• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study finds that single-payer saves money

Dans La Lune

Moral Clarity
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
9,281
Reaction score
5,819
Location
With South Africa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

Projected costs and savings

Net cost or savings in the first year of single-payer operation varies from an increase of 7.2% of system costs to a reduction of 15.5% (Fig 2). The median finding was a net savings of 3.5% of system costs, and analyses of 19 of 22 plans found net savings. Net costs reflect the balance of added costs due to higher utilization (by eliminating uninsurance and in some studies also capturing the increase due to ending underinsurance) and savings (via payment simplification, lower drug prices, and other factors). Higher utilization increases costs by 2.0% to 19.3% (median 9.3%). Total savings range from 3.3% to 26.5% (median 12.1%).
 
One some level, no duh. Neigh every other advanced, industrialized country has some form of universal healthcare, and all of those pay less and have more access to healthcare than we do in America.
 
Of course it does. But the austerity absorbed morons can't bring themselves to think critically, as long as Twittler ****s it out into the virtual world they parrot it.
 
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

You are talking about total costs. MFA would bankrupt the government because even though the overall costs would be less, the government would basically be paying 100% of the costs while right now individuals pay a good share of the cost. And, with the government in control, the horrors of a single payer system would soon take root.
 
This is a Herculean study. Lots of data; the homework is definitely shown. It’s not some skewed analysis from a Heritage Foundation or AEI flunkie.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
the other countries using similar systems aren't working out as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is claiming. Gaps in coverage and long waiting lines exist. The promise of the democrat Leftist is that in America we will do it better and fix all the mistakes and problems that occur elsewhere. Yeah, government runs things so well.

No, the Rest of the World Doesn't Use "Single Payer" - Foundation for Economic Education
 
the other countries using similar systems aren't working out as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is claiming. Gaps in coverage and long waiting lines exist. The promise of the democrat Leftist is that in America we will do it better and fix all the mistakes and problems that occur elsewhere. Yeah, government runs things so well.

No, the Rest of the World Doesn't Use "Single Payer" - Foundation for Economic Education

The study shows their homework, fully. It’s vast and comprehensive. Look at the numbers. Fine the flaw in their study and then I’ll entertain the analysis of a libertarian think tank.
 
Is that study from the same people that said Obamacare would save money? From the same people that lied about being able to keep plans and doctors and the low costs of the ACA insurance requirements?
 
Is that study from the same people that said Obamacare would save money? From the same people that lied about being able to keep plans and doctors and the low costs of the ACA insurance requirements?

No, Obamacare was a Republican-based free market alternative to single-payer. And again, this study shows their homework. If you have a problem with the data, challenge them on the data.
 
The study shows their homework, fully. It’s vast and comprehensive. Look at the numbers. Fine the flaw in their study and then I’ll entertain the analysis of a libertarian think tank.
Maybe you can explain how Bernie and his believers are going to force private insurance businesses to shut down, force the people who have those insurance coverages to give them up and add the 90 million people Bernie likes to claim are uninsured or underinsured for less money with better coverage? Economics says that will not happen when you are going to supposedly charge less for the overall care received and add on so many paying nothing. Doubt it.
 
Maybe you can explain how Bernie and his believers are going to force private insurance businesses to shut down, force the people who have those insurance coverages to give them up and add the 90 million people Bernie likes to claim are uninsured or underinsured for less money with better coverage? Economics says that will not happen when you are going to supposedly charge less for the overall care received and add on so many paying nothing. Doubt it.
Could you expand on what that means?
 
You are talking about total costs. MFA would bankrupt the government because even though the overall costs would be less, the government would basically be paying 100% of the costs while right now individuals pay a good share of the cost. And, with the government in control, the horrors of a single-payer system would soon take root.
Universal healthcare isn't free, even though it would not be a fee at the time of service. Have you not helped your parents with their Medicare, so you would understand how it works? We are changing the way that we pay for it and eliminating private insurance profits.

Those costs would be offset because we would not be paying for medical insurance to a private insurance company but instead to the federal government by an increase in FICA deductions, just as we pay into Medicare and Social Security? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? How can you possibly oppose a policy idea when you don't have a clue how it would work? Do you think that Medicare and Social Security are free?

JFCoaS!!!
 
Last edited:
No, Obamacare was a Republican-based free market alternative to single-payer. And again, this study shows their homework. If you have a problem with the data, challenge them on the data.
Obama care was a **** piece of legislation democrats passed (most of them without reading what they voted for) and was designed to fail.

The single payer study has no basis in fact. They admit they derive their figures based on studies and proposals...not actual models. For comparison, they use the VA as a bias...the VA...which has been demonstrated to have massive cost overruns and fatal service delivery delays. They use models like the Maryland health care model, but that doesnt work since the state health care model 1-is increasing in cost annually and 2-is supplemented by multiple payer systems.
 
