• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The New Socialists


This is better. I like Bruenig, but I think there are a couple of major problems with this analysis.

1. He states that the Mercatus Center report shows that Bernie's M4A plan could "realistically" save $2 trillion over 10 years. That is not what the Mercatus report shows. The Mercatus report (which is actually quite similar to a previous analysis by the Urban Institute), showed that if all of the assumptions and projections within the plan actually came to pass exactly as written in the bill, the result would be approximately $2 trillion in savings overall. It doesn't say anything at all about whether those assumptions are realistic. Just one example, it calls for physicians to be reimbursed at current Medicare rates for all patients, which is, on average ~40% less than private insurance, and below costs. Some reductions in physician pay is likely warranted, especially highly compensated specialists. And certain physicians would see far less of a cut, especially if they already treat a large number of medicare and (especially) medicaid patients. But an across the board cut of that magnitude is unlikely to be feasible. And the savings quoted in the report are highly dependent on this an other sources of cost savings that, imo, are not realistic as currently described.

2. But even if we were to ignore the problems with the bill itself and it's assumptions, there is another big challenge, one that he does not address at all -- how to feasibly create the required M4A tax to pay for the project. His overall point is that if you were to capture all of the money Americans (and state governments) spend currently on health care, and give that money to the government in taxes instead, we could give everyone a very generous health care package (much more generous that many of the European models that those of us that typically support universal health care wish we could better emulate), and then have $2 trillion left over (over 10 years) for other pieces of the DSA agenda. But no one in the DSA or Bernie's group has put forward a proposal for how such a tax would work, which should illustrate just how difficult it is to design any sort of tax that would generate ~$30 trillion. What is clear is that it would require huge tax increases on everyone, not just the wealthy.
 
Tilt, as I posted earlier, we won't need a "tax" of that volume if we can set a level of employee participation and use the money they currently pay to private insurers and redirect it to M4A funding. The tricky part is to get the 15-20% who aren't in employer groups into the program. We also have to include in the law that no matter how many hours you work that you are to be covered to avoid companies cutting work weeks to opt out.

Business is already participating, but they will bitch about not being able to dance around including all employees.

The 40% savings may be bit high but 30-35% should be doable. The 5-10% difference is a huge amount when you are talking about trillions of dollars.
 
Tilt, as I posted earlier, we won't need a "tax" of that volume if we can set a level of employee participation and use the money they currently pay to private insurers and redirect it to M4A funding. The tricky part is to get the 15-20% who aren't in employer groups into the program. We also have to include in the law that no matter how many hours you work that you are to be covered to avoid companies cutting work weeks to opt out.

Business is already participating, but they will bitch about not being able to dance around including all employees.

The 40% savings may be bit high but 30-35% should be doable. The 5-10% difference is a huge amount when you are talking about trillions of dollars.

I don't really understand this. The point of med4all is to uncouple health coverage from your employer.
 
This is better. I like Bruenig, but I think there are a couple of major problems with this analysis.

2. But even if we were to ignore the problems with the bill itself and it's assumptions, there is another big challenge, one that he does not address at all -- how to feasibly create the required M4A tax to pay for the project. His overall point is that if you were to capture all of the money Americans (and state governments) spend currently on health care, and give that money to the government in taxes instead, we could give everyone a very generous health care package (much more generous that many of the European models that those of us that typically support universal health care wish we could better emulate), and then have $2 trillion left over (over 10 years) for other pieces of the DSA agenda. But no one in the DSA or Bernie's group has put forward a proposal for how such a tax would work, which should illustrate just how difficult it is to design any sort of tax that would generate ~$30 trillion. What is clear is that it would require huge tax increases on everyone, not just the wealthy.

I'd like to get better at understanding the variables that are different under the proposed med4all plan and the status quo. Isn't the idea that the tax wouldn't have to generate $30 trillion, but rather the delta between national health spending now and national health spending under a single-payer plan?
 
I don't really understand this. The point of med4all is to uncouple health coverage from your employer.

Every major country in Europe ties the tax to your earnings. All we have to do is switch the payments that are already being taken to M4A rather than United Healthcare, etc. In essence, it's the same system but the deposits from everywhere go to M4A rather being spread around. This also lowers costs.

Even with M4A, we will have private insurance for elective procedures like Germany, UK, France and many other countries with universal healthcare have.
 
I'd like to get better at understanding the variables that are different under the proposed med4all plan and the status quo. Isn't the idea that the tax wouldn't have to generate $30 trillion, but rather the delta between national health spending now and national health spending under a single-payer plan?

Yes and no. The theoretically argument Bruenig and others are making is that all that matters is the total health care spend. And looking through that lens, M4A looks great! Again assuming all the cost cuts/projected savings in the M4A plan, the total spend is actually less than the status quo by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and covers far more people. But, as we all know, the status quo relies on personal health expenditures (co-pays, premiums, etc). The argument goes that that money that people spend on personal health care expenditures would need to instead be collected as taxes. But what needs to be collected is not just the delta (which is actually positive), but the entire cost of the program. It sounds great in the abstract because collectively people would actually be saving money (that is, paying more in taxes, but saving even more in reduced health care expenditures and higher wages), until you try to come up with a way to collect the $3+ trillion per year you would need. You'd have to more than double federal corporate and individual tax receipts. Changes of that magnitude are really, really hard, likely create big winners and lots of (net) losers, and no one has come up with a proposed way to do it yet.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. The theoretically argument Bruenig and others are making is that all that matters is the total health care spend. And looking through that lens, M4A looks great! Again assuming all the cost cuts/projected savings in the M4A plan, the total spend is actually less than the status quo by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and covers far more people. But, as we all know, the status quo relies on personal health expenditures (co-pays, premiums, etc). The argument goes that that money that people spend on personal health care expenditures would need to instead be collected as taxes. But what needs to be collected is not just the delta (which is actually positive), but the entire cost of the program. It sounds great in the abstract because collectively people would actually be saving money (that is, paying more in taxes, but saving even more in reduced health care expenditures and higher wages), until you try to come up with a way to collect the $3+ trillion per year you would need. You'd have to more than double federal corporate and individual tax receipts. Changes of that magnitude are really, really hard, likely create big winners and lots of (net) losers, and no one has come up with a proposed way to do it yet.

