|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st November 2019, 06:19 AM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
Elizabeth Warren's 52 Trillion dollar health plan
|
1st November 2019, 06:28 AM | #2 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
Oooh, such scary numbers. And you say it'll still cost less than the current system, while covering the entire population? Is that supposed to sound like a bad deal?
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
1st November 2019, 07:12 AM | #3 |
Papa Funkosophy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,263
|
|
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe. |
|
1st November 2019, 07:17 AM | #4 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
1st November 2019, 07:25 AM | #5 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,718
|
|
1st November 2019, 07:30 AM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,770
|
|
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure. |
|
1st November 2019, 08:36 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 39,057
|
|
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
1st November 2019, 08:44 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
It probably costs more than she estimates, though. Vox had a good piece this morning comparing her estimates to the Urban Institute. Obviously each individual assumption is justifiable. She is smart and has a very smart team. But probably not a good sign when your five assumptions are all more optimistic just to reach your target.
|
1st November 2019, 08:52 AM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,706
|
|
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann |
|
1st November 2019, 08:52 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
1st November 2019, 09:32 AM | #11 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,011
|
I guess it's not possible since her claim is 'no middle class tax increase' but I'd be more interested in what the back up funding plan is when inevitably her projected funding sources run lower than what is needed. No matter how well planned, this will be a messy transition. There will be shortfalls in funding and borrowing to cover.
I just don't believe any Medicare-for-all plan that doesn't include tax hikes for the middle class. And they should still be able to sell it with that eventuality. |
1st November 2019, 10:04 AM | #12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
Although I'm firmly convinced that single payer is the best option, I'm skeptical of the claim of no middle class tax increase, and cynical enough about politicians in general to think that the real plan is to get it passed, and push for the tax increases later (maybe in her second term, if any) as deficits mount. Even with a tax increase, increased taxes should be offset by reduced out-of-pocket costs for health insurance, co-pays, deductibles, etc.
I still think Warren's or Sanders' single payer or "medicare for all" is ultimately better than Biden's plan of "Make the ACA work", as I strongly suspect that the latter option is impossible. |
1st November 2019, 10:11 AM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
It's also going to deprive insurance companies of huge revenue stream, and likely reduce revenue for doctors and hospitals as well, so expect a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that the government's going to kill Grandma, while "destroying the best healthcare system in the world" (unless you can't afford insurance, or can't get it at all due to a pre-existing condition or whatever).
|
1st November 2019, 10:13 AM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
|
1st November 2019, 12:11 PM | #15 |
Seasonally Disaffected
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,314
|
Between me and my employer, we pay somewhere around $8000 / year for my health insurance premiums. Plus I have several thousand in deductible and additional in co-pays. If all that went to Medicare for all, I have no change in overall costs and a bunch of other people also get coverage. Not a bad deal.
|
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder. "It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels I hate bigots. |
|
1st November 2019, 12:20 PM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,770
|
My SO's employer pays nearly $14000 per year for hers- and she still has copays and deductibles (albeit low ones- her plan is a good one)
"Policies" available to me cost in excess of $6000 per year, with copays and deductibles that are laughable. It would take some pretty serious ineptitude ,IMO, to not be able to run the healthcare system better than "we" already do. |
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure. |
|
1st November 2019, 12:22 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 6,332
|
|
1st November 2019, 12:23 PM | #18 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
CMS.gov
2018:
Quote:
52 trillion over a decade is a BS number since it predicts increased costs and that is uncertain data. In addition, that 3.5 trillion from last year would be growing every year as well. |
1st November 2019, 12:24 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 39,057
|
I don't know that that's true. Insurance companies LOVE Medicare. The government takes on most of the risk and they get to sell supplementals and Medicare Advantage plans. I'd expect many employers will provide supplementals as a benefit to employees.
