability depends on providers charging privately insured people more to cover their costs.
Medicare advantage plans are essentially private companies siphoning out funds for heal care by reducing payments to healthcare providers, reducing coverage, and occasionally finding waste.
Some of those reductions are valuable, but would actually be done better by a single-payer system. (disclosure: I spend most of the last 15 years working for a medicare advantage plan)
This is incorrect. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Tricare cover a total of over 40% of Americans. Medicaid alone covers 19.3% of Americans, according to the latest USG figures I found. And I'm not counting other programs, like those for Native Americans.
I stand exposed as hyperbolic... a minority are covered.
What do you know about the German healthcare system? While everyone in German has access to healthcare, there is a multi-payer system with a private coverage for anyone above a not-so-high income level.
That doesn't appear to be entirely accurate "Healthcare in Germany is funded by statutory contributions, ensuring free healthcare for all. In addition, you can also take out
private health insurance (
Private Krankenversicherung or PKV) to replace or top up state cover (
gesetzliche Krankenkasse or GKV). " -
https://www.expatica.com/de/healthcare/healthcare-basics/the-german-healthcare-system-a-guide-to-healthcare-in-germany-103359/
But it's also not the point. The point is that everyone has healthcare coverage (you said so yourself)... generally more comprehensive than in the US, and the per-capita costs are a bit over half the US.
Germany (
https://www.who.int/countries/deu/en/):
| Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) | 5,182 |
|---|
United States (
https://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/):
| Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2014) | 9,403 |
|---|
Also: Medical bankrupts isn't a thing.
Also, provider fees are dictated by federal government, so healthcare professionals earn substantially less than their counterparts in the US. I don't know where you came up with the $5000/year figure.
quick google search.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/americans-spend-twice-as-much-on-health-care-today-as-in-the-1980s.html.
Also: personal experience.
And yes, Doctors make about 1/3rd less. Now, shall we discuss the debt burden of medical school in the US vs Germany
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-doctors-are-drowning-in-medical-school-debt/
(and please don't think I'm holding Germany as some pinnacle system. I could have mentioned Canada or France.)
I agree that healthcare bankruptcies are a problem, but Medicare For All is not the appropriate remedy.
And I'll support a better plan.
But given "medicare for all" and "status quo". I'll take medicare for all.
"perfect" is the enemy of good.
Not the unless the government provided them. Rural hospitals are closing at an alarming rate because they get a larger percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients than hospitals in large metro areas,
And uninsured.
Of course: hospitals are also more expensive when there's less competition and rates cannot be externally controlled.
and Medicare and Medicaid pay on average 25% less than private insurance. Private insurance is subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare For All bill assumes Medicare pricing schedules.
By "Private insurance" you mean "me". Patients are paying more than they should.
Hospitals have gone through numerous rounds of taking debt to buy hospitals. They are creating new debt burden and looking for profit centers.
Two times ago when I was in the ER, I had now fewer than four people attempting to collect money from me on the gurney before I had my first medical conversation (I ended up having my gall-bladder removed).
Right now, there's some third-party collection agency attempting to collect for a lab company inside a hospital for a debt we already paid the hospital for.
No. I'm less arguing for the bill than I am arguing against the specious arguments against the entire idea.
Single-payer would reduce administrative costs, but I'm not sure if 80% is accurate.
https://time.com/5759972/health-care-administrative-costs/
Have you read the Medicare For All bill, Jerry?
No. I'm less arguing for the bill than I am arguing against the specious arguments against the entire idea.
There is no way we would get all of the benefits you want for fewer tax dollars. NFW.
You are likely right. I didn't say that the medicare for all bill would lower taxes. I said "if we could magically mirror Germany's healthcare system today?"
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that, in what's been long posts from both of us, you got sidetracked and that your straw-man isn't intentional.
Unless you are saying we wouldn't manage to lower taxes with the german system.
The Federal government spent about $1.1 trillion in healthcare. That's $3,363/person.
State governments spent about $605 billion (in 2016, which is the first year I found). That's $1,850/person
Combined: that's $5,213/person
Germany's total expenditure (not just government expenditure) is $5,182; but as you've pointed out, not everyone gets everything free; so actual tax spending is lower than that.
$5,182 <5,213
This is bullshit, Jerry. You're better than this.
But its true though.
The Medicare For All bill not only includes negotiating for drug pricing, and if drug companies don't agree to the government's offer their patents can be confiscated and licensed to competitors. They are compensated for the patents, but can argue the amount of compensation only in a special court run by the Feds for issues like this (e.g. eminent domain). Read the bill.
Good.
Patents exist for the public good. That's why they expire. If the patent isn't serving the public good, it should expire.
Or are you in favor of what's happened with, for example, insulin? Now imagine that was new!
Lives > Profit
Medicare For All is the enemy of the good, because it lays waste to too many Americans in the process, namely healthcare workers (they'll have to take a ~25% pay cut) and healthcare insurance industry workers (~500,000 of them) who will just be out of work.
Re insurance industry: as one of them I say "so what!" By that logic, you literally cannot cut spending on anything anywhere... after all, it goes to someone.
Ask most healthcare workers how much of their salary goes to healthcare expenses. You might find that a 25% pay cut, even if true, is an improvement in real income for most.
My wife worked in Dr.Offices. They tended to make <$12/hr...
Then there's also the problem I've pointed out multiple times before of when you make services free with no deductibles or co-pays the demand for services goes up dramatically, so wait times will too. IMO, you are arguing from emotion and not the big picture.
Yea. I've noticed that with police, fire departments, roads, and all other social services.
Ahh yes.. the boogie man of "wait times". *you* are speaking from emotion.
Well. I just waited 2 months to get in with a GI doctors. But then the year changed and he fell out of network. So now, for the stomach discomfot ruining my sleep: I get to have a first visit in April.
What *actually* happens is that access to healthcare improves and average outcome improves. We don't have to speculate, we can simply look. Meanwhile:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/