US: New study: Full-scale 'Medicare for All' costs $32 trillion over 10 years - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

US New study: Full-scale 'Medicare for All' costs $32 trillion over 10 years

08:15  16 october  2019
08:15  16 october  2019 Source:   thehill.com

Budget office estimates US deficit just under $1 trillion

  Budget office estimates US deficit just under $1 trillion The government ran a budget deficit of just under $1 trillion in the just-closed fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday. The $984 billion deficit tally for 2019 came in more than $200 billion more than last year's, despite very low unemployment and continuing economic growth. Many mainstream economists have long taken the position that deficits and the nation's $22 trillion national debt are unsustainable. CBO noted that deficits have been growing faster than the size of the economy for four years in a row, ending 2019 at 4.7 percent of gross domestic product.

Bernie Sanders' " Medicare for all " plan would boost government health spending by $ 32 .6 trillion Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost , the Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from .7 trillion to

The study looked at the impact of the Medicare for All Act introduced by Sanders on Sept. The top line of the paper’s abstract says that the bill “would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $ 32 .6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.”

A new study finds that a full-scale single-payer health insurance program, also called "Medicare for All," would cost about $32 trillion over 10 years.

a man standing in a room: New study: Full-scale 'Medicare for All' costs $32 trillion over 10 years© Getty Images New study: Full-scale 'Medicare for All' costs $32 trillion over 10 years

The study from the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund found $32.01 trillion in new federal revenue would be needed to pay for the plan, highlighting the immense cost of a proposal at the center of the health care debate raging in the presidential race.

The study did not analyze the exact proposals from any presidential candidates, but the proposal it examined is roughly similar to the one put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and backed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Support drops for Medicare for All but increases for public option

  Support drops for Medicare for All but increases for public option Support is dropping for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) "Medicare for All" health care plan, according to a poll released Tuesday. © Getty Images Support drops for Medicare for All but increases for public option The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed in October favored Medicare for All, a proposal in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, compared to the 53 percent who said they supported it last month. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

Over ten years : $ 32 .6 trillion . The Associated Press wants to make sure you read that correctly: That's trillion with a "T." Sanders' plan builds on Medicare , the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services.

STUDY : ‘ Medicare For All ’ Would Cost $ 32 .6 Trillion Over Ten Years . Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.) under the tagline “ Medicare for all ” would cost the federal government $ 32 .6 trillion over the next decade, according to study released Monday by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a

The flip side is that the study finds the plan would provide large savings to American households, who would no longer have to pay premiums or deductibles for their care, resulting in $886 billion in savings for people over 10 years. The plan would also provide insurance to everyone, reducing the number of uninsured from 32.2 million people to zero, the study found.

The study looked at a range of proposed health care plans as Democratic presidential candidates clash over whether over whether to embrace full-scale single-payer. Other Democrats, like former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, instead back an alternative scaled-back plan that would make government-run insurance an option for everyone but not mandatory.

South Korea unveils fighter jet mock-up amid program challenges

  South Korea unveils fighter jet mock-up amid program challenges South Korea unveils fighter jet mock-up amid program challengesThe next-generation aircraft being developed by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is designed to be a cheaper, less-stealthy alternative to the U.S.-built F-35, and the plan is to eventually replace most of South Korea's older fighter jets and produce more for export.

scheme will cost $ 32 trillion over the next 10 years and would require “historic” tax increases to pay for it, according to a new study released on Monday. The Mercatus Center suggested that doubling federal individual and corporate income tax would not cover the costs of the “ Medicare for all ” plan.

But here's the deal: ‘ Medicare for All ’ Would Cost $ 32 .6 Trillion Over 10 Years . Bernie Sanders' " Medicare for all " plan would boost government health spending by $ 32 .6 trillion over 10 Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost , the study said.

The study found that it is possible to provide near-universal coverage without a full-scale Medicare for All plan. For example, a plan that provides a government-run option plus generous government subsidies to help people buy insurance, along the lines of the Biden and Buttigieg plans, would cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years, much less than full-scale Medicare for All, the study found. The proposal would reduce the number of uninsured from 32.2 million to 6.6 million people. All of the remaining uninsured would be people in the country illegally.

That proposal would not eliminate premiums and deductibles, though.

The study did not look at which taxes would have to be raised to pay for the plans or who the new tax burden would fall on.

One of the central debates is whether middle-class people would end up saving money under Medicare for All. Proponents like Warren argue that the elimination of premiums and deductibles could balance out the higher taxes.

The study also examined a single-payer "lite" proposal, that would provide less benefits and require some out-of-pocket costs from enrollees, while also not covering people in the country illegally.

That scaled-back plan would cost $15.6 trillion over 10 years, about half of the full-scale plan, while providing insurance to everyone in the country legally.

The "lite" proposal would also reduce total U.S. spending on health care by about 6 percent, thanks to lower payments to doctors and hospitals, while the full-scale single-payer proposal would increase total U.S. health care spending by about 20 percent, due in large part to more people gaining coverage and using health care.

A quarter of US health care spending is waste, report says .
The highest burden of waste came from administrative costs. Researchers speculated that, ironically, these costs might be resulting from insurance companies’ attempts to lower waste. Does such high waste mean our health care system broken? Can we fix it? And most of all, have our attempts at fixing it made things worse?Administrative complexities wasted $265 billion annually, the report said. Administrative complexities refer to behind-the-scenes administrative tasks, such as billing, completed by physicians and insurance companies.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!