Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ Math
New York Times ^ | November 1, 2019 | Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff

Posted on 11/03/2019 4:24:15 AM PST by karpov

...

Here’s a summary of what Ms. Warren has proposed on either side of the ledger.

To reduce the plan’s costs:

Change the way Medicare pays for certain types of hospital stays, such as paying a package rate rather than different fees for surgical services, and paying doctors in hospital-owned practices the lower prices paid to those in private practices. ($2.3 trillion)

Assume that the Medicare for all program itself can operate very leanly. The Urban Institute estimated that Medicare would devote about 6 percent of its health budget on administrators to decide what and how Medicare would pay for things, and to prevent fraud. In Ms. Warren’s plan, that rate is 2.3 percent. ($1.8 trillion)

Assume very aggressive drug discounts. Ms. Warren believes a government system will be able to reduce spending on drugs substantially, including lowering the prices of branded prescription drugs by 70 percent. ($1.7 trillion)

Assume slower growth in health spending over time. The federal government now thinks health spending will increase by 5.5 percent a year; the Warren campaign assumes 3.9 percent growth under Medicare for all, closer to the rate of growth in gross domestic product. ($1.1 trillion)

Assume lower payments to hospitals. The campaign believes hospitals can be paid around 110 percent of what they are currently paid by Medicare, a number that would cause some hospitals to operate at a loss. Currently, private health insurers often pay a lot more to hospitals than Medicare for similar procedures. ($600 billion)

To pay for the plan:

Employers would be required to pay fees to the federal government, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend on their employees’ health care. Some companies would be exempt, and companies with unionized work forces would be able to lower this payment if they increased workers’ wages.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: warren
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: NativeSon
The medical products industry is all volunteer and produce products at no cost and employees will continue to focus on quality on minimum wages.

Da Da Comrade, what could possibly go wrong?

21 posted on 11/03/2019 6:24:37 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Judging by the way they hate Carbon, they apparently hate all life forms!


22 posted on 11/03/2019 6:27:43 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: karpov
Assume lower payments to hospitals. The campaign believes hospitals can be paid around 110 percent of what they are currently paid by Medicare, a number that would cause some hospitals to operate at a loss. Currently, private health insurers often pay a lot more to hospitals than Medicare for similar procedures. ($600 billion)

I've seen some of the Medicare reimbusement rates from when my dad was in the hospital. The only way that hospitals can stay in business is to overcharge other patients to make up for the cram down on Medicare. One that stuck in my head was $8 for an x-ray. That only would work if the equipment was free and the tech made under minimum wage.

No wonder so many doctors won't accept new Medicare patients.

23 posted on 11/03/2019 6:50:38 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Who's the leader of the club that feeds on dead babies? M-O-L... O-C-H... M-O-U-S-E.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moovova

“No liver transplant for you! You are Republican.”


24 posted on 11/03/2019 6:51:58 AM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: karpov

Just the whole concept of “Medicare for all” is absolutely insane. What this translates into is “Healthcare for the entire world courtesy of the US taxpayer! Just sneak into the USA” not to mention the insane amount of insurance fraud that would be going on. This would be like trying to save the sinking Titanic by nuking it. The only answer for healthcare is get government the F out of it and let the free market work!


25 posted on 11/03/2019 6:52:05 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (As long as Hillary walks free, equal justice under the law will never exist in the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

That includes the 47% sales tax, I assume.


26 posted on 11/03/2019 6:57:12 AM PST by ssaftler (The opinions expressed here have not been peer reviewed, fact checked or focus group tested.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hiryusan
".... the left can’t understand math...."

Yes, just take AO-C's math wizardry on sending the country back to the Stone Age and eviscerating the US economy with her Green New Deal.

She has said, "It doesn't matter if we don't have the money for the Green New Deal. It's the right thing to do so we should just spend the money anyway." Huh?

It's good thing she doesn't have an economics degree from Boston College. Oh, wait a minute.... Never mind.

Not only do Marxists not understand math, but instead of Warren using conservative estimates of how her Medicare-for-all plan would be paid for, she gets loose and free with the numbers and uses liberal estimates of the costs, which we all know will grow larger and larger because big government is involved in the implementation.

Her estimates of the cost of the program need to be multiplied by 3 to 5 times, if not more, for her already inflated numbers to be anywhere close to being realistic.

And just wait until she finally admits that the middle class will be heavily taxed to come up with the money for this epic fail plan.

At first blush this plan is already DOA. After taking a closer look at Warren's numbers, it is six feet under.

27 posted on 11/03/2019 7:59:22 AM PST by HotHunt (Been there. Done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: karpov

The costs above total $8.7 trillion - Twice the current budget. No matter how much taxes are increased do you squeeze that much money out of the economy. Not unless you spend nothing on anything else - no defense, no SS, no welfare, no social programs, no subsidies, no foreign aid, no Congress salaries, etc.


28 posted on 11/03/2019 8:17:19 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ssaftler

:)

No, not yet.


29 posted on 11/03/2019 10:31:26 AM PST by Daffynition (*I'm living the dream.* & :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Democrats have forgotten how they were nuked by the Obamacare catastrophe.

Their answer is to quintuple down on it. They’re insane.


30 posted on 11/03/2019 2:25:58 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson