Home | About | Donate

New Analysis Proves 'Medicare for All' Can Cover Everyone While Cutting Costs


New Analysis Proves 'Medicare for All' Can Cover Everyone While Cutting Costs

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In addition to a new poll showing it would be extraordinarily popular, California's single-payer bill—the Healthy California Act—would also cut costs while providing coverage for all.

That is the conclusion of a new analysis (PDF) published on Wednesday by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).


Of course it can. If the Insurance companies can be removed from the process, that frees up a lot of the money. The Insueance companies have a Mafia like skim operation that they have acquired by inserting themselves into the payment process. They can be ousted by making people aware that they are using the well crafted but untrue meme that if it's a government orocess it will by definition be inefficient and corrupt, In truth, is no value added to medical care to what the insurance companies add to medical care, .Dump them,


Yes, It's that paragon of American society, the Profit motive. It trumps all, including Herr Trump.
Nowhere else is healthcare so costly as in the USA. Maybe Americans are sicker and need more care than everywhere else [not a daft thought] but to be 2x the healthcare costs of every other nation, is really about private profit and privatisation of public responsibility the government is supposed to do, and they do not have a profit motive. Eliminating that is probably impossible but cutting away at it will require the government to put the people first, not the corporations and other vested interests. Right now, that's a faint hope.


The oldest game in lowering costs: cut out the middle man.

The biggest flaw with RomneyCare: leaving the middleman in charge.


How is it that the nation that played the LEAD role in winning the greatest of World Wars, the country that has been such a bastion of scientific and medical progress and innovation, the country that won the Cold War, the country with the longest, most sustained experiment in democratic governance in the history of the world is such a laggard when it comes to the realization that healthcare for all is not a privilege but a right -- and should be managed by government (profit free), not by the private sector (selfishness driven). After all, we're talking about HEALTH here; not Wall Street.

Ask yourself this question: Do you want your Military run by private interests? In other words, when the renegade thugs come knocking on your front door, wouldn't you want to be there to meet them rather than some of hired thugs? If you ever served in combat, then I know what your answer is.


Read the latest legislative analysis done for Appropriations and you will get a very different picture. I posted a long summary of it here:

I am in no way trying to diminish the bill-I'd like it to succeed--but there are very real challenges the Legislature has to work through with it yet. This "analysis" appears to be more about headlines than anything.

Let me add, I haven't read the entirety of this analysis of the bill, just news reports about it. If they modeled it on a program where California paid no transition costs to insurers and their employees, then it's not really an analysis of the current bill.


Businesses would move in like crazy from other states as they would no longer have to spend all that
money on health care for workers, and workers could be paid more. I've thought this all along.
Katherine van Wormer
Professor of Social Work
University of Northern Iowa


Dump The Insurance Companies

And The Duopoly

That Supports Them.


That all sounds pretty cool in the title, however, the linked doc says:

"The overall annual costs of this single-payer system for California would be $331 billion as of 2017. "

The same document also states:

"At present, California’s health care system includes 33.4 million people (92.5 percent) who have some form of health insurance coverage and 2.7 million (7.5 percent) who are uninsured."

That would be a total of 36.1 million people.

That would be a cost per capita of $9100. Apparently in 2016 the US healthcare expenditure were $9024 per capita. Now i didn't go thru all of the 85 pages so i might be missing something.


Following my comments above, here's the actual analysis of the SB 562 that came out of Appropriations last week for those of you interested:


Fiscal analysis is dated 5/22.


California pays about $4,000 per individual for people on Medicaid. Just let low income people buy into Medicaid. The real poor pay nothing. Those with some income pay somewhat more. Those who opt for Medicaid instead of private insurance could be required to pay about $350 a month for coverage.

Much less complex than trying to create a single payer system for everyone.


Workers could be paid more ... unlikely to happen.

A while back I had an interest in a business in Canada that produced very similar products to what a business I had an interest in in the USA.

While I had no management control in either I did have direct access to the numbers on both operations. The Canadia operation overall did much better that the US operation. This is NOT something lost on most business managers.


One of the goals here should be to cut bureaucracy -----a focus on healthcare centers in neighborhoods-we need a real examination of hospital costs. And preventive health.

I almost had my gallbladder taken out----but eating good foods fixed the issue.

In fact I think we should put a tax on fast food and sugary drinks--which should go to these healthcare centers.

These healthcare centers in a neighborhood could play a major role in bringing communities together.


Unless I am mistaken, Michael Bloomberg, as Mayor of NY, tried to pass a tax on sugary big soda and wasn't able to
get it passed. Love the posting re good foods fixing issue of gall bladder. Horrible BigMed in the US doesn't wanna
promote good food; they wanna put doctors on a pedestal so people think surgery is the only way to go.


This analyses is by no means new. Single Payer has been analyzed to death - literally. Previous studies place savings at closer to 30% with universal and comprehensive benefits. Don't matter none if the Dems don't get off "saving" OB/RomneyCare and the Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Big Hospital industries.


Hey, that's right... businesses would move in.... good one..!


Nobody here wants to read it, but there is a non-partisan legislative analysis of the bill produced for the Appropriations Committee. I provided a summary of it myself the other day (link above in this thread) and a link to it too (also in this thread). It would be awesome if, instead of trashing Democrats trying to pass the bill, people actually informed themselves of its challenges. Analyses of single payer almost inevitably rely on systems developed overtime and not made whole cloth from a mature healthcare market (health insurance is, historically speaking, a relatively new concept). There are unique circumstances states have to navigate: How long will the transition from the existing system be? How much money will a state invest in private insurers to keep them afloat during the transition, especially if they decide investment isn't worth it? How much will insurance employees be paid to cover job loss and retraining? Will states just contract with private insurers for delivery? How much will doctors be paid? Who will set their rates? How much revenue is needed? How much will the Feds kick in, if at all? What if the Feds don't grant waivers? How much will it be to integrate and enroll people in existing health information systems? Will new taxes have to be approved by voters?

Those are just a few very legitimate questions that need some degree of an answer. California's Democratic legislature is attempting to do that as we speak.


These are simply Dem excuses to avoid single payer. Many industrialized and advanced nations (both capitalist and socialist) have been able to develop health insurance and health care systems that work at half the cost of the mess that the U.S. has developed for the sake of private insurers, BigPharma, BigHospital, etc.

Simply put, the Dems can't stand the idea that a socialized insurance system is better and cheaper - and eventually a real public health care system is better yet. Because that's socialism.

You carefully couch your language with words like "nonpartisan" etc., when basically you're selling ideological crap to protect what is left of the Dems as they cling onto the hope that, as the more effective evil, their oligarchic bosses won't send them down the sewer (or to the camps) when they are tired of them.


They have no interest in cutting costs. They have great interest in making astronomical profits. It is going to take a miracle to unravel the scam going on in healthcare.


Please correct the first sentence from: "New financial analysis shows California's SB 652" to: "New financial analysis shows California's SB 562". You have the wrong bill number.