US: The eye-popping cost of Medicare for All - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

US The eye-popping cost of Medicare for All

01:25  17 october  2019
01:25  17 october  2019 Source:   theatlantic.com

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.

That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare , and Medicaid combined, according to the The 10-year cost of trillion that the study forecasts nearly matches the CBO’s estimate of how much money the federal government will spend

The Cost of ‘ Medicare - for - All ’. By Robert Farley. Posted on August 10, 2018. The study is based on the language of a “ Medicare - for - all ” bill proposed by Sanders last year that makes assumptions about reduced administrative and drug costs , as well as deeply reduced reimbursement rates to health care

Video by Veuer

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at Tuesday night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag — a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

Democratic candidates go after Elizabeth Warren over how much her Medicare for All plan will cost at Ohio debate

  Democratic candidates go after Elizabeth Warren over how much her Medicare for All plan will cost at Ohio debate Mayor Pete Buttigieg framed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders' single-payer plan as "Medicare for all, whether you want it or not."Buttigieg kicked off the spirited discussion by accusing Warren of not releasing details on how she'd play for a single-payer health program, which would cost the federal government tens of trillions of dollars.

Medicare doesn't cover room and board when you get hospice care in your home or another facility where you live (like a nursing home). 20% of the Medicare -approved amount for mental health services you get from doctors and other providers while you're a hospital inpatient.

In recent history, only during the height of World War II has the federal government tried to increase taxes, as a share of the economy, as fast as would be required to offset the cost of a single-payer plan, federal figures show. There are “no analogous peacetime tax increases,” says Leonard Burman, a public-administration professor at Syracuse University and a former top tax official in both the Bill Clinton administration and at the CBO. Raising that much more tax revenue “is plausible in the sense that it is theoretically possible,” Burman told me. “But the revolution that would come along with it would get in the way.”

At the debate, as throughout the campaign, Warren refused to provide any specifics about how she would fund a single-payer plan. Instead, whether questioned by moderators or challenged by other candidates, she recycled variants on the same talking points she has used in venues from campaign town halls to a recent appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Rather than explaining what revenue she would raise to fund the plan, Warren insisted that under single payer, middle-income families would save more money with the elimination of health-care premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, regardless of any taxes imposed. “Costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down,” she said at the debate.

O'Rourke accuses Warren of being 'punitive' in proposals

  O'Rourke accuses Warren of being 'punitive' in proposals Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) sparred with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over her proposed "wealth tax" to pay for her sweeping policy proposals at the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio on Tuesday night. O'Rourke, one of several candidates to question Warren's and Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) more liberal proposals, which include "Medicare for All" and a tax on the wealthiest Americans, said Warren "sometimes ... is more focused on being punitive or pitting one part of the country against the other instead of lifting people up.

Doctors are human. Humans respond to incentives. And Medicare has some pretty stupid incentives. The doctor keeps the extra as compensation for administering the injection. What has this got to do with eye doctors? The drug Lucentis, used to treat macular degeneration, cost Medicare

Single-payer is cost -prohibitive. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool leftists admit as much, after they take office and have to figure out how to pay for their campaign promises. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. She's also a vocal advocate of " Medicare for All " -- a government takeover of America's

[Read: The risk of Elizabeth Warren’s dodging]

That calculation itself is disputed. And it begs the question: Even if families would eventually save under a single-payer system, a President Warren would still need to identify a politically plausible funding plan to pass such a program through Congress. By all indications, that looms as an extremely daunting project.

The new Urban Institute study helps define the magnitude of the task Warren (or Sanders) would face. The think tank modeled the costs of eight possible plans to expand health-care coverage that generally track ideas from the Democratic presidential candidates. By far, the most expensive was its version of the single-payer plan that Sanders introduced in the Senate and that Warren later endorsed: a blueprint that would eliminate private health insurance, require no co-pays or premiums from individuals, and provide everyone in the United States (including undocumented immigrants) an expansive benefits package including dental, vision, and home health care.

