Home | About | Donate

Here's What 22 Separate Studies Found: Medicare for All Would Cost Less Than For-Profit Status Quo

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/02/24/heres-what-22-separate-studies-found-medicare-all-would-cost-less-profit-status-quo


Sure, selectively eliminate insurance and it would indeed cost less to rehire many of the same people to administer “New Improved” Medicare for All. Except it changes the healthcare mandate to “Global budgets and block grants” for all. Very similar to the Republican plan for health care.

1 Like

Numbers! Thank you for the numbers!

There is something else that never seems to get mentioned, two things actually. 1) A patient undergoing treatment for life threatening illness does worse when stressed. The fear of ruining the future of your family with crushing debt, the stress of negotiating the forms, the contact, the incredible mountain of forms does not help the patient. In fact, stress and fear like that can have very detrimental effects on a patients chances and chance of success. It lowers the immune system.
2) with the current corona virus fear, how many people will NOT go to be treated, or wait, because they can neither afford to be checked? Which will make the virus spread to all.


Hi modeforjoe:
I think if America cut back on its military budgets and close some of the 800 bases, and cut the Insurance Companies out(aka the middle man who increase costs-) --the PEOPLE would truly get something for their tax dollars.
Besides that if everyone paid 10 % of all income—wouldn’t that make life more fair and equal ? We really don’t need anymore overpaid CEOs who aren’t needed at all/.I am looking forward to the first WATSON computer CEO… this should be interesting. don’t you think? : )


I calculated our plan using our actual costs. I added 20% to our 2018 Taxes and low and behold we would have saved over $1,600 per year with Medicare for All


So take your own plan, add some % of income tax and see what you come up with. Remember you won’t be paying premiums, deductibles, Out of pocket expenses…ZERO… other then increased income tax. I increased our income tax by 20% and we still saved over $1,600 per year

1 Like

Mfa sounds great. Except for the substantial lack of preventative care, not knowing if a treatment will be covered, how M will badly underpay a doctor but horribly overpay a hospital, the tax raid known as Medicare Advantage (don’t expect to find specialists), what happens if you need to exit M/A and get a Medigap plan. BTW, Bernie doesn’t have to worry about all that.

He answered, good enough I thought, by telling people to go to his web. It will never be able to be explained in detail on the road.
He mentioned at the CNN town hall with Bernie, on the 24th, who would pay a little higher tax, on a scale, with the first $29,000 of income being exempt.


And the ways to pay for it he just put out on his website don’t add up either (about $5 trillion short over 10 years)…he needs to hire some sharper people.
M4A can easily be paid for.

Would there be any limit to medical payments? Could I go to the hospital for a cold or a runny nose? Who would determine what medicine I should get? Or the limit of that medicine?

Could I still buy supplemental insurance to cover what the government program wouldn’t cover?

In a couple of years, my wife is hoping to split from her employer and take her skill set private.
However, having to pay for health insurance is a big road block.

Quality universal coverage would really open opportunities for entrepreneurs.

1 Like

It is strange to have Warren show up at the MFA podium in 2017 after not endorsing Bernie in 2015. Warren also did not use Bernie’s way to pay for it (by raising the medicare tax for the middle class) and chose to not use any of these other studies to show how it would pay for itself.

After waffling on single-payer MFA between a buy-in MFA-for-all-who-can-afford-it option or “we’ll start from scratch negotiating with all stakeholders including unions and insurance companies”, Warren went to a foreign bankster (the International Monetary Fund based out of Europe and best known for in the book “Economic Hitman”) and asked them to do a study to pay for MFA “without raising middle class taxes”. These gimmicks were exposed and her front-runner status never recovered after that.

OK, first, does your present insurance cover ANY preventive care? Aside from flu shots and maybe some other vaccinations, most cover little or none. I continue to read accounts of people who undertook critical treatment after their insurance company had given them the go-ahead, then revoked their approval without informing the patients. There was an article recently about a solid middle class couple who were forced into bankruptcy for just that reason.

M4A, as a single payer and a government agency, would negotiate uniform payments with providers for everything, and with a great deal of clout which We the People can insist be applied sensibly. I detest the very idea of Medicare Advantage, a sop to the Protection Racket, but mine (UHC, which has a terrible reputation) has covered every specialist I have had to deal with, always with a copay, and the promise of E&IM4A is that there would be NO co-pays. Whether that can be delivered remains to be seen, but out of pocket costs would still be much lower than with for-profit private insurance.

The primary purpose of any single-payer system is to eliminate the need for ANY for-profit insurance for treatments other than purely cosmetic.

Have you not read anything about how these systems work? Each one is different, but providing better medical care while eliminating the vagaries of for-profit insurance is the purpose of all of them. Each one (there are about 35 such national plans worldwide) does fairly well within its design limit. In a finite universe NOTHING is without limits.

There are ALWAYS limits–see my reply below to Ron Troy (above). You would likely go to an urgent care clinic for colds and other routine minor ailments, and an MD of your choice would write your prescriptions. It is part of the mission of single-payer systems of all kinds to eliminate the need for ANY private, for-profit supplemental insurance, although some systems permit such coverage for purely cosmetic treatments (which by definition are not “medically necessary”) or to keep a dying person “alive” for a few extra hours or days.

My advice is to do a web search (preferably not the former “Don’t Be Evil, Inc.”–try duckduckgo dot com) on a string such as “single-payer health care systems” to learn about how the systems in various countries are structured.

Some excellent systems, notably those in the UK and to a lesser extent Canada, have been stripped to a point at which they fail to perform the functions for which they were intended. In every society on Earth for at least the past 5,000 years there has been a ruling class which out of greed and sheer meanness has seen to it that the common people suffer. This is a political problem, not a technical one. No tyrant ever serves beyond the tolerance of his subjects, and eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty

The overarching reality of which a frighteningly large portion of the US population is “blissfully” (NOT!!!) unaware is that every other wealthy industrialized country has some form of such a system, most for quite a few years, and also several countries with more limited resources. The idea that it is impossible to create such a system in the US, or even particularly difficult, is Adolf Orange nonsense.

There is no need for Medicare Advarage or Medigap because Medicare for All is not the same as original Medicare. M4A doesn’t have copayment, unlike original Medicare which only covers 80%.

Read more about it here: