FactChecking Trump’s Medicare Op-Ed

[Speedwell]

No, were talking about $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years in addition to current budgeting. This cost is not yet included in our budget.

I didn't mean that the government is paying 3.3 trillion--that's what we're paying as individuals in total, private insurance and government programs combined.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Nice dishonest way to frame it. My condition has fused my spine and twisted my cervical vertebrae so that my head sits on my shoulders at a weird angle. It requires a very expensive biologic to treat that would be unaffordable without insurance. It's not selfish. It's trying to remain a productive citizen. Don't give me this selfish garbage.

View attachment 243255



Sorry, I don't take histrionic hyperbole like this seriously.

Sucks

 

[FreeinChrist]

No, were talking about $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years in addition to current budgeting. This cost is not yet included in our budget.

$3.3 Trillion a year

We're paying 3.3 trillion dollars per year for health care now--and many of us don't have access to adequate health care. You're saying we can't afford to pay 3.2 trillion dollars for everybody to have access to adequate health care?

I saw this and making part red:

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia

According to the WHO, the United States spent more on health care per capita ($9,990), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.8%), than any other nation in 2008.[30] In 2013 the U.S. spent 17.1% of its total GDP on healthcare, 50% more than the second highest spending country, France (11.6%).[31] In 2014, the U.S. spent $2.6 trillion (a 5.0% increase from 2013) on personal health care expenditures, in 2015 the U.S. spent $3.2 trillion which is about 17.8%. Per capita spending was $8,054 in 2014—up from $7,727 in 2013.[32] In 2011, the U.S. paid nearly twice as much as Canada[33] yet lagged behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy. As of 2009, the U.S. had a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][34]Diseases such as diabetes and heart disease are among the most expensive conditions to treat because of their chronic nature, and take up about 85% of health care costs. These conditions have been on the rise recently and are one factor leading the increase in health care expenditure.[10]
​

$3.2 trillion a year is $32 trillion over 10 years. Yet one report has Medicare for all saving money by streamlining administration and controlling costs.

What we have in the US is not working in that our life expectancy is going down, and is lower than many countries. I tend to blame processed food and fast food and increased sugar intake for some of that - but means dealing with big food.

​

 

[LostMarbels]

You can cool it with the screaming caps.

Can we just have a conversation? Im not trying to be arrogant or anything, I was just trying to bring attention to the amount of money.

I don't think Sanders' medicare for all is the answer as he has it. There is the fact that streamlining the administration of healthcare would greatly reduce costs. Healthcare costs are increasing and his plan might cut costs in other ways. Insurance company administration drive up costs. Meds would be less expensive. It is a plan but not the answer imho.

That said, there is also a report that costs would fall:
Did a study show big savings for Sanders' Medicare for All?

In this article, we’ll look at something much more narrow: whether Sanders is right that the Mercatus report says that single-payer would save the United States $2 trillion in health care outlays.

In a way, Sanders is right, though his assertion glosses over some caveats.

Where the $2 trillion estimate comes from
The Mercatus report included a table summarizing the financial effects of Sanders’ bill. With a minimum of arithmetic, it’s not hard to find the $2 trillion in question.

It’s the difference between the Department of Health and Human Services’ projection of the amount of total health care spending in the United States, and what Mercatus thinks that number would be under Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. (See Table 2.)

Under Mercatus’ projection for Medicare for All, the total amount of health expenditures would actually fall compared to what is expected under a continuation of the current system.

Specifically, total health care expenditures would fall by $2.054 trillion over 10 years, according to Mercatus.

So there’s definitely something to what Sanders said.​

However, there are problems. Medicare for all as Bernie wants is an idea but it needs to be looked at closer. Trump was inaccurate when he said all Dems are united behind Bernie's plan. They are not.

First off the report you posted is only rated as half true, denoting that only half of it is correct. I would like to actually understand where this money is coming from.

From the post you cited:

The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So the question of viability remains.

I was more concerned about the way Trump flip-flopped on pre-existing conditions while he claims to support not denying coverage for those with them.

In an actual lawsuit going on right now, there is this about it in the article in the OP:

Sessions said that the administration sided with the plaintiffs, but didn’t agree that the entire ACA would have to be eliminated, as the suit argues. The administration said two ACA provisions would need to be eliminated: those guaranteeing that people can’t be denied coverage by insurers or charged more based on certain factors.​

Not denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions is mighty important to most Americans.

Sorry, I want to use a knife and fork to eat this steak rather then start chewing on the whole thing. I want to focus on the budget first and will go straight on down the line.

 

[Speedwell]

Can we just have a conversation? Im not trying to be arrogant or anything, I was just trying to bring attention to the amount of money.

