The Economic Reality Of Democratic Socialism
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Typical Alinsky move. Attack the messenger, don't acknowledge the message.
The message is back tracking on the revelation last week that socialized medicine would save the American people $2 trillion over ten years. I'm not stupid enough to fall for the misdirection, are you?
Link to the analysis that socialized medicine will save us $2 trillion over 10 years?
You mean the reference where Charles Blahous reports the cost would be $32 trillion+?
I would have read all 34 pages of his report, but I am way too lazy and way too stupid to understand most of it. I did get through about 10 pages though, and I did not see a $34 trillion figure. Did you read all 34 pages? If so where does he say it will "save" $2 trillion. All I saw was his contention that it would cost $32+ trillion, which would require more taxes than most of us could withstand. Is it your argument that the government will spend $34 trillion dollars on American's healthcare over the next ten years, therefore Bernie's plan, which will cost taxpayers "only $32+ trillion," means the public will "save" $2 trillion? Does that mean we could get a $2 trillion tax cut? Does Bernie's plan provide a $2 trillion tax cut?
It is spelled out plain as day in the tables in the appendices. My argument, actually it is not my argument it is Mercatus*/Balhous's argument that American's can spend $34 trillion on healthcare over the next 10 years under status quo ante, or they can do Bernie's plan which will result in spending only $32 trillion.
Let say the average person pays $34,000 for insurance, deductibles, copays, medicare taxes etc over the next ten years. Under Bernie's plan that person would instead pay only $32,000 for medicare for all taxes and forget about insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays.
*Mercatus is a free market think tank funded by such luminaries as the Koch brothers and is frequently cited by Ponca Dan's favorite publications and websites, such as aier.org
OMG! The evil Koch brothers! I didn't know! I should be more careful. God knows none of us should ever take the word of someone that has been partially funded by the Kochs! They advocate freedom for all! How evil is that? No, we should get our economic advice from those stalwarts of liberty that are funded by George Soros. Or those wonderful advocates of government intervention at every turn, true geniuses like Bernie Sanders. I feel so stupid. Thank you, pilt, you have put me on the path of true righteousness. Never again will I doubt any government program. All government programs are only there to help us, never to gobble up our liberty. (blue, if you couldn't tell.)
Just emphasizing that the study we are talking about (that shows bernie's plan saves 2 trillion) is from a libertarian leaning outlet and not some utopian socialist rag.
So let me get this straight. On the one hand Bernie’s plan would confiscate $32+ trillion dollars from the American people. The government would extort the money from us and then offer us a one-size-fits-all program, take it or be damned. No options. On the other hand the American people could keep their $32+ trillion dollars and decide what we want to spend it on. Maybe healthcare and maybe we could buy one of Tesla’s cars, we would be free to choose among options, one of which might be healthcare. Yeah, that’s a no brainer.
Dan we already know what you will spend that $32 trillion on: healthcare costs. And then, on top of that you'll chip in another 2 trillion for additional healthcare costs.
We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. As the link in the original OP points out Balhous conceded every one of Sander’s “rosy” projections in making his estimate. Sander’s projections aren’t worth diddly, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity knows that. There’s not a politician that has ever existed that hasn’t intentionally fudged his numbers to get his way (Obama with ObamaCare; Trump with his wall). Look at Jerry Brown’s beloved rapid transit train. Original projections were, what? $35 billion? What are they up to now? $66 billion? And not a single train running at this point. Coerced government run healthcare will follow the same pattern. You are a really smart guy. You know that Sanders is playing fast and loose with his numbers. Are you so anxious to cede your freedom that you’ll accept any bs a beloved politician feeds you? For the life of me I can’t figure you out!
They’re the same thing! I should have used your words! Makes the whole thing more understandable!
Society might, but individuals won't. This is the difference between you and I. I can make wise decisions with my money and buy the right healthcare that fits my needs, which are significantly different than what my next door neighbor might want or need. The problem with our current systems is 2 fold: lack of pricing transparancy (which doesn't need government to run healthcare to fix) and frankly sympathy for those who choose not to prioritize basic health coverage. Why is it my fault that a millennial is financially ruined because they chose to buy an iPhone X instead of an emergency health coverage plan, and to prevent this from occurring, we believe the best answer is to have the government confiscate money from anyone who has it, in order to provide that health care to the absent minded. We already have Medicaid for the poor (so they don't need new insurance), and we already have Medicare for the elderly (so they are covered already as well). And I've been told many times on this forum how wonderful those programs are. So we are really talking about ensuring that the middle class gets government coverage, primarily for those who simply can't or won't do it for themselves. Sorry, but not a fan.
