Thank You, Koch Brothers! (Health Reform)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Robtard
pyC4grL-Uag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyC4grL-Uag

Let me thank the Koch brothers for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion dollars over a ten year period. I suspect that that is not what you intended to do, but that is what is in the study of the Mercatus Center - an organization that you significantly fund. -snip

DarthSkywalker0
Eh, this contradicts a more reputable study conducted by the Urban Institute which anticipates massive costs that would require massive increases in taxes. Nice job providing context Rob.

Robtard
Three things:

1) I posted the link as is for the viewer to decide for themselves

2) You whine and then fail to source your claim

3) Cry more now, kid

ArtificialGlory

snowdragon
Alot of hot air in that video (typical of both sides when it comes to health insurance.)

So when Bernie says there are savings its coming from the total national health expense, not the federal govt specifically.

What's not so sexy and not being disclosed is the decline in pay for people providing services and healthcare.

Surtur
Originally posted by snowdragon
Alot of hot air in that video (typical of both sides when it comes to health insurance.)

So when Bernie says there are savings its coming from the total national health expense, not the federal govt specifically.

What's not so sexy and not being disclosed is the decline in pay for people providing services and healthcare.

Bingo.

Surtur
Being a Socialist Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

"There's only one problem: Nobody asked that first question. This week, Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released a study taking a look at the cost of Sanders' preferred program. The total: $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Over that same period, our total federal spending is projected at $56 trillion -- and we're already racking up debt like there's no tomorrow on that budget. That means that we could double our taxes at every level and still not come close to covering Sanders' program.

Sanders responded to this unfortunate news by attacking the study, blaming the nefarious Koch brothers for sponsoring Blahous' basic math. There's only one problem: The Urban Institute, a left-leaning outlet, estimated the cost at $32 trillion. So this isn't a right-left problem. It's a basic math problem. Sanders doesn't understand basic math."

Wonder Man
Jesus didn't have a bread line He had a crowd of 4000 people and another one of 5000.
See the continuum now.

Surtur
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Jesus didn't have a bread line He had a crowd of 4000 people and another one of 5000.
See the continuum now.

Speaking of Jesus...I just saw a video from Ben Shapiro titled "Jesus is not a socialist".

The only reason he'd make such a video is if imbeciles were trying to say Jesus was a socialist. Lol...makes me laugh.

Emperordmb
I tend to notice people on the left using the Bible to guilt-trip people into voting for left-wing economic and immigration policies.

What strikes me as an important distinction is that Christianity emphasizes self-sacrifice for those in need. The reason why I don't find this an infallible endorsement of left-wing economic and border policy is because it's self-sacrifice that's being called for, not you making the decision to sacrifice what belongs to someone else.

Robtard
Jesus was a totally a socialist and a communist. Get real.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I tend to notice people on the left using the Bible to guilt-trip people into voting for left-wing economic and immigration policies.

What strikes me as an important distinction is that Christianity emphasizes self-sacrifice for those in need. The reason why I don't find this an infallible endorsement of left-wing economic and border policy is because it's self-sacrifice that's being called for, not you making the decision to sacrifice what belongs to someone else.

Indeed. And they need to stop claiming they are educated if they are gonna claim Jesus was a socialist.

Eternal Idol
I would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure healthcare would be guaranteed to all. It's more accessible, affordable, and cost-effective than our current system, which would improve our citizens' overall health and wealth.

It also seems to pass the test as the moral thing to do by most normative and descriptive theories of ethics I can remember.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Alot of hot air in that video (typical of both sides when it comes to health insurance.)

So when Bernie says there are savings its coming from the total national health expense, not the federal govt specifically.

What's not so sexy and not being disclosed is the decline in pay for people providing services and healthcare.

This article is about two years old, but doctors in Canada seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. There was even an increase in doctors around the same time, so their healthcare system doesn't seem to be driving them away from their practice at home.

Average salaries for physicians in Canada



Doctor's fees across Canada

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Jesus didn't have a bread line He had a crowd of 4000 people and another one of 5000.
See the continuum now.

Jesus also handed out Fish.

Thanks Jesus!

Jesus< Bernie.


eek!

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Jesus also handed out Fish.

Thanks Jesus!

Jesus< Bernie.


eek!

Agreed. Jesus is a hype job.

Surtur
Yeah, but at least he didn't have a child bride.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but at least he didn't have a child bride.
Yep, he hung out with adult prostitutes like a normal man.

MythLord
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I tend to notice people on the left using the Bible to guilt-trip people into voting for left-wing economic and immigration policies.
Yeah, they should learn from the Right instead, and use the Bible as a means to threaten homosexuals, pregnant women, rape victims, scientists/evolutionists, atheists and other religions with total damnation.

Surtur
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yep, he hung out with adult prostitutes like a normal man.

Bingo. And all those hookers had hearts of gold. Also a variety of STD's, but hearts of gold too.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by MythLord
Yeah, they should learn from the Right instead, and use the Bible as a means to threaten homosexuals, pregnant women, rape victims, scientists/evolutionists, atheists and other religions with total damnation.
Oh yeah obviously the religious right's not perfect, and you and I have had many discussions on this and you know I believe in universal reconciliation. I mentioned the left specifically because we were discussing economic policy in this thread, and because somebody else brought up the relation between Christianity and economics in this thread.

MythLord
I was making a joke, DMB. Relax, muh friend. I get ya.

Robtard
But it was a factual joke...

Flyattractor
Some how I doubt that.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
. Nice job providing context Rob.
That there's a another study you consider more reputable doesn't mean he's failed to provide context...

Unless his comments on the content of the video ignore context of some sort, this is uncalled for.

Emperordmb
Pleasantly surprised, when I saw you had posted on this thread this wasn't the direction I was expecting.

Eternal Idol
Who here is still against healthcare reform, and why?

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Who here is still against healthcare reform, and why?

Emperordmb

Eternal Idol
The current system is very privatized and very expensive as it is. The latest studies suggest that a universal plan would be more cost-efficient than our current system. With that in mind, why do you think a more privatized system would be better than a universal system?

Robtard
We have to privatize it more because the free market will settle everything and mega corporations like insurance companies will just do the right thing for the people as they always have historically. Duh.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That there's a another study you consider more reputable doesn't mean he's failed to provide context...

Unless his comments on the content of the video ignore context of some sort, this is uncalled for.

He really owes me an apology, imho

Eternal Idol
That's the answer I would expect. I don't think privatizing our healthcare system even further would make it any more cost-efficient. In fact, I could see it getting so much worse after a few major insurance company mergers. Even if they didn't merge, they would all do whatever they could to maximize their profits, which would inevitably result in higher costs and lower quality of care.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of Jesus...I just saw a video from Ben Shapiro titled "Jesus is not a socialist".

The only reason he'd make such a video is if imbeciles were trying to say Jesus was a socialist. Lol...makes me laugh.

Right. Jesus is DEFINITELY not a socialist. He's a Pure Communist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I tend to notice people on the left using the Bible to guilt-trip people into voting for left-wing economic and immigration policies.

What strikes me as an important distinction is that Christianity emphasizes self-sacrifice for those in need. The reason why I don't find this an infallible endorsement of left-wing economic and border policy is because it's self-sacrifice that's being called for, not you making the decision to sacrifice what belongs to someone else.

I've also posted on this topic. That's a Mormon belief, as well. It is better that the gift not be given at all if it was given begrudgingly. If you're forced to do charity at gunpoint or indirect gunpoint (that's how taxes can be viewed), then it is not giving anything. It's being taken. I also have a hard time accepting that forcefully taking taxes from people is okay. But, if the actor wants to participate in society, then they must play by society's rules. Thus, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. Jesus is DEFINITELY not a socialist. He's a Pure Communist.


We 50% agree <3

Originally posted by Robtard
Jesus was a totally a socialist and a communist. Get real.

DarthSkywalker0
Will respond in full, in a wee bit.

BackFire
You should start releasing trailers for your impending replies.

roughrider
The rest of the western world just shakes their head at the USA and wonders why you don't have universal health care like the rest of us. Why unpaid medical bills can still be a leading cause of bankruptcy. The right wingers and those who curse socialism can rationalize all they want, but the rest of us up North and in Europe sleep better knowing we have it.

BackFire
Why spend your money on health care and safety nets for your population when you can spend it on tanks that will sit in a warehouse until they need to be replaced and missiles to more effectively kill Muslim children.

