253 Economists in Support of S. 1129 a Medicare for All Health Care System

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Economists in Support of a Medicare for All Health Care System

An Open Letter to the Congress and People of the United States

November 19, 2019

As economists, we understand that a single-payer “Medicare for All” health insurance system for the U.S. can finance good-quality care for all U.S. residents as a basic right while still significantly reducing overall health care spending relative to the current exorbitant and wasteful system. Health care is not a service that follows standard market rules. It should therefore be provided as a public good.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that publicly financed health care systems result in improved health outcomes, lower costs, and greater equity. As of 2017, the U.S. spent $3.3 trillion annually on health care. This equaled 17 percent of U.S. GDP, with average spending at about $10,000 per person. By contrast, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Spain and Italy spent between 9 – 11 percent of GDP on health care, averaging $3,400 to $5,700 per person. Yet average health outcomes in all of these countries are superior to those in the United States. In all of these countries, the public sector is predominant in financing heath care.

For these reasons the time is now to create a universal, single-payer, Medicare for All health care system in the United States.

Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for healthcare, but of reducing total healthcare outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently. Implementing a unified single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and eliminate individuals' and employers' insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. If combined with public control of drug prices and a dramatically simplified global budgeting system, a sensible Medicare financing system would reduce healthcare costs while guaranteeing access to comprehensive care and financial security to all.

As such, we support publicly and equitably financed health care through a Medicare for All system at the Federal level, as described in H.R. 1384 and S. 1129. We encourage Congress to move forward with implementing a public financed Medicare for All plan to achieve the equitable and affordable universal health care system that the American people need.


.pdf


Signed by 253 economists that explicitly endorse Sanders M4A plan


S.1129 - Medicare for All Act of 2019
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
If you want the middle class to pay significantly higher taxes (as much as two thirds of your income) for full comprehensive coverage for everyone, including immigrants and give up your cheap private plan, then vote for this dumpster fire. Even I never said it was not economically viable. It sure as fuck is, if MASSIVE TAX HIKES are your thing.

In the bill, the first decade's cost is estimated at 32.6 trillion dollars. Also included are many novel tax ideas, targeted mostly at the ultra-wealthy which should probably collected anyway. Nonetheless, they only cover about half of the cost. The rest must either come from somewhere or simply add to the debt. Repealing the Trump tax cuts won't even cover the current deficit. The entire federal budget for 2019 is very close to 3.26 Trillion dollars which means that if passed, this bill would make all current federal spending into deficit spending and then some.

Then you would have to consider the rest of his 97 trillion dollar economic agenda which includes a green new deal and free college tuition.

lol
 
Last edited:

blu3bird

Well-Known Member
These fuckers won't be happy until every single hard working American is financially crippled. That is the "progressive" agenda, break every fucking American citizens bank account. House payments, car payments, food and utilities - none of that shit makes any difference to "progressives" as long as you're broke but have some bullshit govt health insurance.

Hey @Padawanbater2 , have you ever considered looking for a job that offers health insurance as a benefit? You know, instead of trying to force your bullshit on everyone else? Fuck bro, you want govt insurance so goddamn bad, go check yourself into a mental health hospital for a week and you'll qualify for SSDI - there you go
 

blu3bird

Well-Known Member
If you want the middle class to pay significantly higher taxes (as much as two thirds of your income) for full comprehensive coverage for everyone, including immigrants and give up your cheap private plan, then vote for this dumpster fire. Even I never said it was not economically viable. It sure as fuck is, if MASSIVE TAX HIKES are your thing.

In the bill, the first decade's cost is estimated at 32.6 trillion dollars. Also included are many novel tax ideas, targeted mostly at the ultra-wealthy which should probably collected anyway. Nonetheless, they only cover about half of the cost. The rest must either come from somewhere or simply add to the debt. Repealing the Trump tax cuts won't even cover the current deficit. The entire federal budget for 2019 is very close to 3.26 Trillion dollars which means that if passed, this bill would make all current federal spending into deficit spending and then some.

