Koch Report Backfires

[Belsnickel]

So, there was a report put out by GMU's Mercatus Center recently estimating the cost of single-payer healthcare to be about $32.6 trillion over ten years. The think tank is libertarian leaning and heavily funded by the Koch's. Conservative media is touting this price tag and focusing on those findings, which mirror an analysis by the Urban Institute.

What conservative, and even most mainstream, media is not reporting on is that the report points out that the plan would insure 30 million more people and save our country $2 trillion over those ten years in healthcare costs.

Of course, seeing this requires either reading the entire report or seeking out multiple sources when reading about it to get a full picture, so I'm sure this will be ignored by many. I just found it a fun little thing to bring up. Especially singe single-payer healthcare is one of the most popular policies polling right now. Not quite as popular as a woman's right to choose, but it's up there.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2018, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there was a report put out by GMU's Mercatus Center recently estimating the cost of single-payer healthcare to be about $32.6 trillion over ten years. The think tank is libertarian leaning and heavily funded by the Koch's. Conservative media is touting this price tag and focusing on those findings, which mirror an analysis by the Urban Institute.

What conservative, and even most mainstream, media is not reporting on is that the report points out that the plan would insure 30 million more people and save our country $2 trillion over those ten years in healthcare costs.

Of course, seeing this requires either reading the entire report or seeking out multiple sources when reading about it to get a full picture, so I'm sure this will be ignored by many. I just found it a fun little thing to bring up. Especially singe single-payer healthcare is one of the most popular policies polling right now. Not quite as popular as a woman's right to choose, but it's up there.

Matt, there is nothing we can do.

The voters read a headline...and usually only a headline from a site that already agrees with their view.

All the facts and reports in the world aren't changing opinions.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-31-2018, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there was a report put out by GMU's Mercatus Center recently estimating the cost of single-payer healthcare to be about $32.6 trillion over ten years. The think tank is libertarian leaning and heavily funded by the Koch's. Conservative media is touting this price tag and focusing on those findings, which mirror an analysis by the Urban Institute.

What conservative, and even most mainstream, media is not reporting on is that the report points out that the plan would insure 30 million more people and save our country $2 trillion over those ten years in healthcare costs.

Of course, seeing this requires either reading the entire report or seeking out multiple sources when reading about it to get a full picture, so I'm sure this will be ignored by many. I just found it a fun little thing to bring up. Especially singe single-payer healthcare is one of the most popular policies polling right now. Not quite as popular as a woman's right to choose, but it's up there.

So the cost will be $30.6 trillion or we will have a surplus of $2 trillion after all is said and done?

By the way, there is nothing worse than a greedy billionaire and the Kock Brothers are the worse.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 12:49 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: So the cost will be $30.6 trillion or we will have a surplus of $2 trillion after all is said and done?

By the way, there is nothing worse than a greedy billionaire and the Kock Brothers are the worse.

It would cost $32.6 trillion, but that is about $2 trillion less than our country's healthcare costs in the same time period without it.

[fredtoast]

Single pay government health care is the obvious answer, but how do you tell a multi billion dollar industry like health insurance to just "go away".

[*wildcats forever*]

(07-31-2018, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Single pay government health care is the obvious answer, but how do you tell a multi billion dollar industry like health insurance to just "go away".

Sincerely with conviction.

[Yojimbo]

(07-31-2018, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Single pay government health care is the obvious answer, but how do you tell a multi billion dollar industry like health insurance to just "go away".

Well, if we end up like Canada or the U.K., they don’t go away, they just become much smaller and less influential.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-31-2018, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there was a report put out by GMU's Mercatus Center recently estimating the cost of single-payer healthcare to be about $32.6 trillion over ten years. The think tank is libertarian leaning and heavily funded by the Koch's. Conservative media is touting this price tag and focusing on those findings, which mirror an analysis by the Urban Institute.

What conservative, and even most mainstream, media is not reporting on is that the report points out that the plan would insure 30 million more people and save our country $2 trillion over those ten years in healthcare costs.

Of course, seeing this requires either reading the entire report or seeking out multiple sources when reading about it to get a full picture, so I'm sure this will be ignored by many. I just found it a fun little thing to bring up. Especially singe single-payer healthcare is one of the most popular policies polling right now. Not quite as popular as a woman's right to choose, but it's up there.

$2 trillion of $32 trillion doesn’t exactly sound like a backfire.

[hollodero]

(07-31-2018, 01:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: $2 trillion of $32 trillion doesn’t exactly sound like a backfire.

I guess you're reading that wrong. It's not that additional costs would be 30 instead of 32 trillions, it's rather that 2 trillions are saved compared to going on with how health care is handled now. So it's rather claiming 32 trillion dollar "additional" costs (like I had to read it too) is wrong by 34 trillions. Is how I read it, but I'm not too good wth those things.

I don't want to look like a Bernie guy, but when he says that every other western country manages to do universal health care at arguably lower costs overall compared to the US, I think that's a fair point. One could give the idea a little more credit than claiming it's completely out of the question and totally unfundable.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 01:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: $2 trillion of $32 trillion doesn’t exactly sound like a backfire.

Their own report showing single-payer would be cheaper than what they support? That is a backfire to me.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-31-2018, 03:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Their own report showing single-payer would be cheaper than what they support? That is a backfire to me.

I think I read it wrong . But costing the country is different than costing the government which will have to tax everyone to get there. And not just a few dollars. As long as everyone is aware of that.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 04:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think I read it wrong . But costing the country is different than costing the government which will have to tax everyone to get there. And not just a few dollars. As long as everyone is aware of that.

It's only different in how the money flows. If you are taxed to pay for this but don't have to pay premiums directly, and the costs are less overall, then the advantage is with single-payer. Of course this assumes a community focused mindset rather than an individualistic. Some people are just dicks.

[*bfine32*]

Let's make sure I understand everyone's definition of a single pay Health care system:

Is it paid by taxes and how do we charge those taxes? Payroll or purchase

Does it mean no one has to pay "out of pocket" for healthcare?

Who determines who gets to go the the more advanced facilities and/or more expensive specialists?

There are too many questions I need answered just to just say Single pay is the way to go. I say this because I personally know Canadian who come here to get procedures done (and pay out of pocket) that they cannot get done in Canada in a timely manner

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's make sure I understand everyone's definition of a single pay Health care system:

Is it paid by taxes and how do we charge those taxes? Payroll or purchase

Likely a combination thereof.

(07-31-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does it mean no one has to pay "out of pocket" for healthcare?

Depends on the system.

(07-31-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who determines who gets to go the the more advanced facilities and/or more expensive specialists?

No one. You go to a facility and it would be covered...

(07-31-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are too many questions I need answered just to just say Single pay is the way to go. I say this because I personally know Canadian who come here to get procedures done (and pay out of pocket) that they cannot get done in Canada in a timely manner

Canada's problems aren't because of single-payer. They are because they haven't invested the resources into their healthcare system to make it run properly.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2018, 05:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1) Likely a combination thereof.


2) Depends on the system.


3) No one. You go to a facility and it would be covered...


4) Canada's problems aren't because of single-payer. They are because they haven't invested the resources into their healthcare system to make it run properly.

Appreciate the "answers". 

1) So in design I would have to pay more for the same coverage if I have a job and/or one that pays well. Not sure I'm a fan of that.

2) Yeah, that answer really isn't one

3) So I have no choice of my healthcare provider. Not sure I'm a fan of it.

4) IDK, they seemed to suggest it was because of the system; they couldn't see a specialist to get the care or procedures necessary for an knee injury.

Seems folks are just saying this single payer system is the way to go without fully understanding/exploring it and I have no idea how a report like that listed in the OP can have any validity with the numerous assumptions and  it appears that's one thing Bernie and I agree one.

BTW, I'm retired Military and as such am authorized care at Military Treatment Facilities at no cost. Would single payer change that? 

I believe everyone should be entitled to healthcare. I simply believe more options should be available if you have earned them and/or pay for them. I'm against someone unemployed receiving the same health coverage as an employed individual does. It removes one of the motivations to seeks employment.   

 

[hollodero]

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to healthcare. I simply believe more options should be available if you have earned them and/or pay for them. I'm against someone unemployed receiving the same health coverage as an employed individual does. It removes one of the motivations to seeks employment.    

But again, that depends on the system. Universal healthcare could provide basic care without any add-ons, just covering the absolute medical necessities. There still could be a bunch of healthcare providers with additional plans that offer you all kinds of upgrades.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2018, 05:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: But again, that depends on the system. Universal healthcare could provide basic care without any add-ons, just covering the absolute medical necessities. There still could be a bunch of healthcare providers with additional plans that offer you all kinds of upgrades.

That's why I said I have lots of questions about single payer. "Depends on the system" seems kind of vague. I get the allure of it, but just not the reality of it. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2018, 05:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Likely a combination thereof.


Depends on the system.


No one. You go to a facility and it would be covered...


Canada's problems aren't because of single-payer. They are because they haven't invested the resources into their healthcare system to make it run properly.

If we had a medicare for all system, I imagine it would function in a similar fashion to medicare and I think that is a far easier sell. You get your tax funded coverage like with part A and the chance to pay for part B to cover more. You can also supplement it with private insurance (parts C and D), though the things covered under parts C and D would likely drive the cost of parts A and B down if they too were covered. 

[*bfine32*]

Another question for the single payer crowd: Is it just Medical or should we include Dental and vision?

[hollodero]

(07-31-2018, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's why I said I have lots of questions about single payer. "Depends on the system" seems kind of vague. I get the allure of it, but just not the reality of it. 

Yeah well, I don't know what the Democrats are cooking out either. It's a bit different everywhere, e.g. quite chaotic in my country, and all the different approaches have different advantages and disadvantages. I feel the US is more at the point of debating the principle than going into the details.
I just can add this, it's good for a society when everyone's basic medical needs are covered. No one (well, hardly anyone) needs to die here because he is poor. That's just nice.

(07-31-2018, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Another question for the single payer crowd: Is it just Medical or should we include Dental and vision?

These are medical issues...? Let's say, basic coverage could be a bad tooth is getting pulled out, additional private insurance (or money) can have you get a bridge or a pivot tooth or an implant instead.

But sure, if a tooth needs medical attention, that sure would fall under basic coverage. With eyes, I wouldn't know. I for one still have to pay for my glasses on my own.