Robtard

snowdragon
Originally posted by roughrider
The rest of the western world just shakes their head at the USA and wonders why you don't have universal health care like the rest of us. Why unpaid medical bills can still be a leading cause of bankruptcy. The right wingers and those who curse socialism can rationalize all they want, but the rest of us up North and in Europe sleep better knowing we have it.

In the USA many times your employers provide health insurance, it's a big headache.




It's funny and true, while many military folks have a low starting wage getting a housing allowance, free healthcare and it has alot of support mechanisms on bases for anything you can think of.

Speaking of a single payer system in the USA part of that cost is already out there with the military health system.

Surtur

Eternal Idol

darthgoober
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Sounds like backpeddling and damage control by the establishment.
How is it backpedaling if the author of the study never said what Sanders said?

Surtur
And this is CNN fact checking them. It's weird. They'd probably have loved to see Bernie burn the Koch Brothers.

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by darthgoober
How is it backpedaling if the author of the study never said what Sanders said?

Initial claim:
"Medicare-for-all would cost x, while the current system costs y. x < y."

Now:
"But there's all sorts of shit that we didn't mention previously that could potentially increase the costs of x, when we should have factored that in for both x and y!"

Originally posted by Surtur
And this is CNN fact checking them. It's weird. They'd probably have loved to see Bernie burn the Koch Brothers.

CNN didn't really do Sanders many favors during the primaries. They focused their airtime propping Clinton, the establishment candidate, for the Democratic presidential nomination, maintaining the status quo.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Initial claim:
"Medicare-for-all would cost x, while the current system costs y. x < y."

Now:
"But there's all sorts of shit that we didn't mention previously that could potentially increase the costs of x, when we should have factored that in for both x and y!"


Are you saying that Sander's statement is correct despite what the author of the study concluded?

dadudemon

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by darthgoober
Are you saying that Sander's statement is correct despite what the author of the study concluded?

No, I'm saying you can't blame Sanders for drawing a conclusion based off their study on the total cost of Medicare-for-all, when they omitted other factors which could potentially affect the total cost.

Surtur
Seems more like Bernie didn't fully understand what was being told.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol


And I think they should get those things. And I think they should be taken care of even better than they already are, too. Tricare needs to go away with medicare being expanded for all.

I'm fine with it too, personally, I think even more of our over-bloated defense budget should be spent directly on our service personal. eg There's really no excuse why we have homeless vets

Just funny how socialist an institution it is, considering some people's views.

Eternal Idol
No time for a super-post featuring my complete thoughts, but here's an op-ed article which pretty much echoes my thoughts on the matter of the Mercatus Center's addendum to their study and CNN's Jake Tapper's misrepresentation of Sander's statements Medicare-for-all plan. As I've said before, I think their study backfired on them, so now they're backpedaling and playing damage control...

...but first, here's Jake Tapper admitting he ****ed up and misrepresented Sander's claims:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1031220290460811264


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

Robtard
Give Tapper credit, at least he can admit when he made an error, unlike some.

Surtur
Jesus these fact checkers can't be trusted either.

These are the same people who saying "Trump lied 3,000 times".

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Give Tapper credit, at least he can admit when he made an error, unlike some.

"Tapper rejected these criticisms initially but as of Sunday afternoon has conceded the video is wrong and promised that it will be corrected soon."

Yeah, at least he can admit he is wrong after he is shown the evidence and initially denies the evidence and then acknowledges it is wrong. What a guy.

Robtard
Yeah, admitting you're wrong when evidence is given and you accept it as truth is the proper thing to do. Weird how you have one standard for the people you dislike and another for the people you love. eg Since you brought up Trump in this thread, he lies constantly and doubles down on the lies when called out, you almost never critique that, but here you are shitting on Tapper for admitting he was wrong.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, admitting you're wrong when evidence is given and you accept it as truth is the proper thing to do. Weird how you have one standard for the people you dislike and another for the people you love. eg Since you brought up Trump in this thread, he lies constantly and doubles down on the lies when called out, you almost never critique that, but here you are shitting on Tapper for admitting he was wrong.

Trump just lets whatever dumb shit floats into his mind fly out of his mouth.

Jake Tapper didn't just randomly do this lol. He made a friggin video about it. Which would have involved research, etc.

Then when called on it he first refused. Then admitted he was wrong.

