Fake News about Medicare For All

Submitted by gjohnsit on Mon, 07/30/2018 - 9:11pm

There's a new study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University meant to discredit and disprove the Medicare For All, but it didn't turn out that way.
The trick is what and who is reporting this report.

A new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University is making headlines for projecting that Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” bill is estimated to cost $32.6 trillion — a number that’s entirely in line with 2016 projections, and is literally old news. But what the Associated Press headline fails to announce is a much more sanguine update: The report, by Senior Research Strategist Charles Blahous, found that under Sanders’s plan, overall health costs would go down, and wages would go up.
The study, which came out of the Koch-funded research center, was initially provided to the AP with a cost estimate that exceeded previous ones by an incredible $3 trillion — a massive error that was found and corrected by Sanders’s staff when approached by AP for comment.
...
Blahous’s paper, titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending.

This is a huge embarrassment for the conservative forces. If the Koch Brothers, of all people, prove that MFA will save money, how will the corporate media report this?
By simply leaving off the good news.

BusinessInsider: A new study estimates Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for all' plan would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years

ABC: Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost $32.6 trillion

NBC: Sanders' 'Medicare for All' Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years: Study

FOX: Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for all' bill estimated to cost $32.6T, new study says

WashPost: Study: ‘Medicare for all’ projected to cost $32.6 trillion

None of these articles mentioned the cost savings. Not to mention the fact that a more unbiased study would probably yield even better results.

Tags:

Medicare for All

Vote

Comments

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 07/30/2018 - 9:37pm

Question

does the cost estimate assume prices as charged today or medicare's reimbursement rate?

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Wink on Mon, 07/30/2018 - 10:02pm

2018 dollars

over 10 years.
@doh1304
No cost of living increase.
$3.26 Trillion x 10.

Still, it's a good number if not a tad high.
$32.6 Trillion over ten years is prolly pretty close.
Thing is, we're saving the 10% that doesn't go to Big Insurance,
which could go instead to University research centers.
MFA is a Joe Biden bfd and a Big Win for everyone except Big Insurance.
Why we still suffer diseases of any sort is mostly due to the fact that the treatment is more profitable than the cure. And, besides... TPTB love to see us 99%ers suffer. Big time.
Imagine preventive care under MFA. Then I wake up.
Never in my wildest dreams back in the late '60s, early '70s (and later) did I Ever imagine the flip flop we've taken. That it could possibly happen in my lifetime. That's something millennials don't get. This $h!t was unthinkable back in the day. Totally. Unthinkable. Sure, it made for a good Mad Max movie! We just didn't think we would actually be living the movie. In our lifetime. No friggin' Way! and yet here we are...

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Snode on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 5:59am

"Never in my wildest dreams back in the late '60s, early '70s "

@Wink "did I Ever imagine the flip flop we've taken. That it could possibly happen in my lifetime"

Are you ever right on this. We got here by doing what were told, since we learned how to walk. Participate in democracy, vote, choose the best candidate, because....well, everybody did it, you're participating! You're a good citizen! It sounds so reasonable, so logical until you realize it doesn't do anything, and things get worse. It took time to realize that government was actually becoming something that at best was indifferent rather than harmful depending on who was in charge, and that takes us into Foxnews wing nut land (not in content), and that is a very sobering place to be. I get upset at the "old people fucked everything up" trope. Yeah we were there but it takes a lot to unlearn everything you knew as fact, while everything you see and hear is screaming you're wrong, don't believe what you see and experience.

Submitted by Wink on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 11:01am

exactly! n/t

@Snode

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by doh1304 on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 12:43pm

I think you'v answered my question.

@Wink
present costs/present prices, assuming an increase in utilization by the uninsured.
But the costs of underutilization will go down with time, as the unhealthy will either be made healthy or die. (the people I'm referrring to are generally either young and healthy, where care will keep them healthy, or older and very unhealthy, and will die off naturally over time)
Also, the estimate assumes present reimbursement rates - i.e. no price controls. (The ACA has shown us what happens with this idea) Medicare's reimbursement rate is far lower than the "market". And every other nation with a single payer system pays about half our "market" prices. (last I heard the most expensive was Norway, at 70%) So with a MFA plan we would not spend $32, 33 trillion, more like $16 or 17 trillion.
One disclaimer: there will probably have to be additional costs because we will have to subsidize medical schooling if we are going to lower doctors' incomes that dramatically.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by mimi on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 6:14am

Coming out of George Mason University

I wouldn't have read it to begin with.

Submitted by Citizen Of Earth on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 6:54am

And remember that US Healthcare is 2x-5x more expensive

than all other industrialized nations -- attributable to PRICE GOUGING by BigPharma, Hospitals and Doctors. So if the US were not run by criminals, congress would have passed price controls on the bastards.

Alas the US govt IS run by criminals. So we have Healthcare at the highest price the market will bear.

—

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 7:12am

Yup. And Medicare has already been privatized...