What really concerns me is that a new Democratic President will push for a health plan too rapidly. That happened in 1993 and 2009 and resulted in the disastrous elections of 1994 and 2010; handing the government over to the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell. I see no sign that the party has learned from those mistakes. |
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
1st November 2019, 12:31 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
The key problem with Warren's plan is that it would require people to give up what they have now in exchange for an unknown. The plan proposed by Klobuchar, Buttigieg and others is basically "Medicare for All Who Want It." If you don't have or don't like your employee or other private plan, you could buy into an expanded Medicare, which is already well-established and familiar. Over time, more and more people might go that way. Employers might decide to get out of the insurance business and just subsidize their employees to join Medicare. We might move to single-payer over time. But it wouldn't be an abrupt, "stop that, start this" transition that would disrupt a major part of the entire economy and doubtless leave some people worse off.
|
1st November 2019, 12:33 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
|
|
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015 |
|
1st November 2019, 12:46 PM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,770
|
My SO does not pay for her insurance out-of-pocket, it is employer provided.
I am currently un-insured. I had a policy with Aetna that I paid for out of pocket up until the end of last year when they- as their letter read- "no longer offered individual policies in my area". The policy was not all that great, costing over $500 per month. And Aetna had replaced it many times over the years that I had it with a new plan (each time accompanied by a letter telling me that the one I had was "no longer being offered"). When I went looking at the beginning of the year, what I found that was calling itself "insurance" was- as far as I can discern- little better than a scam. The "policies" cost so much that they negate my ability to come up with the deductible when needed, so the things that are recommended by my doctor (on the partially covered visits), like Colonoscopies, would only be affordable if I were not paying for the "insurance" Sorry. Rant. On the plus side, If I have a stroke, you all can pay for my E.R. visit. Thanks in advance! |
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure. |
|
1st November 2019, 01:03 PM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
Did you shop on the exchange? Going uninsured is not a great idea. Even if the high deductibles would discourage you from getting routine care, you would be protected from financial catastrophe if you develop a health catastrophe. Those deductibles would start to look trivial if you develop cancer or get run over by a bus. (Forgive the sermon.)
ETA: Plugging in a downtown Philadelphia zip code, exchange plans start around $350 a month with a $6,000 deductible, before subsidies. https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/#/household |
1st November 2019, 01:36 PM | #24 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,745
|
I believe that this is a perspective fail.
If health care continued to increase by 4% every year for the next 10 years it would increase from 3.5 Tril to 5.18 Tril. That increase over a 10 year period would total 1.68 Tril. Adding a total of 52 Tril spread out over the next 10 years is a very big deal. An almost 31 times big deal, or 3100% if you prefer that metric. |
1st November 2019, 02:26 PM | #25 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
|
From first impressions, it seems like an American twist on single payer. The way I see it, there are two options.
A) Pay by taxing everyone. Everyone pays some, but overall pay less. Companies no longer have to deal with paying for healthcare for their employees. One criticism I've seen of this is that there is no guarantee that companies will pass on their savings in not paying premiums to workers in the form of increased wages. B) Use taxation to keep costs on employers, and additionally have a stricter progressive tax for the highest earners. No tax increase on the "middle class", but companies still have to deal with paying for healthcare, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Also, the rich are quite good at dodging taxes. People, like Bernie, are usually suggesting A. Warren's plan B fits the "no middle class tax raise" talking point without trying to explain tax vs total cost, but it keeps our traditional American system of the cost burden, which is IMO generally less effective. I didn't see mention of it, but I think part of the problem in the US is doctor pay. There's a weird spiral where doctors have to take extreme amounts of debt, and the AMA restricts the number of doctors trained to keep salaries extremely high, and doctors shift to specialty and leave GP so now we have NPs trying to fill the gap, that I think needs to be addressed. And staff shortages leads to overworking and burnout which leads to staff shortages and so on. |
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
1st November 2019, 02:39 PM | #26 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
|
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin! |
|
1st November 2019, 02:46 PM | #27 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
1st November 2019, 03:37 PM | #28 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
|
|
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
1st November 2019, 05:07 PM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Nah, that would just be embarrassing when the 'metric' shows that it is working. Better to sabotage it at every opportunity, then complain that it's not working!