Robtard
IOW: You'll continue to make excuses for Trump's lies (that's what they are, lies. Period.) and doubling down on said lies, while everyone else is a shitlord, even if they admit they got something wrong.

Moving on.

Surtur
I'm not excusing it. I am saying there is a difference in the magnitude of the lie. Tapper had people looking into this, researching it, and didn't know he was essentially reporting fake news?

That's more alarming to me than Trump tweeting whatever dumb shit comes into his head.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, admitting you're wrong when evidence is given and you accept it as truth is the proper thing to do.

IIRC, CNN has a track-record of doing this. This is not a good thing.


They do something wrong, then say "whoops, we were wrong." When they knew they were wrong the whole time and only admit they are wrong when it is too obvious.


It's like this:

Do dishonest thing x. On purpose. Because political agenda.
Backlash y happens.
y becomes severe. y becomes z.
Admit x was wrong due to z.
Get pats on the back for admitting x was wrong due to z.

Repeat over and over.


After a while, you have to stop saying, "Wow, they are so honest." No, they are even more dishonest than they appear.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, CNN has a track-record of doing this. This is not a good thing.


They do something wrong, then say "whoops, we were wrong." When they knew they were wrong the whole time and only admit they are wrong when it is too obvious.


It's like this:

Do dishonest thing x. On purpose. Because political agenda.
Backlash y happens.
y becomes severe. y becomes z.
Admit x was wrong due to z.
Get pats on the back for admitting x was wrong due to z.

Repeat over and over.


After a while, you have to stop saying, "Wow, they are so honest." No, they are even more dishonest than they appear.

Lol they edited footage of Trump feeding fish for christs sake.

Then there was that whole "make it seem like a woman is calling for peace when she was calling for the riots to be taken to the suburbs" schtick lol.

They are always super sorry...when they get called out. Tragic, just tragic.

DarthSkywalker0
Check capitalism and healthcare for my response to this video.

Surtur
So out of curiosity...did Jake Tapper ever correct the bullshit fake news story he put forth?

Surtur
I cannot find any evidence that Tapper ever corrected this like he claimed he would.

Surtur
N1jZNepTx80

So wow, CNN posted an updated "fact check" of the story. Case closed, right?

Ha no, cuz even after that Jake Tapper couldn't help himself. Bernie Sanders was tweeting out various things about what happened, which all turned out to be facts he got right from the study. Tapper then tweets this:

'Your views on the Mercatus Center study and Medicare for All are your own, senator, but four major fact- checkers agree you're citing the report out of context."

Not only was Bernie not taking it out of context...but the "four major fact checkers" Tapper cites all used the SAME source he did, the author of the study(who by now it is clear was trying to backtrack on what the study showed, so he's shockingly not reliable and Tapper acts like he is)

And Tapper isn't the only one who got this wrong. Fact checkers at the Washington Post also did. Jesus christ lol. Two major media outlet "fact checkers" turned out to be full of shit.

Side note: I find Jimmy Dore can actually be tolerable as long as he's not around TYT.

readyforher
cw: racism, ableism

attempting to use sarcasm marginalizes oppressed groups by trivializing their experiences, and your username is horrible and ableist

Eternal Idol
Originally posted by Surtur
N1jZNepTx80

So wow, CNN posted an updated "fact check" of the story. Case closed, right?

Ha no, cuz even after that Jake Tapper couldn't help himself. Bernie Sanders was tweeting out various things about what happened, which all turned out to be facts he got right from the study. Tapper then tweets this:

'Your views on the Mercatus Center study and Medicare for All are your own, senator, but four major fact- checkers agree you're citing the report out of context."

Not only was Bernie not taking it out of context...but the "four major fact checkers" Tapper cites all used the SAME source he did, the author of the study(who by now it is clear was trying to backtrack on what the study showed, so he's shockingly not reliable and Tapper acts like he is)

And Tapper isn't the only one who got this wrong. Fact checkers at the Washington Post also did. Jesus christ lol. Two major media outlet "fact checkers" turned out to be full of shit.

Side note: I find Jimmy Dore can actually be tolerable as long as he's not around TYT.

Surtur, what is your current opinion of Sanders' Medicare-for-All plan? Has it swayed one way or another after Mercatus Center's backpedaling and damage control became evident?

Surtur
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Surtur, what is your current opinion of Sander's Medicare-for-All plan? Has it swayed one way or another after Mercatus Center's backpedaling and damage control became evident?