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

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

The cost of cataract surgery in the United States for someone without Medicare or private medical insurance ranged from approximately ,600 to By replacing the eye 's natural lens with an IOL, the surgeon can correct significant amounts of nearsightedness or farsightedness, reducing the patient's

Medicare Part A is run directly by the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), part of the Department of Health Medicaid can pay the full cost of assisted living, but the requirements for this are different in each state. Nearly all states offer some sort of assisted

The 10-year cost of $34 trillion that the study forecasts nearly matches the CBO’s estimate of how much money the federal government will spend over that period not only on all entitlement programs, but also on all federal income support, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Former Vice President Joe Biden said incorrectly at the debate that the single-payer plan would cost more annually than the total existing federal budget — it would cost less. (The CBO says Washington will spend about $4.6 trillion in 2020.) But over the next decade, the plan on its own would represent a nearly 60 percent increase in total expected federal spending, from national defense to interest on the national debt, according to CBO projections.

The Urban Institute estimates that a single-payer plan would require $32 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade. That’s slightly less revenue than its projected cost, because it would generate some offsetting savings by eliminating certain tax benefits the government now provides, such as the exclusion for employer-provided health care.

Pete Buttigieg's disingenuous attack on Medicare-for-All

  Pete Buttigieg's disingenuous attack on Medicare-for-All In the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, once again Medicare-for-All was a major focus of discussion. Once again, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defended the plan against all comers — most especially Pete Buttigieg, who had a number of slick arguments about how universal Medicare would be a disaster. There's just one problem: None of Mayor Pete's arguments are true.Buttigieg leveled two main attacks. First, along with the moderators, he pressed Warren to admit that she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her Medicare-for-All plan.

Employers would also be mandated to provide health insurance under the bill, and the cost of health insurance That's on top of the existing 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare , creating a new These eye - popping numbers, of course, don't include state and local taxes, which

Looking online for the lowest cost eye test? Wondering why Medicare covers the cost in some optometry practices and not others? Read on for a full explanation.

How big a lift is it to raise $32 trillion? It’s almost 50 percent more than the total revenue the CBO projects Washington will collect from the personal income tax over the next decade (about $23.3 trillion). It’s more than double the amount the CBO projects Washington will collect over the next decade from the payroll tax that funds Social Security and part of Medicare (about $15.4 trillion). A $32 trillion tax increase would represent just over two-thirds of the revenue the CBO projects the federal government will collect from all sources over the next decade (just over $46 trillion.)

Taxes that can fill that big of a hole are not easy to identify. Even by Warren’s own estimates, which some liberal economists consider too optimistic, her proposed wealth tax on personal fortunes exceeding $50 million would raise just $2.75 trillion over the next decade. That’s less than what would be required to fund a single-payer plan for one year. In any case, Warren has already targeted that revenue for other proposals she’s issued, such as providing universal preschool and child care, and canceling most college debt while funding tuition-free public higher education. Repealing the tax cuts for businesses and individuals that President Donald Trump and the GOP Congress passed in late 2017 would similarly raise about $2 trillion in federal revenue over the next decade.

Elizabeth Warren's campaign says it's reviewing "other revenue options" for Medicare for All

  Elizabeth Warren's campaign says it's reviewing Elizabeth Warren's campaign said on Wednesday that it is studying a range of options for paying for "Medicare for All," leaving open the possibility that the presidential candidate may ultimately diverge from Sen. Bernie Sanders on how his sweeping health care plan -- which Warren has endorsed -- would be paid for. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); "She's reviewing the revenue options suggested by the 2016 Bernie campaign along with other revenue options.

The Cost of Medicare . If you or your spouse paid Medicare taxes while employed, there is typically no additional monthly premium for Medicare Part A. If you accrue hospital expenses, you are responsible for paying up to your annual deductible, plus any additional costs depending on length of

Discover if your Medicare coverage can help lower your cataract surgery costs . These lens of your eye is made up of water and proteins, and under normal circumstances, the proteins are arranged in such a way that light passes through the lens uninhibited.

Other tax options would likewise make a relatively minor dent. For instance, some Democrats have proposed for years to eliminate the current cap on the payroll tax — which stops taxing income above about $133,000—and instead impose the tax on all income above a higher threshold, such as $250,000. The CBO recently estimated that such a plan would raise about $1.2 trillion over the next decade, again a small share of single payer’s cost. Besides, Warren has already proposed such a tax hike and earmarked the money to increase Social Security benefits.

Burman told me that the broad-based income-tax increases that Sanders has discussed using to fund single payer — including raising the top income-tax rate past 50 percent and ending reduced taxation for capital gains—would likely cover about half of the proposal’s cost. If Warren or Sanders tried to cover the other half with a value-added tax — a sort of national sales tax that many European nations use to fund their social safety net—the rate would likely need to be set at about 25 percent, he estimated. “All of the things Sanders proposed plus a high VAT by European standards might get you there,” Burman said.

Alternatively, some advocates have discussed raising the payroll tax to fund a single-payer plan. Currently, the payroll tax is set at 15.3 percent of earnings, with the cost split between employees and employers. Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, now the president of the center-right think tank the American Action Forum, told me that level would need to substantially rise to fund a single-payer plan. He said, in a “ballpark” estimate, that Sanders’s plan “would require [a] payroll-tax hike of 20 to 25 percentage points.”

Warren says she will soon release plan to fund 'Medicare for All'

  Warren says she will soon release plan to fund 'Medicare for All' The Democratic presidential candidate has come under fire from 2020 rivals for declining to get into specifics about how she'll pay for her plan."What I see though is that we need to talk about the cost and I plan over the next few weeks to put out a plan that talks about, specifically, the cost of Medicare for All and specifically how we pay for it," the Massachusetts senator said during a campaign stop in Indianola, Iowa.

You pay an additional cost for upgraded frames. Medicare Part B will cover certain diagnostic tests and treatment of diseases and conditions of the eye , which include treatment with certain injected Medicare covers polishing and of the artificial eye , and typically covers replacement every five years.

CNBC: Drug Price Shock: Feds Reveal How Medication Costs Hit Medicare And Medicaid New data on drug spending by the nation's two biggest health-coverage programs released Monday shows eye - popping price hikes for a number of medications, as well as steep overall costs for several drugs.

Whatever alternative Warren or Sanders select, a single-payer plan would require increasing federal revenue at a rate not seen in 70-odd years, both Burman and Holtz-Eakin told me. Measured as a share of the economy, total federal receipts tripled during World War II, rising from almost 7 percent to nearly 21 percent of the gross domestic product from 1940 to 1945, according to federal figures. Since then, federal revenue, compared with the broader economy, has generally oscillated within a fairly narrow range. The most it’s increased in a single decade is about 10 percent, during the 1950s, 1960s, 1990s, and in the past decade. (Revenue has increased despite the massive Trump tax cuts because the Great Recession vastly reduced federal revenues and created an unusually low starting point.)

Though federal revenue today still starts at a low level by historic standards (16.6 percent), providing more potential flexibility to raise taxes, the cost of a single-payer plan would swamp any such advantage. By 2029, with the added cost of single payer factored in, federal revenue would increase to close to 30 percent of the total economy. That would mean federal revenue would increase as a share of the economy by about three-fourths over a decade, far more rapidly than in any other 10-year period since World War II. It would also mean that federal revenue would considerably exceed the share of the economy it consumed even during World War II, when it reached 20.5 percent in 1944, a level unmatched since.