Yes, it is a large sum of money. But it is not a sum of money in addition to what we are paying now, it is instead of what we are paying now. Whether it is more or less than what we are paying now is subject to debate, but many people believe that the health outcomes will be better as well, regardless.

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes, it is a large sum of money. But it is not a sum of money in addition to what we are paying now, it is instead of what we are paying now. Whether it is more or less than what we are paying now is subject to debate, but many people believe that the health outcomes will be better as well, regardless.

It is my understanding that this is where numbers get jumbled around concerning other budgets such as medicare and the like to pay for the new plan. We cannot afford all or both. So if it is not in addition to, something is getting cut or changed drastically. I intend to figure that out.

 

[LostMarbels]

What we have in the US is not working in that our life expectancy is going down, and is lower than many countries. I tend to blame processed food and fast food and increased sugar intake for some of that - but means dealing with big food.

I agree with this. However please understand my stance is not a partisan one. I want to understand this and intend to study it. Do you know when this may be implemented or come to vote?

 

[Speedwell]

It is my understanding that this is where numbers get jumbled around concerning other budgets such as medicare and the like to pay for the new plan. We cannot afford all or both. So if it is not in addition to, something is getting cut or changed drastically. I intend to figure that out.

Right now we are affording 3.3 trillion dollars per year. Under single payer, in theory, we would only have to afford 3.2 trillion dollars per year. I really don't see why you're having a problem with this. What's getting cut is the cash you are paying to health care providers and the money you and/or your employer are paying in health insurance premiums.

 

[LostMarbels]

Right now we are affording 3.3 trillion dollars per year. Under single payer, in theory, we would only have to afford 3.2 trillion dollars per year. I really don't see why you're having a problem with this.

100% honest. I do not trust the democratic leadership to tell me their name, nor many rino's out there.

I have no trust at all in our current system. So I want to know facts and be informed. I also do not at all agree with socialism.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Can we just have a conversation? Im not trying to be arrogant or anything, I was just trying to bring attention to the amount of money.

The caps are distracting, that is all.

First off the report you posted is only rated as half true, denoting that only half of it is correct. I would like to actually understand where this money is coming from.
View attachment 243258

From the post you cited:

The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So the question of viability remains.

Yes, which is why I am not sold on Bernie's plan but I think we need to consider something better than what we have now.

Sorry, I want to use a knife and fork to eat this steak rather then start chewing on the whole thing. I want to focus on the budget first and will go straight on down the line.

okay, but my focus was Trump's flip-flop that he does not acknowledge but is evident in the lawsuit.

 

[LostMarbels]

The caps are distracting, that is all.

Sorry, not my intention.

Yes, which is why I am not sold on Bernie's plan but I think we need to consider something better than what we have now.

Off rip, right off the top, I am against socialism.

I want you to understand where Im coming from so just bare with me. Trump, Bernie, Obama, whoever, is not going to have to live with whatever they get passed. We are. It behoves us, the American people to understand what they are actually trying to pass.

Think about how you view the Trump administration, and how I view the deep state; are either of us actually convinced the other side will not poison the well? You need to think about that for a second.

Half truths and hidden meanings are not enough to get me to support a $32 trillion dollar plan.

okay, but my focus was Trump's flip-flop that he does not acknowledge but is evident in the lawsuit.

I don't even know if that is true.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Off rip, right off the top, I am against socialism.

Socialism is a loaded term. Some believe it is the same as communism, others see various programs as socialism that work in a capitalist economy. If you like and support Social Security and Medicare for seniors, then you like some socialism. If you use a publicly owned utility, then you benefit from a government run service. If you use a public hospital, chances are you are using a socialist type service.

 

[LostMarbels]

Socialism is a loaded term. Some believe it is the same as communism, others see various programs as socialism that work in a capitalist economy. If you like and support Social Security and Medicare for seniors, then you like some socialism. If you use a publicly owned utility, then you benefit from a government run service. If you use a public hospital, chances are you are using a socialist type service.

(in Marxist theory) socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. It is the means to bring about communism.

I do not agree with you or socialism. I will vote against it every time without hesitation. Just being honest.

 

[High Fidelity]

(in Marxist theory) socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. It is the means to bring about communism.

I do not agree with you or socialism. I will vote against it every time without hesitation. Just being honest.

That's just sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

Socialism, in a modern setting, is nothing like that. It's an infusion of socialistic parameters within an amalgamation of social and economical systems, including capitalism.

You think America is capitalist and only capitalist? You're wrong. Subsidised industries? Not capitalist. Bailing out who was it again, GM? Not capitalist. You don't prop up the weak in capitalism. It's cut throat. The only problem is that it isn't just businesses dying because of that mentality.

Scandinavia is, by most, considered 'socialist' if you were to broadly label the constituent countries. They're consistently the happiest countries in the world. Many of other European countries are the same.

