New Medicare for All Study: Will Save Americans $450 Billion and Prevent 68,000 Unnecessary Deaths Every Year

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

Source:

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#%20

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals. (Wikipedia)

This is a good study as it lays out exactly how you pay for it.  And guess what? No magical thinking was involved. Tell me again why this isn't the most sensible approach? If you are fiscally conservative how could you not be for this approach?

One of the most persistent conservative lies/memes is that universal health care would be incredibly expensive--muchmuchmuchmuchmuch more so than our current system. Oh, and the earth would spiral into the sun.

It's obvious when you run the numbers that it would actually be a huge savings. No magic involved. Just little ol' things like economies of scale, streamlining of processes, and consolidation of care. After that, you can factor in the savings realized by treating conditions before they develop into expensive crises.

You can't ignore the successful and much less costly universal health care found in dozens of countries whose societies are otherwise similar to our own. Conservatives like to handwave this by saying that their health care is worse than ours ("Didja know that yew has to wait ONE HUNNERT AND THIRTY YEARS ta have your appendix out in Canader??"). I disagree--partly from direct experience. And for tens of millions of uninsured or underinsured in the US, I'd say that the health care offered in those nations is definitely preferable to none at all.

In a way, I'm glad that the Republican party is so stubborn-ass on this issue; it'll get them thrown out of office en masse. I truly don't know why they're so rabid about it. Of course, they're paid big bucks to fight against health care, just like they're bribed to be climate change deniers, etc. etc.--but you'd think they'd understand that doing so costs them votes, big time. Participate in the effort to destroy our health care and we'll heave your sorry ass out of the Senate. You'd think that would be language they'd understand. 

The lead on tnis study is an advisor to Sanders, which puts the credibility of tbe study in doubt. 

The Lancet also printed the fraudulent "study" relating the MMR vaccine to development of autism.   To their credit they eventually printed a retraction, and the doctor submitting the "research" was stripped of his medical license.  But the damage was done, and mothers still do not accept the proven science that their babies need this protection by vaccination.

Why is that, exactly?   Anyone who advises a presidential candidate is by definition not credible?

thats a new goal post.

Poor old DonDiego would just like to be left alone.

Having health insurance was a consideration when poor old DonDiego graduated from college, a very, very long time ago.  It was a consideration when DonDiego sought employment.  He chose employment which offered group insurance for a reasonable monthly fee and with excellent coverage of medical expenses.

Throughout his working life he has had excellent insurance coverage; and, luckily, little need to use it.

And he was able to retain the group coverage into retirement. He has had to use it on several occasions, the most extreme of which was to combat a cancer with which he was afflicted several years ago.  All the physicians accepted his insurance; the hospital accepted his insurance; there were no delays.  He received appropriate medical services from his chosen physician and all the hospital personnel involved in his treatment.  The cancer was eradicted; it may reappear at some time, but for the moment poor old DonDiego is cancer free.  And DonDiego has had confidence that his insurance would cover any return of the cancer. 

Based upon his brief research into the realities of Medicare for All, one result of "Medicare for All" will be that poor old DonDiego will be taxed to support this new, and likely not-quite-as-good-as his-current-insurance plan whether he wants it or not.

And, in fact, his present insurance will no longer exist.

That is, . . . poor old DonDiego will not be left alone:

__ He will be forced into an "insurance" plan likely inferior to what he has now.

__ He will be taxed to support the medically insured needs of those who have likewise been forced into this one-size-fits-all gigantic health insurance scheme, . . .  as well as those previously not-insured who need to be insured but won't be able to pay.

__ Poor old DonDiego imagines the predicted "cost-savings" will never appear; promised cost-savings in Big Government plans rarely do.  So in the not too distant future, if not immediately, those taxes will exceed the monthly payments he has been making throughout his adult life..

__ DonDiego supposes the present numbers of medical personnel, medical care offices, available hospitals, and other medical necessities and resources will not multiply magically to cover the undoubtedly significant increases in the numbers of those seeking medical care.

__Thus, prompt care will be a memory. [n.b. The lack of prompt care is one of the primary complaints of those in "nationalized medical care" countries already.]

USA Evidence:

There are already many medical practices which currently do not accept "new patients" if they do not possess private insurance beyond Medicare.  Poor old DonDiego opines any Big-New-Medicare-For-All-and-Everyone-Plan will require all physicians to accept everyone under the Big-New-Medicare-For-All-and-Everyone-Plan.

The prospective patient should not expect efficiency.  And some folks at the end of the line are likely to experience that medical care delayed can have unpleasant consequences.  Let's hope that if poor old DonDiego's cancer does reappear someone'll note that speed is necessary.

DonDiego is in the right party.     If you believe our healthcare system is best left as is with out of control inflation, tens of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, and millions of people with no access to any coverage   then you should vote Republican.     Because  they generally feel the same way.

And ya know what?  Thats fine.    

Just do me a favor, Republican candidates.    Quit telling the public about your superior healthcare reforms that are sitting in this hidden box over here that you will reveal once elected.    There's nothing in that box.  Because like DonDIego they dont really believe healthcare is a problem in the US.    I just ask they make that position clear to the public instead of pretending like they give a shit about an issue they clearly dont.

(For the record, the overwhelming majority of people who voted in the recent midterm election said healthcare reform was their primary issue that drove them to thevoting booth .  Do you remember what party those people voted for in 2018?...)

DonDiego should not be so afraid of "Big Government" that he forgets about economies of scale. Many government programs and institutions only function well because they are administered by a single entity. A single health provider would be more efficient than 12,988 separate providers, or whatever the number is.

DonDiego also forgets about supply and demand. If more people are placed on the insurance rolls, there will be an increased demand for doctors and nurses (etc.)--and that demand will be filled, especially since being a medical professional will pretty much be a lifetime guarantee of a job.

DonDiego should also consider that 1 in 5 dollars spent on health care nationwide is devoted to billing. I would expect that if there was only one single entity to bill, those costs would shrink dramatically. Plus, there would be no need for collection efforts--Uncle Sam would always pay.

DonDiego's fears that medical care will be inefficient or not "prompt" under a single payer plan. He cites the common conservative meme that in countries with such systems, people wait for care for extremely long times. This is not, in fact, the case. Also, even if you have wonderful private insurance as in the status quo today, you will not necessarily receive care "promptly," whatever your definition of that is.

I would, in fact, expect to see an expansion of private practice as more doctors start businesses, knowing that they won't have to devote valuable resources to billing and collections. Having 25% more cash would certainly help a small practice get off the ground--as would the certainty of getting paid for services rendered.

Here's a fun fact I learned today about our private insurance industry.

A colleague of mine's son was assaulted by a thug at a college party.   Had his teeth knocked out.     His medical / dental insurance wont cover the payment because it was an assault.    The assaulter is suppossed to pay for it.      Except the assaulter is a broke college kid with no income.   

So despite having "quality" dental and medical insurance through work - my friend has to pay to get his son new teeth...100% out of pocket.......20k !

This is an issue that does not happen in Canada.   And its something that could easily happen to you.    Be careful out there.   Dont get attacked by a broke thug.    Your insurance will tell you to go to hell.  

Candy, Tom and Don sure have the gaslighting routine down. 

Given their aversion to the least expensive healthcare solution and one that results in better outcomes any claims that they are fiscally conservative, concerned about entitlement spending, deficit spending or about the national debt should be dismissed with laughter. 

These results reached in this study are the same results reached by the conservative Geroge Mason University in a study that was funded by the Koch Brothers. Namely, if you redirect the money of the sources that are currently paying into the healthcare system and combine it all into one big pot you get a whole lot more healthcare for a whole lot less. Oh, I almost forget the CBO came to the same conclusion.