Maybe you can explain how Bernie and his believers are going to force private insurance businesses to shut down, force the people who have those insurance coverages to give them up and add the 90 million people Bernie likes to claim are uninsured or underinsured for less money with better coverage? Economics says that will not happen when you are going to supposedly charge less for the overall care received and add on so many paying nothing. Doubt it.

Do you understand how Medicare works? Do you know that private insurance companies oversee the program but at a much lower net-profit level than private insurance plans?

Why should we protect net profits for an insurance program when they deny people needed care by doing so?
 
Well, if the study is correct and free healthcare saves us money, that's great.

My guess is that it will be more expensive for voters and it will be horribly mismanaged.

To bad we can't do an experiment, like implement free healthcare for five years in California and see what happens.
 
Obama care was a **** piece of legislation Democrats passed (most of them without reading what they voted for) and was designed to fail.

The single-payer study has no basis in fact. They admit they derive their figures based on studies and proposals...not actual models. For comparison, they use the VA as a bias...the VA...which has been demonstrated to have massive cost overruns and fatal service delivery delays. They use models like the Maryland health care model, but that doesn't work since the state health care model 1-is increasing in cost annually and 2-is supplemented by multiple payer systems.

Obamacare was a conservative capitalist idea of requiring people to have medical coverage. At its core, it was not a liberal idea. There were also ideas of the ban on preexisting condition denials and other ideas. The liberal healthcare idea was a single-payer or maybe the public option that would have permitted people to buy into Medicare coverage as their current plan while also continuing to pay into Medicare for the future.
 
Well, if the study is correct and free healthcare saves us money, that's great.

My guess is that it will be more expensive for voters and it will be horribly mismanaged.

To bad we can't do an experiment, like implement free healthcare for five years in California and see what happens.


There is no free healthcare. Medicaid for the poor and disabled is also paid for with taxes.
 
Obama care was a **** piece of legislation democrats passed (most of them without reading what they voted for) and was designed to fail.

The single payer study has no basis in fact. They admit they derive their figures based on studies and proposals...not actual models. For comparison, they use the VA as a bias...the VA...which has been demonstrated to have massive cost overruns and fatal service delivery delays. They use models like the Maryland health care model, but that doesnt work since the state health care model 1-is increasing in cost annually and 2-is supplemented by multiple payer systems.

How many Republicans read what they voted against? It would seem not many because when they tried repealing, theyvall came up with parts they wanted to keep.
 
Do you understand how Medicare works? Do you know that private insurance companies oversee the program but at a much lower net-profit level than private insurance plans?

Why should we protect net profits for an insurance program when they deny people needed care by doing so?

People understand how medicare works. People and doctors also understand that under this they will take a 40% pay cut and they are not going to do it.
I prefer to see my doctor and pay more for it than to have healthcare coverage but no doctor or hospital will accept it, and i still have to pay for private insurance.
 
How many Republicans read what they voted against? It would seem not many because when they tried repealing, theyvall came up with parts they wanted to keep.

Mashmont called Obamacare ‘Chimpycare’ in another thread. That’s the reason Republicans voted against it, to incite their racist base.
 
Yea, single payer saves money. (in theory) You always save money by scrimping and giving people substandard, s****y care. It's like wanting the VA model for your healthcare system. No thanks.
 
People understand how medicare works. People and doctors also understand that under this they will take a 40% pay cut and they are not going to do it.
I prefer to see my doctor and pay more for it than to have healthcare coverage but no doctor or hospital will accept it, and i still have to pay for private insurance.

Where do you get the idea that it will be a 40% cut?
 
Obamacare was a conservative capitalist idea of requiring people to have medical coverage. At its core, it was not a liberal idea. There were also ideas of the ban on preexisting condition denials and other ideas. The liberal healthcare idea was a single-payer or maybe the public option that would have permitted people to buy into Medicare coverage as their current plan while also continuing to pay into Medicare for the future.

No it was not a conservative idea at all.
why do you people constantly lie about this even though it has proven to be a lie time and time again.

in the 1990's 1 US senator brought a bill to the floor. 1 senator. NO REPUBLICANS support it.
the bill didn't even make it out of committee.

Even in the bill that was proposed there were major differences in it.
 
Yea, single payer saves money. (in theory) You always save money by scrimping and giving people substandard, s****y care. It's like wanting the VA model for your healthcare system. No thanks.

What part of Medicare for all confuses you? Is Medicare the same as the VA?
 
No it was not a conservative idea at all.
why do you people constantly lie about this even though it has proven to be a lie time and time again.

in the 1990's 1 US senator brought a bill to the floor. 1 senator. NO REPUBLICANS support it.
the bill didn't even make it out of committee.

Even in the bill that was proposed there were major differences in it.

The core of the ACA was the same as the GOP alternative to Hillarycare in 2003.
 
Back
Top Bottom