Then you would have to consider the rest of his 97 trillion dollar economic agenda which includes a green new deal and free college tuition.

lol
Like how many times do you have to explain this to him?

Is it time to get out the crayons so he can understand?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Economists in Support of a Medicare for All Health Care System

An Open Letter to the Congress and People of the United States

November 19, 2019

As economists, we understand that a single-payer “Medicare for All” health insurance system for the U.S. can finance good-quality care for all U.S. residents as a basic right while still significantly reducing overall health care spending relative to the current exorbitant and wasteful system. Health care is not a service that follows standard market rules. It should therefore be provided as a public good.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that publicly financed health care systems result in improved health outcomes, lower costs, and greater equity. As of 2017, the U.S. spent $3.3 trillion annually on health care. This equaled 17 percent of U.S. GDP, with average spending at about $10,000 per person. By contrast, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Spain and Italy spent between 9 – 11 percent of GDP on health care, averaging $3,400 to $5,700 per person. Yet average health outcomes in all of these countries are superior to those in the United States. In all of these countries, the public sector is predominant in financing heath care.

For these reasons the time is now to create a universal, single-payer, Medicare for All health care system in the United States.

Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for healthcare, but of reducing total healthcare outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently. Implementing a unified single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and eliminate individuals' and employers' insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. If combined with public control of drug prices and a dramatically simplified global budgeting system, a sensible Medicare financing system would reduce healthcare costs while guaranteeing access to comprehensive care and financial security to all.

As such, we support publicly and equitably financed health care through a Medicare for All system at the Federal level, as described in H.R. 1384 and S. 1129. We encourage Congress to move forward with implementing a public financed Medicare for All plan to achieve the equitable and affordable universal health care system that the American people need.


.pdf


Signed by 253 economists that explicitly endorse Sanders M4A plan


S.1129 - Medicare for All Act of 2019
I am not sure I have ever seen you say it, but are you an American? And if so do you understand or care that Russia is attacking our vulnerable with online disinformation/propaganda?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
These fuckers won't be happy until every single hard working American is financially crippled. That is the "progressive" agenda, break every fucking American citizens bank account. House payments, car payments, food and utilities - none of that shit makes any difference to "progressives" as long as you're broke but have some bullshit govt health insurance.

Hey @Padawanbater2 , have you ever considered looking for a job that offers health insurance as a benefit? You know, instead of trying to force your bullshit on everyone else? Fuck bro, you want govt insurance so goddamn bad, go check yourself into a mental health hospital for a week and you'll qualify for SSDI - there you go
Canadians love their system.

I spoke with one under the cloak of anonymity because he has a green card and not allowed to speak politics. he has a Trump* pumpkin in his office. He told me his mom had cancer and never received a bill for all her treatment- all first class and the one time MRI wasn't available they sent her to the US and paid for it there..after they found out it was three solid years of treatments. not a bill for an aspirin..'yes, we get taxed but the safety net let's you sleep at night'. See? that's why Canadians have that cool laid-back attitude..there's nothing to bother Canadians like the constant American anxiety of will i live to see retirement because i can't afford to go to a doctor?

1577646538301.png
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I am not sure I have ever seen you say it, but are you an American? And if so do you understand or care that Russia is attacking our vulnerable with online disinformation/propaganda?
Why did Bernie neglect to include enough details in his bill to enable the OMB to estimate the cost? Why did Bernie leave out how the system will be paid for? Why does Bernie demand that everybody be stripped of healthcare plans they like for a unknown and ill-defined system?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
These fuckers won't be happy until every single hard working American is financially crippled. That is the "progressive" agenda, break every fucking American citizens bank account. House payments, car payments, food and utilities - none of that shit makes any difference to "progressives" as long as you're broke but have some bullshit govt health insurance.

Hey @Padawanbater2 , have you ever considered looking for a job that offers health insurance as a benefit? You know, instead of trying to force your bullshit on everyone else? Fuck bro, you want govt insurance so goddamn bad, go check yourself into a mental health hospital for a week and you'll qualify for SSDI - there you go
i had some for a few months..it cost me 20% of my pay and i couldn't use it because after i paid rent and that there was nothing left for deductible and copay which i had to make to see a doctor.

my dental covered nothing than fillings and cleanings.

vision? my contacts i'd have to make oop first before i can use and i don't have anything left in which to do this.

ACA this year for the state i'm in is useless- higher deductibles more premium

i make too much for medicaid.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Why did Bernie neglect to include enough details in his bill to enable the OMB to estimate the cost? Why did Bernie leave out how the system will be paid for? Why does Bernie demand that everybody be stripped of healthcare plans they like for a unknown and ill-defined system?
My guess would be as soon as he does it gets trolled to scare the shit out of everyone who makes enough money to have decent health insurance but not enough to be able to foot a $100,000 insurance bill if they lose what they have.

I would be curious of the background of those 253 economists, and how it compares to what the rest of the 14,600 employed economists think when they review what those ones said.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
My guess would be as soon as he does it gets trolled to scare the shit out of everyone who makes enough money to have decent health insurance but not enough to be able to foot a $100,000 insurance bill if they lose what they have.

I would be curious of the background of those 253 economists, and how it compares to what the rest of the 14,600 employed economists think when they review what those ones said.
It's a nice try but aren't you really saying that Bernie is just lying to us?

Why did Bernie neglect to include enough details in his bill to enable the OMB to estimate the cost? Why did Bernie leave out how the system will be paid for? Why does Bernie demand that everybody be stripped of healthcare plans they like for a unknown and ill-defined system?

Those were rhetorical questions written in the same vein as padmasterbater 's stupid ass ones. The only real answer is because Bernie is fucking lying to us. It would have to be completely re-written in order to become law. At which time it will under-deliver on what the dishonest left claims. But they will blame the people who passed the bill, not Bernie the one who promises everything and delivers nothing. His bill is just symbolic. Padmasterbater knows this and his posts are pretty much a continuation of left wing trolling written in his dishonest debating style.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
It's a nice try but aren't you really saying that Bernie is just lying to us?

Why did Bernie neglect to include enough details in his bill to enable the OMB to estimate the cost? Why did Bernie leave out how the system will be paid for? Why does Bernie demand that everybody be stripped of healthcare plans they like for a unknown and ill-defined system?

Those were rhetorical questions written in the same vein as padmasterbater 's stupid ass ones. The only real answer is because Bernie is fucking lying to us. It would have to be completely re-written in order to become law. At which time it will under-deliver on what the dishonest left claims. But they will blame the people who passed the bill, not Bernie the one who promises everything and delivers nothing. His bill is just symbolic. Padmasterbater knows this and his posts are pretty much a continuation of left wing trolling written in his dishonest debating style.
Not necessarily.

We already pay for everything that gets done in America, so the idea that somehow it is going to sky rocket costs is not logical.

But I understand how insurance works. The insurance companies do keep the prices down (to a point) for Americans by constantly negotiating with the medical system, they went way too far for too long and lost credibility leading up to the ACA, and need to have more oversight, but that was what Obamacare was a big help with (inventing a pre-existing condition into being an excuse for kicking people off as soon as they needed it).

This is not something that I want the government to do because they suck at it. And the doctors can't be trusted either (or else they would over prescribe antibiotics to people with viral infections because they have zero effectivity), when they just want their patients to suck it up and go home but know they won't until they get something prescribed to them.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0503-unnecessary-prescriptions.html
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Ttyler used to pull shit like this. Post an article where x number of economists say something where x represented an insignificant portion of the total number of economists and then demand that we accept their judgement.

Hey Curtis, maybe you should find a former professor from a prestigious college or some hack who won a Pulitzer next time.

Same old pathetic shit.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily.

We already pay for everything that gets done in America, so the idea that somehow it is going to sky rocket costs is not logical.

But I understand how insurance works. The insurance companies do keep the prices down (to a point) for Americans by constantly negotiating with the medical system, they went way too far for too long and lost credibility leading up to the ACA, and need to have more oversight, but that was what Obamacare was a big help with (inventing a pre-existing condition into being an excuse for kicking people off as soon as they needed it).

This is not something that I want the government to do because they suck at it. And the doctors can't be trusted either (or else they would over prescribe antibiotics to people with viral infections because they have zero effectivity), when they just want their patients to suck it up and go home but know they won't until they get something prescribed to them.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0503-unnecessary-prescriptions.html
Nobody who knows anything are saying costs will be the same or slightly higher. The reason is, Bernie's Medicare offers much more in terms of services and subsidies than anything in our current system. Best guess estimates are as high as 32 trillion over 10 years to as low as 21 trillion. If the 32 trillion dollar number is true, even doubling the cost of people's current coverage isn't enough. Corporations are currently paying around $11,000 per household. Double = $22,000. Who is going to pay that extra $11000?


I'm not against all of that, I'm just against being lied to. There are better ways to ensure everybody has healthcare coverage, including subsidizing Medicaid for those who need it. Medicare should be an option for businesses and individuals instead of a requirement.
 

Communist Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Nobody who knows anything are saying costs will be the same or slightly higher. The reason is, Bernie's Medicare offers much more in terms of services and subsidies than anything in our current system. Best guess estimates are as high as 32 trillion over 10 years to as low as 21 trillion. If the 32 trillion dollar number is true, even doubling the cost of people's current coverage isn't enough. Corporations are currently paying around $11,000 per household. Double = $22,000. Who is going to pay that extra $11000?


I'm not against all of that, I'm just against being lied to. There are better ways to ensure everybody has healthcare coverage, including subsidizing Medicaid for those who need it. Medicare should be an option for businesses and individuals instead of a requirement.
The UK is 72.6% the PPP of the US, and they can do it. The US instead murders people with hospice "care." No other "first world" country does that.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
We already pay for everything that gets done in America, so the idea that somehow it is going to sky rocket costs is not logical.
Nobody is saying costs will increase. Even I have come out to admit that costs will begin to decrease immediately. Nonetheless Bernie's estimate of 32.6T is equal to the entire federal budget for ten years. In fact, that is the nuance people are missing here, that nationalizing high costs is not the way forward. The goal is to decrease costs and the very problem is high costs. What his bill would do for the most part is to shift costs onto taxpayers.

The way forward is to get everyone covered in a way that decreases costs without huge tax hikes. That was the goal of ACA but I do think an expansion of Medicare to all who want it (with small tax hikes) is the way to go and that in time, as costs come down, more people will opt for it, resulting in lower premiums for those who do not and better coverage for those who do. This is a cost reducing feedback loop.

USA is not Canada and to compare the two is a fallacy.
 

blu3bird

Well-Known Member
It's a nice try but aren't you really saying that Bernie is just lying to us?

Why did Bernie neglect to include enough details in his bill to enable the OMB to estimate the cost? Why did Bernie leave out how the system will be paid for? Why does Bernie demand that everybody be stripped of healthcare plans they like for a unknown and ill-defined system?

Those were rhetorical questions written in the same vein as padmasterbater 's stupid ass ones. The only real answer is because Bernie is fucking lying to us. It would have to be completely re-written in order to become law. At which time it will under-deliver on what the dishonest left claims. But they will blame the people who passed the bill, not Bernie the one who promises everything and delivers nothing. His bill is just symbolic. Padmasterbater knows this and his posts are pretty much a continuation of left wing trolling written in his dishonest debating style.
Off topic, but -
I think this is the first time I've seen someone here point out that
there's a difference between liberal and leftist

Respect
 
Top