Can somebody give me the link to the private non partisan study that the

[wasupaloopa]

claims for M4A came from.

M4A supporters are constantly making statements about it. I want to read the non biased study that supports those statements.

[hedda_foil]

1. Seems to me you've been given multiple links in very similar threAds this evening already.

[PhoenixDem]

2. There are no non-partisan links

Everyone knows it will cost a fortune beyond the current budget necessitating an income tax of 65%

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Lol.

[Celerity]

3. here are some

National Health Spending Estimates Under Medicare for All (Rand Corporation)

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html



Medicare For All: An Economic Analysis: Wharton Public Policy Initiative (2019)

https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/3038-medicare-for-all-an-economic-analysis/for-students/blog/news



How Much Will Medicare for All Cost? (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget)

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost






RESEARCH REPORT
The Sanders Single-Payer Health Care Plan

The Effect on National Health Expenditures and Federal and Private Spending (Urban Institute - 2016)

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/80486/200785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf




An Analysis of Senator Sanders Single Payer Plan

Kenneth E Thorpe, Ph.D. Emory University (2016)

https://www.healthcare-now.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-s-analysis-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-single-payer-proposal.pdf




The Costs of Medicare for All Are Rising Already

Charles Blahous

https://economics21.org/medicare-for-all-costs-rising-already

After my study of the costs of Medicare for All (M4A) was published last July, a fierce debate erupted over whether M4A, while dramatically increasing the costs borne by federal taxpayers, might nevertheless reduce total U.S. health expenditures. Now, just one year after my findings, we have substantial additional evidence that M4A would further increase, not reduce, national health spending.

To be clear, no one on either side of this debate questioned my central finding that M4A would increase federal costs by an unprecedented amount, likely between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over 10 years—a federal tab so large that even doubling all projected federal individual and corporate income taxes couldn’t finance it. Yet M4A advocates continued to believe that it could bring national health spending down. That’s become substantially more difficult to argue in light of subsequent events.

To understand how the picture has clarified, let’s review some of the specifics of my cost estimates as well as those of other experts. Prior to the introduction of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s M4A bill in 2017, various experts—including a team from the Urban Institute, Emory professor Ken Thorpe, and others­—attempted to score the costs of M4A. These studies concluded that M4A would not only dramatically increase federal spending, but increase total national health spending as well.

Subsequent to these studies, but prior to mine, Sen. Sanders introduced his M4A bill. That bill specified that health provider payment rates under M4A would be determined by the same methods used to set Medicare payment rates, which would average about 40% less than private insurance rates over the first 10 years of M4A.

Obviously, if one assumes that payments for all health treatments now covered by private insurance are reduced by about 40%, such a dramatic cost-reduction assumption would likely lead to the conclusion that total health spending would decline. My study duly reported the numbers that would derive from this cost-saving assumption but at the same time noted that “it is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates,” and that they should be regarded as a “lower bound.” For one thing, federal lawmakers have historically balked at implementing provider payment reductions much smaller and less sudden than those. For another, dramatically reducing provider payments (and thus health care supply) at the same time that M4A markedly increases the demand for health services would almost certainly disrupt Americans’ timely access to quality health care, precipitating unpredictable political fallout.

snip



Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst

https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all

Reviewer Assessments of Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

https://www.peri.umass.edu/reviewer-assessments-of-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all




The Tax (and Wage) Implications of Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” Health Plan

Citizens for Tax Justice (2016) (estimated tax collections based on rates that were replaced by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act)

https://www.ctj.org/pdf/sandershealthplanfull.pdf



Medicare for All (2016)

Center for Health & Economy

https://healthandeconomy.org/medicare-for-all-leaving-no-one-behind/

[George II]

4. I don't think any exist, just like the funding details of M4A.

[thesquanderer]

7. Here are Bernie's funding proposals for MFA

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

[TidalWave46]

8. He completely omitted it from his legislation...

So no real CBO analysis could be done. I’ve read the CBO report on it and there are too many assumptions needed to make any real cost.

It’s currently an idea. Not a plan. Not sure why people who support single payer, like I do, are so scared to say that. What Sanders put forward is woefully incomplete legislation, but it’s a damn good outline.

The proposed legislation designated an account for the funds but does not outline how it will be paid for. There is a reason he separated the two. The paper you provide simply throws a handful of possibilities out there.

[oasis]

5. A hefty sum indeed!