Yup...or we could leave healthcare up to capitalists...they’ve done a helluva job keeping costs down...
I stand corrected! Brown’s beloved rail line now stands at $77.3 billion and is projected to go to $98+ billion before all is said and done. Foolish of me to think it had only gone from the original $35 billion to $66 billion. A fine example of politicians’ projections on the costs of their “legacy” proposals.
They've done a hell of a job at extending both longevity and quality of life over the past 100 years. Tell me again how many of our modern medicines were invented/discovered by companies or agencies controlled by socialist regimes? And i agree, more could be done to handle costs. That said, a full government take-over doesn't seem to be the right solution to reduce costs. I've yet to see anything the government does as efficiently as the private market.
More backup. Should I go on?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/
"t is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.
Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A."
It's weird that it costs money to provide healthcare. You'd think people would donate their medical expertise and that drug companies, disposable goods manufacturers, and durable goods manufacturers would donate their products. MRI machines and surgical robots are cheap and so is the education and training to operate them. In fact, you should be able to go to the local McDonald's this morning, grab the breakfast crew, and have them shooting MRIs of the brain with contrast and doing hysterectomies with a da Vinci by this afternoon! Tomorrow they can start doing ablation for atrial fibrillation. Thursday can be craniotomy training and by Friday they can be working in the ICU as intensivists. All for $8.00 an hour!
I'm not sure what is so difficult for people like Bernie to understand. When the reimbursement doesn't cover the actual cost of providing care, facilities don't stay open and physicians don't take Medicare/Medicaid patients. In the real world, we see decreased access to healthcare when this occurs. I suspect if Bernie had to actually look for a physician accepting new Medicare patients in the real world, he might see things like the normal fixed income Medicare beneficiaries do. I'm sure that the Audi R8 driving, 3 house having Bernie is as close at it comes to typical seniors today without actually being one.
Somebody is doing a whole bunch of parroting in this thread, and it isn't Ponca Dan...
Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A."
It's weird that it costs money to provide healthcare. You'd think people would donate their medical expertise and that drug companies, disposable goods manufacturers, and durable goods manufacturers would donate their products. MRI machines and surgical robots are cheap and so is the education and training to operate them. In fact, you should be able to go to the local McDonald's this morning, grab the breakfast crew, and have them shooting MRIs of the brain with contrast and doing hysterectomies with a da Vinci by this afternoon! Tomorrow they can start doing ablation for atrial fibrillation. Thursday can be craniotomy training and by Friday they can be working in the ICU as intensivists. All for $8.00 an hour!
I'm not sure what is so difficult for people like Bernie to understand. When the reimbursement doesn't cover the actual cost of providing care, facilities don't stay open and physicians don't take Medicare/Medicaid patients. In the real world, we see decreased access to healthcare when this occurs. I suspect if Bernie had to actually look for a physician accepting new Medicare patients in the real world, he might see things like the normal fixed income Medicare beneficiaries do. I'm sure that the Audi R8 driving, 3 house having Bernie is as close at it comes to typical seniors today without actually being one.
Somebody is doing a whole bunch of parroting in this thread, and it isn't Ponca Dan...
Passive
Aggressive
What better advocate of government run healthcare than one who has suckled on the government teat for the majority of his life and has access to a dedicated floor at Walter Reed set aside for him and his colleagues' use.
Only in the world of Congressional math does $32 trillion in new spending as opposed to $34 trillion in new spending mean the $2 trillion difference is reducing spending. The operative word is "new".
Dan, rather than re stating something that we all know, which is this ten year forecast is based on projections, why not just tell me what projection you object to?
It is quite the surprise that Balhous would back track on his one analysis when the huge gaffe of stating M4A actually saves money is revealed.
The provider payments are only cut 10.6% in the Mercatus projection.
Psshhhhh. Everything always works out just like our efficient government says. Are you not saving $2,500 a year on health insurance premiums? Dontcha know the ACA already made healthcare accessible and affordable for everyone? Berniecare will just make it even cheaper and more accessible!
You fell in love with a tree so you'll gladly ignore the forest. It's admirable how committed you are to a narrative.
Dan it may shock you to find out that after this huge gaffe, Mercatus has gone on a huge PR spree trying to muddy the waters. Mercatus has gone so far as to take the study down from its website. It is no coincident that you found 3 links that all say the same thing which is the author back tracking and saying "we never intended for this study to make M4A to look good."
The 34 trillion isn't new spending. That is the baseline. That is how much you will spend on healthcare if nothing changes. 34>32. It is basic math.
