fbpx

The Next Recession Will Be The Last!

The Deep State Is Preparing Their CHECKMATE Move
You Must Be Ready To Go On The Attack!
DOWNLOAD THE ULTIMATE RESET GUIDE NOW!

Medicare For All Study: 2/3 of Households Would Be Worse Off

Mac Slavo
November 20th, 2019
SHTFplan.com
Comments (14)

If Democrats get their way and jack up taxes to attempt to cover a “Medicare for All” plan, not only would jobs be lost, but 2/3 of American households would be worse off. A majority of households would end up worse off financially with less disposable income.

That’s bad news for an economy that’s holding on by the thin thread of consumer spending. The study is an interesting exercise, but it’s not hard to anticipate the response from the Left.

Liberals’ preferred Medicare for All estimates tend to assume that a single-payer system could pay doctors and hospitals a lot less than private insurers do and that you could get a long way toward funding Medicare for All by socking it to the rich. Heritage made some key assumptions cutting in the opposite direction, though Heritage’s assumptions are a good bit more plausible than the lefties’ are.

The study assumes no payment cuts for medical providers at all.-National Review

The study was conducted by the Heritage Foundation and the results could impoverish the majority of Americans and widen the “wealth gap” liberals constantly complain about (while pushing policies that only make it worse).

In general, the study mainly drives home that the expected results of Medicare for All depend mainly on one’s subjective assumptions about how payments would work out and which taxes could plausibly raise that much money. It’s an enormous change from the status quo, and its effects are difficult to predict in an empirical, non-ideological manner. No matter how it worked out, it would require someone to pay a boatload in new taxes, though, which would leave a majority of households worse off than they were before.

Those increases in taxes too will, in turn, reek havoc on the overall economy. Even a hike in the corporate tax rate will have the net result of lost jobs and not just a few – 413,000 of them. Studies also show that Joe Biden’s plan would decrease the United States’ GDP by one percent. For a country barely hanging on economically, this could prove disastrous.

 

 

President Trump is Breaking Down the Neck of the Federal Reserve!

He wants zero rates and QE4!

You must prepare for the financial reset

We are running out of time

Download the Ultimate Reset Guide Now!

The Finger is on the Nuke Button | Future Money Trends

Author: Mac Slavo
Views:
Date: November 20th, 2019
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

CBD Oils, Isolates, Supplements And Information

14 Comments...

Vote: Click here to vote for SHTF Plan as a Top Prepper Web Site
  1. cranerigger says:

    The “study” source, Heritage Foundation, has CLEAR THINKERS with analysis that can be trusted. The subversives, DEMONRATS, cannot stand the free speech that allows this analysis. Electing fools, DEMONRATS, to manage the taxpayer’s money will lead to the nation’s ruin. Once you kill the Golden Goose, it takes a long time to raise a gosling to “fiscal” maturity.

  2. Don Carter says:

    Make healthcare NONPROFIT again. This is why medical care costs shot up. Corporations buy Hospitals on CREDIT and have to pay interest and make fat profits.
    https://thecriticalaye.com/2011/08/31/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-thanks-president-nixon/
    by IWB · Published March 16, 2017 · Updated March 20, 2017
    Is the health insurance business a racket? Yes, literally. And this is why the shameless pandering to robber baron corporations posing as “health providers” is such an egregious … and obvious … tactic to do nothing more than plump up insurance company profits.
    And do you know who’s to blame? Believe it or not, the downfall of the American health insurance system falls squarely on the shoulders of former President Richard M. Nixon.
    In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 … *gasp* … why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! What are the odds? It’s all right here to read for yourself.

  3. Jojo says:

    You quote the Heritage Foundation on M4A? Seriously? Heritage is a right-leaning, undependable, Republican mouthpiece.

    Right now, the current healthcare/insurance system is consuming 18% of GDP annually, while leaving 10’s of millions un/under insured. Hospitals are increasingly suing patients who can’t pay them and forcing people into bankruptcy! And you ignore all this and instead try to turn M4A inot a stupid left vs. right issue.

    There are many possible implementations of M4A. It’s a shame that you lack the IQ & understanding to comment on this issue but yet get to write a blog where the content comes out of your arse. Ain’t the USA great?

  4. Jojo says:

    You probably hate Robert Reich but you could learn something about M4A proposals by reading this column.

    Robert Reich
    Tuesday, November 19, 2019

    Republicans and even some Democrats are out to scare you about Medicare for All. They say it’s going to dismantle health care as we know it and it will cost way too much.

    Rubbish.

    The typical American family now spends $6,000 on health insurance premiums each year. Add in the co-payments and deductibles that doctors, hospitals, and drug companies also charge you — plus typical out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals – and that typical family’s health bill is $6,800.

    But that’s not all, because some of the taxes you now pay are for health insurance, too — for Medicare and Medicaid and for the Affordable Care Act. So let’s add them in, again for the typical American household. That comes to a whopping $8,975 a year. Oh, and this number is expected to rise in the coming years.