[Read: The question Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want to answer]

The central response from Warren and Sanders to concerns about their health plans’ cost has been to tout the overall savings for Americans, and the Urban Institute analysis suggests that for lower- and middle-income families, that’s possible. The study projects that households will save nearly $887 billion in annual costs and employers another $955 billion, some of which could revert to workers in the form of higher wages.

Elizabeth Warren Says She Will Release a Plan to Finance ‘Medicare for All’

  Elizabeth Warren Says She Will Release a Plan to Finance ‘Medicare for All’ INDIANOLA, Iowa — Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said on Sunday that she would release a plan to finance “Medicare for all” in the coming weeks, bowing to critics who have pressed her to explain how she would pay for a single-payer health care system. Ms. Warren has become known for her towering stack of policy plans, having offered dozens of proposals on a wide variety of subjects. But on health care, she has not been similarly forthcoming, and her repeated refusal to say whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to help finance Medicare for all has drawn sharp criticism from some of her Democratic presidential rivals.

Costs for Medicare drug coverage. How Part D works with other insurance. Didn’t find what you’re looking for? Use this list if you’re a person with Medicare , family member or caregiver. Medicare coverage for many tests, items and services depends on where you live.

Though that’s much less than the new taxes required for the plan, the organization says that lower- and middle-income families might still come out ahead. “Higher-income people will likely face the greatest increases in taxes, meaning their new tax burdens would likely exceed their savings; the reverse is likely true for lower-income populations,” the report concludes. (Among other dissenters, that conclusion is disputed by Kenneth Thorpe, a leading health economist at Emory University and a former assistant secretary in Clinton’s Health and Human Services department. In a study Biden cited at last night’s debate, Thorpe calculated that, under single payer, 71 percent of households with private insurance today — almost 70 million households in all — “would pay more in new taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing.”)

The debate over savings is impossible to resolve so long as Warren refuses to offer any indication of what revenue she would raise to fund her plan. On CNN this morning, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg lashed her for dodging the question. “I have a lot of respect for Senator Warren, but last night she was more specific and forthcoming about the number of selfies she’s taken than about how this plan is going to be funded,” he said.

What is clear now is that the Sanders version of single payer — which Warren at the debate called the “gold standard” of health-care proposals — would cost far more than any other alternative. The new analysis found that plans similar to the one Biden, Buttigieg, and other candidates have proposed — centered on expanding a public option to compete with private insurance companies—would achieve nearly universal coverage at a cost of roughly $122 billion to $162 billion annually, depending on exactly how they are designed. Even what the analysts called a single-payer plan “lite”—requiring some co-pays and offering somewhat less generous benefits, without covering undocumented immigrants — would cost about $1.5 trillion annually, about half as much as the Sanders and Warren proposal.

Such comparisons are certain to compound the anxieties that many Democratic health-care experts feel about trying to defend in the general election a single-payer plan that would eliminate private health insurance and require such a large increase in federal spending.

“Many countries do not wrest the entire burden of every single person’s health care into the federal government,” says Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress and a former health-policy adviser to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. “I think there are big questions about the United States moving from the most conservative health-care system to the most leftward government-run health-care system.

“There are positives and negatives to any of these options,” Tanden adds. “But one issue in a country that has more anxiety about the government’s role in people’s lives is whether it is feasible, or even sustainable over the long term, to have the federal government [grow so much] in size because the entire system of health care would be run through the government.”

Elizabeth Warren Says She Will Release a Plan to Finance ‘Medicare for All’ .
INDIANOLA, Iowa — Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said on Sunday that she would release a plan to finance “Medicare for all” in the coming weeks, bowing to critics who have pressed her to explain how she would pay for a single-payer health care system. Ms. Warren has become known for her towering stack of policy plans, having offered dozens of proposals on a wide variety of subjects. But on health care, she has not been similarly forthcoming, and her repeated refusal to say whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to help finance Medicare for all has drawn sharp criticism from some of her Democratic presidential rivals.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 4
This is interesting!