And besides, we know it won't work - because a Democrat proposed it. No need to look any closer...
Originally Posted by Venom
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
1st November 2019, 05:12 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
I think you misread the article in the OP. Warren's plan estimated cost would be just under $52 Trillion over 10 years, it wouldn't add $52 Trillion to the current costs. In fact it stated that the current system would be more expensive coming out at just over $52 Trillion.
This means that the current system would be more expensive and serve less people. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
1st November 2019, 05:30 PM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
This is a "we're not ready for it" fail. Let a candidate who advocates for "keep your private insurance but here's Medicare if you need it" proceed and let people gradually conclude Medicare for all is better. Maybe we will adopt a system like most of Western Europe. Just don't risk four more years of Trump over it.
|
__________________
Ashley Babbit was a good start. |
|
1st November 2019, 06:15 PM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
1st November 2019, 06:25 PM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
|
Splain the math: Currently Medicare covers about 1/3 of the population. Warren is going to cover 3 times as many people for the same cost? I call Pie-in-the-sky.
|
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept. |
|
1st November 2019, 06:25 PM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
But not cost. It still has the inefficiency of private insurance. If it is actually popular it will have to cost more than single payer because of this inefficiency and need to cover almost as many people. If it doesn't have to cover almost as many people, then it's because it isn't actually better. Either it works and a ton of people use it, costing money, or it doesn't and then what did you even accomplish?
There is something to be said for just pulling the bandaid. The other also risks becoming an inefficient mess that stays for decades like subsidized flood insurance. In that state, the GOP can beat the Dems over the head with how much it 'proves' government can't work while the Dems have to try to keep it afloat because the Dems aren't immoral asshats who don't care if people die. As an entitlement the GOP can still try to sabotage it, but then it costs them politically like when they keep trying to break social security and Obamacare. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
1st November 2019, 06:30 PM | #35 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
Seems like a political ploy to get elected, and retreat to the more sensible tax-the-middle-class-but-they're-better-off approach after the office is in hand.
The proposal seems to include an increase of her proposed wealth tax to... 6%! I'm very open to a wealth tax, but this is an absurdly high number. |
1st November 2019, 06:37 PM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
1st November 2019, 06:41 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
At least Warren has a plan which is more than can be said of the Republicans. Remember when it was going to be fantastic and cheaper and so easy? Here we are 3.5 years later and they still haven't produced a plan. Quelle surprise.
|
1st November 2019, 06:47 PM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,718
|
With medicare for all, the government would have much more power to set prices. No more 10x increases in medicine price just to give the shareholders a better dividend. No more getting sent to a specialist who charges crazy amounts to look at an X-ray. This would cut an enormous amount of profit out of the system. Nobody would go to the poor house, but a few Yachts might not get purchased by CEO's who know nothing about health or medicine anyway.
This would be single payer. They would not be covering everyone for the same as Medicare currently costs. They would be covering everyone at the same overall cost as what Medicare, employer-related health insurance, and uninsured people already pay as a whole - except this way the uninsured and under-insured would get much better care than currently. No more yachts for the CEO of the Health Insurance company any more than the CEO of the hospital company. It's pretty socialist, but our current health system is a cash cow for people who are already wealthy, and we only get poor service in return. We've tried full private enterprise health care and its the worst in the developed world. So then lets try a nice mix, with single payer and government regulation of the costs charged by the private providers. |
1st November 2019, 07:14 PM | #39 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
|
|
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
1st November 2019, 08:54 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices even with the power they have now. If we are offering this Medicare to all, then that same Medicare doesn't have price negotiation.
Unless that is another in the long list of things that are part of Medicare that isn't going to be part of Medicare. Medicare 4 All is the ship of Theseus of Medicare. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|