Koch-Funded Hit Piece Backfires: Shows Medicare for All Would Save $300 Billion Over Ten Years While Covering Everybody
They need to be called what they are: THE KOCH ROACH BROTHERS!
The problem here is Bernie’s. In his “Medicare for All” rollout, he was not clear about true Single Payer requiring: 1) an elimination of Romney/OBCare; restructuring the current Medicare/Medicaid taxes into a single progressive healthcare tax (which would require a big hit out of rich people and corporations); the massive savings from doing these things. Also, he has been silent on totally deprivatizing the health insurance industries.
He’s being cagey on all of this because he’s afraid to confront radical progressive tax restructuring and taking on the benefactors of the lib/progs like Liz Warren, Kamala Harris and Corey Booker who stood behind him during the announcement of the still-undetailed “Medicare for All” proposal. He’s doing all of this to please the Dim Party big-wigs for 2020. They will do the same to him in 2020 that they did in 2016 and he will have lost a good bunch of progressives and leftists.
TRUE SINGLE PAYER NOW!!! HR 676
I totally agree; but they are not the problem. We can piss on them all we want, But we are the problem because we refuse to act in our interests while they act in theirs.
SINGLE PAYER HR 676 NOW!!!
True, most people don’t read past the headlines, or at least not much. But the Koch bros’ funding for this study might have been wasted, since most people only know about Medicare for All from snippets from political candidates, especially presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, who told us that single-payer would never work because it is way too expensive.
Every time I see an article about the profit from disease industry (insurance), I gain ever deeper appreciation for the Monty Python (read: ‘full monty’ of the Ouroborus or snake that eats its tail).
Single payer now!
Yes, no doubt about it.
Still trying to pretend you’re a progressive? BTW, there is no such thing a totally deprivatized health insurance system even in countries with a single payer system. All one has to do is hit the Googly and take a look around.
What about all the medical insurance costs that corporations currently pay for their employees? If all their employees are included in Medicare For All, it seems like they, too, would save money even if they had to pay a “per employee” payment into the Medicare For All fund.
Payroll and/or other taxes are going to go up for some folks, maybe many. Personally, if the opportunity does come to make a single payer type system pass, I think the bigger issue is how to make it work effectively and quickly. One of the ACA’s biggest problems was that in its initial years, many people couldn’t see its benefits, and that allowed its opponents all kinds of time to fill the gap. Lag time will be a death knell for it in front of a Supreme Court with five justices ready to look for any reason to undermine it. And can you imagine what a doctor’s strike would mean in this country, like the one that occurred in Saskatchewan in 1962?
The Koch bribers should commission a study of how much the Israeli universal healthcare system is going to continue to cost vs. how much free handout money from the American, and finally what is the figure on how absolute zero is the payback for Americans.
A Public Option would have been terrific. Let those who want Medicare For All simply sign up for it. And then let the insurance companies fight for the left overs by dropping their prices. And by the way, what Doctor wouldn’t want their bills paid quickly, with minimal fight over denials; back and forth bullshit. Health care is covered, period. The only denials should be for fraudulent bills. And if there is any proven fraud, The Doctor is removed from the Med4all system forever. No paying a huge fine like Rick Scott, FL Gov. Insurance companies and big pharma are cheating the people, and it must stop.
Until I see your name in the news and on my ballot, you will be considered by me, a troll.
Absolutely. That’s a part of the massive cost savings that is possible with Single Payer. The biggest issue in union contracts over recent decades has been health insurance. The per cap that you propose is one kind of a tax. I would rather see a progressive tax so that small businesses and self-employed don’t pay the same as corporations. There are all kinds of ways to structure taxes, but Medicare for All doesn’t specify them. In the end, Single Payer offers about 25-30% in savings.
What you consider me is not especially relevant to much of anything.
Read Charles Koch was done with Trump and GOP madness and wants to work and support Dems who agree with the Koch ways…There would be more than enuf $$$ to support a Medicare for all or better yet a Single Payer if Less was given to our bloated Military and their own outrageos spending habits. Do they ever think of the people who elected them at all? Nope! Once they are in all the BS they promised turns into lies, Gotta get ALL of them out!
I saw an article on this earlier this morning, and the framing was worded in order to scare people. The right likes to throw out really large numbers, to make it seem as if the things the left wants to do is just so impossible. The commenter here FightThePower did this last week. He linked some silly study that threw out a huge number about entitlements, the number was an estimate of spending over the “infinite horizon” (based upon numbers done on spending over the next 75 years). No context at all though, like, over that same time period, how large will the US economy be? With this particular issue, the article I read didn’t make a few things clear (intentionally). It didn’t make clear that it was the total cost of the system, not expenditures in addition to how much we spend now. The same article didn’t once mention how much the present system would cost over the same time period. That isn’t logical, and again, the intention is to come up with a huge number, without any context, to scare people. Since the present system would cost more, shouldn’t that scare people even more? But, again, the goal isn’t to educate others, it is propaganda. Single payer would save trillions (I have to see the methodology of this particular study) over the long term, and I think it is important to note how completely right wing the economics department at George Mason is. It isn’t just that they get money from the Kochs, they have for decades been at the center of “public choice” economics, which the book Democracy in Chains focused a lot on (that school of economics, as well as George Mason). That school of economics is largely right wing, and I am betting that when I start to read the study of theirs, the methodology of theirs will be heavily slanted to give lower savings. However, it is beyond question, single payer would save money, this study even shows that, it would have less overhead and would massively cut down on the huge social costs of this nightmare of a system. On the facts, they lose and they know it, which is why they are going to lie, like they always do, and rely on ideological bullshit.
I appreciate your solutions, but there’s a ton of work buried in there. This is why congressional hearings on the matter would be useful. No system is going in with Trump in the White House, but ideas can gel in the meantime.
The one thing to price in is the Supreme Court, which has, of late, shown itself to be adverse to price controls and increasingly sees commerce as free speech. A national system could be quite expensive if the Roberts Court restricts Congress’s ability to regulate, say, drug prices, under the commerce clause. Conservative groups will have cases lined up immediately after a bill is passed to challenge regulation.
I don’t say the above to disagree with you—I don’t. But guys like Alito and Kavanaugh are party hacks. They will do all they can to make the scary numbers sound real and be real. Progressives should be prepared for this. This is why I think holding hearings now, if Democrats gain Congress, would be good. It may give us the best understanding of what it would take to pass a defensible bill that isn’t wrecked by 5 ideaologues and give a new president a path forward, not unlike Roosevelt had in his first 100 Days.
If we could collect and concentrate the solar heat landing on every house’s roof, store it (probably in an insulated box of rocks) and deploy it at night with a heat pump, that would save another two trillion a year, and it would cost shockingly little money and time to prove the concept. If we could store solar heat the way solar power towers store it and use it at night, but if we could engineer the elimination of all bird kills, that would save another two trillion per year.
All of this would bankrupt the Koch brothers.
If you were set up with a soccer ball one foot from the goal and with no goalie or pressure, could you score the goal? I don’t think you could. You’d kick the ball out of bounds somewhere. You’d wait a week until the wind came up and blew the ball across the field.