Thanks for the answer. I'll do some more research. For now...

1g4u4G6.jpg


;)
 
to my knowledge, i've never expressed or even feigned support for the DNC's leadership.

speaking of fantasy:

‘Medicare for All’ Is a Fantasy
But the surge in support for the idea gives Republicans the chance to offer a coherent alternative.

Republicans offer a coherent alternative? What a joke. They pissed off 7 years hating on Obamacare and still have no solutions. It's almost as if they don't give a shit about governing. Librul tears while jerking their wealthy donors.
 
I don't think it's equivalent in terms of moral courage (or lack there of), but the "how do we pay for it" just starts to sound like the same cries about gun control, when so many countries can figure it out. Like the onion meme about "how do we stop this? asks only country in the world with problem." It especially seems that way when we see endless check writing for endless wars or bloated budgets for militarized police forces, or brand new jails, or tax cuts for the rich. We can't be in a never ending cycle of Reaganomics. The "this is too hard to figure out how to pay for" argument just seems more and more disingenuous.

We can and should implement a system that lowers our per capita spending and providing equal access to healthcare for all, regardless of ability to pay. It is a moral imperative. We absolutely can figure out a way to pay for it. In the new overton window, the atlantic might as well be the WSJ.
 
And no, i still haven't done more research. that's just like, my opinion, man.
 
Yes and no. The theoretically argument Bruenig and others are making is that all that matters is the total health care spend. And looking through that lens, M4A looks great! Again assuming all the cost cuts/projected savings in the M4A plan, the total spend is actually less than the status quo by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and covers far more people. But, as we all know, the status quo relies on personal health expenditures (co-pays, premiums, etc). The argument goes that that money that people spend on personal health care expenditures would need to instead be collected as taxes. But what needs to be collected is not just the delta (which is actually positive), but the entire cost of the program. It sounds great in the abstract because collectively people would actually be saving money (that is, paying more in taxes, but saving even more in reduced health care expenditures and higher wages), until you try to come up with a way to collect the $3+ trillion per year you would need. You'd have to more than double federal corporate and individual tax receipts. Changes of that magnitude are really, really hard, likely create big winners and lots of (net) losers, and no one has come up with a proposed way to do it yet.

If we make sure the big winners are the poor and working class and the net losers are the rich, is that so bad?
 
The will to implement M4A must and will absolutely come BEFORE the policy is written, and my lack of faith leads me to believe that every Democrat demanding a payment plan FIRST are intending to discourage the will for M4A.
 
Yeah. It’s similar to the FL Democrats loudly wondering during the primary if Gillum can win in Nov because he’s black.
 
Yeah. It’s similar to the FL Democrats loudly wondering during the primary if Gillum can win in Nov because he’s black.
I agree. Capital is risk adverse, so big money political campaigns have become equally risk adverse - basically if something has never been done it will poll poorly, and if it polls poorly, no one will give it any money or support. Fortunately for Gillum, he received just enough big money support to run a successful field based campaign.
 
The comparison I was making and thought you were going for were Dems who aren’t onboard trying to sabotage progressive politics.
 
This is better. I like Bruenig, but I think there are a couple of major problems with this analysis.

1. He states that the Mercatus Center report shows that Bernie's M4A plan could "realistically" save $2 trillion over 10 years. That is not what the Mercatus report shows. The Mercatus report (which is actually quite similar to a previous analysis by the Urban Institute), showed that if all of the assumptions and projections within the plan actually came to pass exactly as written in the bill, the result would be approximately $2 trillion in savings overall. It doesn't say anything at all about whether those assumptions are realistic. Just one example, it calls for physicians to be reimbursed at current Medicare rates for all patients, which is, on average ~40% less than private insurance, and below costs. Some reductions in physician pay is likely warranted, especially highly compensated specialists. And certain physicians would see far less of a cut, especially if they already treat a large number of medicare and (especially) medicaid patients. But an across the board cut of that magnitude is unlikely to be feasible. And the savings quoted in the report are highly dependent on this an other sources of cost savings that, imo, are not realistic as currently described.

2. But even if we were to ignore the problems with the bill itself and it's assumptions, there is another big challenge, one that he does not address at all -- how to feasibly create the required M4A tax to pay for the project. His overall point is that if you were to capture all of the money Americans (and state governments) spend currently on health care, and give that money to the government in taxes instead, we could give everyone a very generous health care package (much more generous that many of the European models that those of us that typically support universal health care wish we could better emulate), and then have $2 trillion left over (over 10 years) for other pieces of the DSA agenda. But no one in the DSA or Bernie's group has put forward a proposal for how such a tax would work, which should illustrate just how difficult it is to design any sort of tax that would generate ~$30 trillion. What is clear is that it would require huge tax increases on everyone, not just the wealthy.

Timely this morning:

http://theweek.com/articles/792893/how-pay-medicareforall?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
New Socialism equals same tired and failed system it has always been
 
Back
Top