Taxes going towards healthcare is common sense, common decency and, as far as I'm concerned, a Christian necessity because it isn't humane to deprive someone of medical provision, nor is it decent to allow those that need it the most to be gouged by insurance companies.

You are literally paying twice as much as most socialised countries to receive worse healthcare.

There are a lot of things that could reduce the costs. I'd start by addressing how inflated the medical system is by administrative workers that aren't necessary.

 

[LostMarbels]

That's just sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

Socialism, in a modern setting, is nothing like that. It's an infusion of socialistic parameters within an amalgamation of social and economical systems, including capitalism.

You think America is capitalist and only capitalist? You're wrong. Subsidised industries? Not capitalist. Bailing out who was it again, GM? Not capitalist. You don't prop up the weak in capitalism. It's cut throat. The only problem is that it isn't just businesses dying because of that mentality.

Scandinavia is, by most, considered 'socialist' if you were to broadly label the constituent countries. They're consistently the happiest countries in the world. Many of other European countries are the same.

Taxes going towards healthcare is common sense, common decency and, as far as I'm concerned, a Christian necessity because it isn't humane to deprive someone of medical provision, nor is it decent to allow those that need it the most to be gouged by insurance companies.

You are literally paying twice as much as most socialised countries to receive worse healthcare.

There are a lot of things that could reduce the costs. I'd start by addressing how inflated the medical system is by administrative workers that aren't necessary.

Never in the history of the world has socialism worked. This failed system always leads to destitution, and mandated allegion to an impoverished totalitarian regime that has no regard for its own populace.

Never, in the history of socialism, has it worked for the people of that nation to their benefit. 100's of millions have been killed by their own governments that employ these systems.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

 

[High Fidelity]

Never in the history of the world has socialism worked. This failed system always leads to destitution, and mandated allegion to an impoverished totalitarian regime that has no regard for its own populace.

Never, in the history of socialism, has it worked for the people of that nation to their benefit. 100's of millions have been killed by their own governments that employ these systems.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Again, that's Communism.

No one here is talking about Communism.

Comparing socialism to communism is like calling a slap across the face attempted murder.

 

[Allandavid]

(in Marxist theory) socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. It is the means to bring about communism.

I do not agree with you or socialism. I will vote against it every time without hesitation. Just being honest.

Built your own section of highway, did you? Which part of your local school did you construct? Which hospital emergency worker do you sponsor...?

 

[Kentonio]

Never in the history of the world has socialism worked. This failed system always leads to destitution, and mandated allegion to an impoverished totalitarian regime that has no regard for its own populace.

Never, in the history of socialism, has it worked for the people of that nation to their benefit. 100's of millions have been killed by their own governments that employ these systems.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

You’re making sweeping ideological statements that don’t describe reality. We actually have a perfect example we can use to test your theory. Are you ok to put your beliefs up against a real world example? Does that seem like a reasonable test?

By all reasonable definitions the UK’s National Health Service is a socialist program. It’s universal healthcare free at the point of use. It’s considerably cheaper than US healthcare per capita and it delivers better outcomes for patients in most areas than US healthcare. It was established in 1946 and so has been in successful operation for 72 years.

Now how exactly has that system produced any worse overall outcome than the US one? Has it led to destitution? Has it led to totalitarian government? Has it led to the government killing millions of its own citizens?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Never in the history of the world has socialism worked. This failed system always leads to destitution, and mandated allegion to an impoverished totalitarian regime that has no regard for its own populace.

Never, in the history of socialism, has it worked for the people of that nation to their benefit. 100's of millions have been killed by their own governments that employ these systems.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Military and police services are examples of socialized security services. Do you have a problem with those?

Although, I suppose they would support your contention that socialist governments kill their own citizens. Hmm...

 

[LostMarbels]

Again, that's Communism.

No one here is talking about Communism.

Comparing socialism to communism is like calling a slap across the face attempted murder.

Take the time to read. Socialism is the policy used to bring a nation into communism.

Built your own section of highway, did you? Which part of your local school did you construct? Which hospital emergency worker do you sponsor...?

This is too funny.

Well in all honesty I built the library, not the entire school. I also built redlobster, and our local Target. If you live in a Pulte, Lennar, or Beazer home in Clermont between 2000 to 2008 more than likely I was part of building it, and it was my crew. I also worked on the 419 interchange from the Florida turnpike, did some rod busting, rigging, and ran a concrete boom. so I guess that would be the part I built. Don't think I have ever sponsored a hospital tho. I build a helipad once. Does that count?

But I don't think that is your meaning.

None of that is free tho. Someone pays for it. Usually thru loans or taxes. All of which comes from capitalism.