@Citizen Of Earth ...at least in part through Obamacare's Medicare Advantage. Hell, Flawer'Duh didn't even get Medicaid Expansion because our governor, Voldemort, is a vindictive, greedy asshole.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Citizen Of Earth on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 8:02am

I signed up for a Medicare Advantage plan

@The Aspie Corner

It actually appears to be a good deal. I pay the standard $134/month Medicare cost.
The Medicare Advantage plan, for $0 (zero with a Z), I got a plan that includes Drug plan and $0 co-pay to doctor visits, plus a dental plan. It's not for everyone, but it works out to be a good deal for my current health status (no expensive chronic illness).

I guess time will tell if there is a hidden ripoff somewhere in the plan (I just started it recently).

And good fuckin riddance to Obamacare. It was bankrupting me.

—

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Submitted by divineorder on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 9:39am

Right, not for all.

@Citizen Of Earth

We have had specialists talk about probs with MA.

Then this, from where a parent was living until recently.
http://www.treemont.com/blog/traditionalmedicare?utm_campaign=Top%2010%2...

Treemont Retirement Blog
Why Traditional Medicare is Best for Treemont Senior Living Residents
Why Traditional Medicare is Best for Treemont Senior Living in Houston Residents

Treemont recommends Traditional Medicare, with a supplemental plan, for residents age 75+. In fact we feel so strongly, we are offering Treemont residents an incentive to choose Traditional Medicare (see discussion later in this blog post.)

In discussions over the past month with Treemont families and residents, I realize there is much uncertainty regarding whether residents have Traditional Medicare vs a Medicare Advantage Plan. Everyone over age 65+ has Medicare. If you would like us to do a
“quick check” on which Medicare coverage you have, please call or email me with 3 pieces of information:

Name of Senior
Medicare Number
Date of Birth

We recommend Traditional Medicare for seniors 75+ for the following reasons:

I found out the catch when my mom had glaucoma.

@Citizen Of Earth The advantage plans act more like the "network" plans. Her eye doctor wanted her to go to the best guy at a prominent research facility. But the only guy covered was at the university medical center. He insisted a 90+ year old go through eye surgery which meant face down immobility for two weeks afterward. She had only 20% vision left in that eye.

We took her to an independent eye specialist. He admonished us that the time to have made the fix was about the time my dad died, and the wait caused more deterioration. He said leave her in peace.

The moral of the story is that the Advantage plans have in network and otherwise just like a lot of premium plans. Traditional Medicare does not.

Oh, we decided not to push her, and she lived out the rest of her few years in relative peace.

—

You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce

If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.

Submitted by Citizen Of Earth on Wed, 08/01/2018 - 7:33am

Yes, true.

@LeChienHarry
I have a primary care doc, must use in-network doctors and get doc referral and approval to see a specialist. So yes, there are definite limitations.

—

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 2:33pm

Bernie noticed

Even a Koch brothers-funded attempt to trash Medicare for All can't hide the truth: Medicare for All will lead to a $2 TRILLION REDUCTION in national health expenditures over 10 years.

That’s trillion with a “T.” https://t.co/eOfd29cDoa

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 30, 2018

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 5:01pm

Now if he would only connect

@gjohnsit the dots fully and get off the war mongering with Russia thing which is being used to justify what we spend on "defense" every year and more, more people might start to really believe we can "afford it." Sorry, can't help myself with Bernie right now, even if he's not ginning up an actual hot war with Russia, his stance simply justifies more spending that we really can't afford. I just do not see how we get to MFA with current "defense" spending and I have real trouble thinking Bernie doesn't get that.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Tue, 07/31/2018 - 7:12pm

I should have taken a screen cap

@lizzyh7 when I saw this rolled out yesterday, the first thing I saw was a picture of Bernie with the headline “The Staggering Cost of Medicade for All” and I had a very similar thought to what you said. Too bad we can approve, what, a half trillion plus for the military (more than they even asked for) and we can’t have relative tablescraps for MFA. And pushing a hot war with Russia doesn’t help!

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Wed, 08/01/2018 - 1:18am

re: unbiased study would probably yield even better results

FWIW, this is from the same article in The Intercept

But despite the explicit benefits acknowledged by the Blahous study, health policy experts and single-payer advocates David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, who reviewed the Mercatus study, argue that Blahous actually significantly undercounts savings that could result from “Medicare for All.”

“The Mercatus Center’s estimate of the cost of implementing Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act (M4A) projects outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignores vast savings under single-payer reform, and fails to even mention the extensive and well-documented evidence on single-payer systems in other nations – which all spend far less per person on health care than we do,” Himmelstein and Woolhandler explain.

In a written analysis shared with The Intercept, Himmelstein and Woolhandler write that Blahous’s report undercounts administrative savings by more than $8.3 trillion over 10 years. Taking those savings into account would lower Blahous’s estimate from $32.6 trillion to $24.3 trillion.

Additionally, the policy experts believe that Blahous underestimates savings from drug prices; for example, ignoring the success the U.S. Veterans Administration, the Canadian government, and certain European governments have had in negotiating for lower drug prices. If the United States paid European prices, they conclude, another $1.7 trillion would be trimmed from Blahous’s total cost estimate, bringing it down to $22.6 trillion over 10 years.

I "think" this might be the other study. It's from April of 2017 and it's by David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler who are mentioned in The Intercept article as disputing the report by Blahous.

Single-Payer Reform: The Only Way to Fulfill the President's Pledge of More Coverage, Better Benefits, and Lower Costs