    Not a pretty picture. If you’re a typical American, you’re already paying far more for health insurance than people in any other advanced country.

    And you’re not getting your money’s worth. The United States ranks near the bottom for life span and infant mortality. Or maybe you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance coverage at all.

    You see, a big reason we pay so much for health insurance is the administrative costs involved in private for-profit insurance. About a third of what you pay goes to the people who oversee billing and collections. And then of course there are the marketing and advertising expenses, and the profits that go to shareholders or private-equity managers.

    What happens if we have Medicare for All?

    Let’s first consider a limited version that keeps private insurance — as proposed by candidates including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. The insurance costs remain the same because it’s the same private insurers and the same co-payments and deductibles. The only difference is more of this would be paid through your taxes, rather than by you directly, because the government would reimburse the insurance companies.

    This could help bring down costs by giving the government more bargaining leverage to get better prices. But we don’t know yet how much.

    Now, let’s talk about a different version of Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit health insurance, as proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In this version, total costs — including a possible combination of premiums, co-payments, deductibles, or taxes — are even lower. This option is far cheaper because it doesn’t have all those administrative expenses. It’s public insurance that reimburses hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies directly and eliminates the bloat of private insurance companies.

    Economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst say Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit insurance would reduce costs by about 10 percent, mostly from lower administrative and drug costs. The Urban Institute estimates that households and businesses would save about $21.9 trillion over ten years, and state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion.

    You’d pay for it through a combination of premiums, fees, and taxes, but your overall costs would go way down. So you’d come out ahead. And everyone would be covered.

    You’d keep your same doctor or other health-care provider. And you could still buy private insurance to supplement Medicare for All, just like some people currently buy private insurance to supplement Medicare and Social Security. The only thing that’s changed is you no longer pay the private for-profit corporate insurers.

    Any Medicare for All is better than our present system, but this second version is far better because — like Medicare and Social Security — it’s based on the simple and proven idea that we shouldn’t be paying private for-profit corporate insurers boatloads of money to get the insurance we need.

    It’s time for true Medicare for All.

    Robert Reich
    Tuesday, November 19, 2019

    Republicans and even some Democrats are out to scare you about Medicare for All. They say it’s going to dismantle health care as we know it and it will cost way too much.

    Rubbish.

    The typical American family now spends $6,000 on health insurance premiums each year. Add in the co-payments and deductibles that doctors, hospitals, and drug companies also charge you — plus typical out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals – and that typical family’s health bill is $6,800.

    But that’s not all, because some of the taxes you now pay are for health insurance, too — for Medicare and Medicaid and for the Affordable Care Act. So let’s add them in, again for the typical American household. That comes to a whopping $8,975 a year. Oh, and this number is expected to rise in the coming years.

    Not a pretty picture. If you’re a typical American, you’re already paying far more for health insurance than people in any other advanced country.

    And you’re not getting your money’s worth. The United States ranks near the bottom for life span and infant mortality. Or maybe you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance coverage at all.

    You see, a big reason we pay so much for health insurance is the administrative costs involved in private for-profit insurance. About a third of what you pay goes to the people who oversee billing and collections. And then of course there are the marketing and advertising expenses, and the profits that go to shareholders or private-equity managers.

    What happens if we have Medicare for All?

    Let’s first consider a limited version that keeps private insurance — as proposed by candidates including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. The insurance costs remain the same because it’s the same private insurers and the same co-payments and deductibles. The only difference is more of this would be paid through your taxes, rather than by you directly, because the government would reimburse the insurance companies.

    This could help bring down costs by giving the government more bargaining leverage to get better prices. But we don’t know yet how much.

    Now, let’s talk about a different version of Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit health insurance, as proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In this version, total costs — including a possible combination of premiums, co-payments, deductibles, or taxes — are even lower. This option is far cheaper because it doesn’t have all those administrative expenses. It’s public insurance that reimburses hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies directly and eliminates the bloat of private insurance companies.

    Economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst say Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit insurance would reduce costs by about 10 percent, mostly from lower administrative and drug costs. The Urban Institute estimates that households and businesses would save about $21.9 trillion over ten years, and state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion.

    You’d pay for it through a combination of premiums, fees, and taxes, but your overall costs would go way down. So you’d come out ahead. And everyone would be covered.

    You’d keep your same doctor or other health-care provider. And you could still buy private insurance to supplement Medicare for All, just like some people currently buy private insurance to supplement Medicare and Social Security. The only thing that’s changed is you no longer pay the private for-profit corporate insurers.

    Any Medicare for All is better than our present system, but this second version is far better because — like Medicare and Social Security — it’s based on the simple and proven idea that we shouldn’t be paying private for-profit corporate insurers boatloads of money to get the insurance we need.

