Why ‘Medicare for All’ Could

artappraiser — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:29:01 +0000

In reply to Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis

Why ‘Medicare for All’ Could Both Raise Taxes and Lower Costs
A crucial difference between a single-payer plan and more moderate Democratic proposals is how much spending would shift to the federal budget.

By Margot Sanger-Katz & Josh Katz @ The Upshot @ NYTimes.com, 2h ago

Health care in the United States already represents one of every five dollars in our economy.

The (interactive) box below shows where all of those dollars are expected to come from next year

[....]

The charts above compare two leading sets of health care proposals advocated by Democrats running for president. The first, a “public option” plan, is similar to proposals from Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and other candidates. It would allow most Americans to buy insurance from the government and make other changes that would enable fewer people to go without coverage, but it would preserve much of the existing health insurance system.

The second, a “Medicare for all” plan introduced by Bernie Sanders and endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, would replace most Americans’ current health insurance with a generous government-run plan that covers more benefits. (Kamala Harris wants to replace the existing system with a mix of new public and private options, but there are not yet rigorous cost estimates for such a plan.)

When critics say that a single-payer system will be expensive, they are usually talking about the increase in federal spending — the size of the red box above. When Medicare for all enthusiasts say it would not increase spending much, they are talking about the size of the entire chart.

That’s why it could be true both that Medicare for all would require substantial tax increases and that it would leave many or most American families better off financially.

A number of economists have closely examined the possible costs of Medicare for all. Some estimate that such a system would increase the nation’s total health bill, and some find it would decrease it — but all of them see a huge increase in the amount the federal government would spend. The increase in federal spending represents more than triple all spending on the military, or about 80 percent of all government spending on things other than health care.[....]

Margot also retweeted this:

artappraiser — Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:21:49 +0000

In reply to Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis

Margot also retweeted this:

New from @BudgetHawks - paying for #MedicareForAll would require a 32% payroll tax, 25% income surtax, 42% VAT, 80% spending cut, or 108 percent of GDP increase in the national debt. There are other options as well:https://t.co/eIP40nc1N8 pic.twitter.com/MI1GZloJ5i
— Marc Goldwein (@MarcGoldwein) October 28, 2019

dagblog - Comments for "Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis"

Why ‘Medicare for All’ Could

Margot also retweeted this: