Study: Bernie Sanders's single-payer plan is almost twice as expensive as he says

[Autumn]

Posted here for discussion.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer

Bernie Sanders's health care plan is underfunded by almost $1.1 trillion a year, a new analysis by Emory University health care expert Kenneth Thorpe finds.

Thorpe isn't some right-wing critic skeptical of all single-payer proposals. Indeed, in 2006 he laid out a single-payer proposal for Vermont after being hired by the legislature, and was retained by progressive Vermont lawmakers again in 2014 as the state seriously considered single-payer, authoring a memo laying out alternative ways to expand coverage. A 2005 report he wrote estimated that a single-payer system would save $1.1 trillion in health spending from 2006 to 2015.

But he nonetheless concludes that single-payer at a national level would be significantly more expensive than the Sanders campaign believes, and would require workers to pay an additional 20 percent of their compensation in taxes. He also argues it would leave 71 percent of households with private insurance worse off once you take both tax increases and reduced health care expenditures into account.

I think this is the important part

Side note: It's true, Thorpe did once do a consulting assignment for BCBS, conducting "a study a decade or so ago looking at the racial and income characteristics of who enrolls in Medicare + Choice [now called Medicare Advantage] plans," per his recollection. But he's an academic who's broadly respected across the spectrum, and who's been sympathetic to single-payer in the past. The Sanders campaign's characterization here seems unfair, even ad hominem

Gunnels disputes the 20 percent tax increase figure in fiery terms. "That is absolutely absurd, it's absurd, it's outrageous," he said in a phone call. "It's coming from a gentleman that worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield. It's exactly what you would expect somebody who worked for BCBS to come up with. It's not even worthy of any type of serious reporting, because it would not happen."

.

[ViseGrip]

1. Well I believe the people of the U.S. deserve it. Look how they spend the rest of our money, not on

US!

[hollowdweller]

2. And Obama said we didn't need an individual mandate and Clinton said we did.

For me the details aren't as important as Bernie wanting single payer.

He won't be able to get it thru, but he will move us in that direction.

[Autumn]

4. Money wll spent I think.

[jillan]

5. DING DING DING - He was in the Clinton Administration!!!! To work on Healthcare!

Appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary in President Bill Clinton's cabinet, he had a central role in coordinating President Clinton's health care reform proposals

I knew it!!

[exboyfil]

8. 20% may not be too far off the mark

Since the Germans have a 15% withholding, and they currently spend 2/3rds what we do on a GDP basis.

Currently we do collect around 3-3.5% under Medicare. I guess Bernie is at about 5%/8% right now if his proposal is in addition to the current withholding.

[Ivan Kaputski]

16. Another corporate oligarchy snake.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Does anyone think we're going to see single payer even if Bernie does two terms?

I don't. I think he'll move us TOWARDS it, probably get us a public option if we're lucky, or an expansion of Medicare to folks maybe 50 and up, or both. But by even saying he wants it, he's already moving the window left, towards actually fixing some of the fundamental flaws in the ACA, rather than just giving up ground from the start.

[Autumn]

7. I'm good with him moving us toward it. The current ACA has too many flaws that need to be fixed.

And an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid is what we need.

[SoapBox]

13. Fully agree.

[Autumn]

14. Did you see this post? I think this lays it out beautifully

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280103219#post9

[Jarqui]

9. Nonsense

There have been lots of studies done on single payer:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

And the results of the countries that implemented it are proof - rather than this pie in the sky accounting speculation or intentional misinterpretation.

Specifically to Sanders plan:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/politifact-how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cost-the-middle/2261384

Others, however, are more optimistic that Sanders' plan could be actuarially sound.

"The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark," said Peter Hussey, a healthy policy analyst at the RAND Corp., adding that they would work only with significant cost savings and lower benefits.

Hussey pointed to other financing models with higher taxes. In Sanders' own Vermont, the proposed single-payer state system would require a payroll tax of 11.5 percent and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5 percent. A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.

Gerald Friedman, a health economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed a different 2013 Medicare-for-all bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and concluded it would be enough to cover everyone, upgrade benefits and save the country $5 trillion over a decade.

But beyond a 6 percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well as an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn't said they'll be used to pay for health care.)

Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders' plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.

Single payer is not an issue financially. It's been proven again and again all over the world. And there are many like the above who maintain it's a better system for managing healthcare costs. Even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and many other politicians.

The issue for single payer is political - whether the big corporations can be defeated to allow it.

You have to get through crap like is at the top of this thread which is being thrown out as smoke to obscure voters from seeing the issue clearly.

[jillan]

10. Written by a Deputy Assistant Secretary in President Bill Clinton's cabinet.

So I say a pile of BS!!

[Autumn]

12. That's a great big tell.

[Autumn]

11. Thank you for that. Would you consider making that an OP?

I knew one of our group would be along to set the record straight.

[mike_c]

15. I don't care what it costs....

The U.S. is the richest country in the world and every other developed nation provides access to health care to it's citizens. In several instances, we subsidize access to universal health care in other countries while crying poor to our own citizens, whose little remaining wealth is being harvested by for-profit insurance companies and care providers. We should stop whining about what it might cost-- if much of the rest of the world can do it, we can.

[winter is coming]

17. +1. We need to stop seeing national security in terms of bombs and planes

and realize that a strong economy and a well-educated and cared-for populace is also essential. "Strength" should be measured by how much the US can accomplish, not just by how much it can destroy.

[eridani]

18. We are already paying twice as much as most developed countries

We are laready paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it.