    It’s time for true Medicare for All.

    https://robertreich.org/post/189169885180

    • my opinion as welll. says:

      slavo…are you a sell-out? Heritage Foundation??? Really….

      you have been demoted to pleb

    • Hard rock says:

      You are nuts!!!! medcare For all would destroy the economy and the country in a week, if it took that long? Companies would close and startup overseas! The unemployed would be mind blowing? What a idiot 😂😂😂

    • Richard says:

      As a college trained computer systems analyst and a college trained physician, Robert above has little knowledge of the problem. He is correct on middlemen. When ever middle men get into a business, the price always goes up and the end user always pays more.
      Warren claims that the cost would be 3.56 trillion dollars.
      First of all, let us look at the health care systems we have today
      Military: Navy, Air Force, Army, and Coast Guard, the Marines use the Navy.
      Indian health system, paid by Federal Govt.
      Veterans Health paid by Federal Govt
      Public Health paid by Federal Govt
      Medicare is paid by the Federal Govt
      The States pay for medicaid, the feds put in some money.
      The private third party payers
      And the pay it yourself.
      The administrators of the Military health systems say they pay 50 billion dollars per year and they take care of 10 million people.
      We need to look at this. If one extrapolates this out to the 350 million US citizens, this would come out to 1.5 Trillion dollars per year for the whole population. That is if the Miilitary health care administrators were in charge.
      Lets say legislation was passed for two health care systems, one govt run system with the Military health care admiistrators in charge, because they have provem then selves to be efficient and cost effective.
      For the Govt system, Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, VA, Indian Health, Public Health, all of the govt money that goes into these systems, is given to the military health care administrators. And they take the existing infrastructure and make it work. At one time, there was a military base within an hours drive of well over 95 percent of the US Population. Some of the bases have been shut down, The Military could re open them and be given a full time peace time mission, the Military needs a full time peace time mission. The Indian Health service has been a disaster for a long time. IHS is given government dollars, they have a tribal board of which individuals are voted in due to their popularity and then they under pay the professionals to make up for their poor decision making.
      I suspect that including all of those systems and the States Medicaid dollars would get to 1.5 trillion.
      I believe that putting the Military Hospital Administrators in charge of the govt Medicare for all Program would work and be cost effective.
      The second system is a private, no govt involvement system, and the private system is on its own. It makes up its own rules and accepts payment by its own rules.
      Health care would have to accept being defined, in terms of the Foresighted Practice Guideline Model (FPG Model) which defines health care in terms of Interview information, Exam Information, Diagnostic Information, testing, procedures, forms, and on and on, and put into a data bank so that the quality of care can be defined. And there can be different levels of quality. While the govt health system may use ace wraps for sprains, the private system may use stirrup splints.
      The FPG model allows for definition of acceptable medications, soft goods, consults, and on and on.
      This idea would also allow for the private system to use integrative health care approaches of which now, are frowned upon, because of lack of knowledge and understanding.
      Outcomes research will be an important aspect for both systems, so that the users of the systems and the physiciasns and nurses can see if what they are doing is getting patients cures, or at least maintaince for an extended period of time.

  5. Anonymous says:

    slavo…are you a tool? Really….quoting the Heritage FOundation? That’s laughable.

    See comment above on WHY it might work.

    I guess this site has sold out to the dark side as well.

  6. Anonymous says:

    That’s wreak havoc, not reek.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Correction, not 2/3s would be worse off, everyone would be worse off. Evidently some don’t understand with “medicare for all”, all would have a
    Washington bureaucrat you never heard of deciding for you:
    which Dr. you can see and when
    which procedures you are entitled to
    Which prescriptions you will be allowed to have
    AND, you will have no recourse for any reason, or choice or decision making about your health care. Knowing how efficient and prompt the Gov. is, what could go wrong?

  8. BuelahMan says:

    Thanks to the baby eaters like the folks at the Heritage Foundation, another bald faced lie is told without a whimper.

    If you removed the $1700/month premiums (from 2013 numbers, which have gone up since) from my bottom line and added a whopping 10% tax, I’m better off financially.

    Same for virtually everyone EXCEPT the money grabbers.

    I seriously doubt anyone commenting here is a money grabber. But if you are, shame on you, you sick asshole.

  9. Eyes of Horus says:

    The main problem with getting (let’s call it as it is) socialized medicine in the U.S. is that seems everyone wants to create something new. No one seems to be looking at what is already working and modeling after that. The best medical care in the world is in France. Look at how it is set up and apply it to the U.S. I remember when I was growing up the adults were lamenting how the cost of healthcare kept going up. Often I heard, “Sooner or later we’re going to have to go to socialized medicine.” No one thought that was a bad idea. But today socialized medicine is seen as a major step to Socialism and then Communism. It has nothing to do with either but with getting real healthcare to the citizens. Why waste so much time arguing over politics while people are dying because they can’t be taken care of. The WHO says that the healthcare in the U.S. is 37th out of 50 developed countries. The Starfield Report (JAMA 2000) had shown that more than 250,000 people die from iatrogenic causes and there’s an opioid crisis in the U.S. quit arguing and do something. Look at what works and apply it.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Commenting Policy:

Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn't immediately available. We're not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you're not a robot posting random spam.

This web site thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.