I'd be on board with it if it was truly cheaper. So if Bernie is right I would support it.

Robtard
So after three pages of flaming Bernie and shit-posting, now these same people are starting to concede that Bernie seems to have been correct all along.

Well, babysteps is better than no steps.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
So after three pages of flaming Bernie and shit-posting, now these same people are starting to concede that Bernie seems to have been correct all along.

Well, babysteps is better than no steps.

What, lol. I debunked this entire thing on a different thread.

Robtard
Sure, kid.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, kid.

I mean if you have a problem with my response, you are welcome to debunk it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
So after three pages of flaming Bernie and shit-posting, now these same people are starting to concede that Bernie seems to have been correct all along.

Well, babysteps is better than no steps.

It was a good learning lesson: never ever trust CNN again.

Baby steps indeed, I'm glad people are seeing this.

DarthSkywalker0
Surtur, that video is full of shit, lol. Gonna have to debunk it. CNN is right here.

Surtur
Well hey if they are wrong and you can show it, awesome.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
What, lol. I debunked this entire thing on a different thread.

And I agreed/conceded that particular, too. I don't think it is up for debate, really...

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
And I agreed/conceded that particular, too. I don't think it is up for debate, really...

So Bernie WAS wrong?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
So Bernie WAS wrong?

Read DS0's break down and my post reply to him...there's no argument to be had. I gave him a carte blanche agreemnent, pretty much.


I don't know if DS0 plagiarized again but that doesn't mean his point is wrong.

Here is his post and my reply:

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The US healthcare system is superior to any Single Payer system of comparable size.

Costs of Universal Healthcare:

Before diving into the costs of health care, we should at least establish a time horizon for the analysis. Most studies, including the one Sanders, cites on his website use a 10-year gap.

Analyses conducted on the costs of Bernie Sanders healthcare plan:

Friedman: 13.8 trillion(2017-2026)

Thorpe: 24.3 trillion(2017-2026)

Mercatus Center: 27.7 trillion(they refer to this as a conservative estimate, likely more)(2019-2028)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 31 trillion(2017-2026)

Urban Institute(best study): 32 trillion(2017-2026)

It is also worth noting that Sanders only cites Friedman's analysis on his website. Despite, most academics disapproving of it and the lack of peer review. Why is the Friedman report inaccurate?

1. Friedman assumes that that states will continue to pay for Medicare and CHIP after the elimination of those programs.
2. He severely exaggerates savings from Single Payer.
3. Inaccurately assesses additional associated with the removal of cost-sharing.
4. Provider savings are unrealistic.
More on this topic here: http://prospect.org/article/why-sanders%E2%80%99s-single-payer-plan-would-cost-more-his-campaign-says

Due to these facts, we can dismiss Friedman's two-page invoice and focus on the other numbers cited. What is the cause of the discrepancy between Thorpe(off-hand analysis) and the Urban Institute(peer-reviewed published report)? Look at pg.11&12 of the Institute's study for more information: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending/view/full_report

For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs. I also want to address one more detail, before continuing. Bernie Sanders' smug video. The Washington Post, of all people, fact-checked this claim. I will briefly report their findings. Sanders manipulates the principle of charity when thanking the Koch brothers. To quote the Post,



Blahous even notes this in the study, but Sanders ignores that fact. The post concludes,



So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would prefer you delete the "comparable size" qualifier because I don't think anything else out there is of comparable size. Far larger systems exist like China (not single payer). Far smaller systems exist like Singapore's.

In what way is the US Healthcare system superior to any Single Payer or Universal Healthcare systems, out there?




Okay, fair.





Okay, so what about the United States healthcare costs?


1. As a percent of GDP: 18%

Also, no one uses PPP so that's just nominal GDP, I think. But I could not verify.

2. Per Capita: $10,348

3. Healthcare Outcomes in the United States:
We do anywhere from decent to atrocious compared to our peers:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html#

And here's a recent study:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2674671




Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the US is doing very terribly with respect to our spending on healthcare. We should have significantly better outcomes than our peers considering how much more we spend, per capita, right?

DarthSkywalker0
I don't plagiarize, it is actually a little bit annoying that people think that. I do mention the WOPO's article, but the video has some unique points that also warrant some critical analysis.

dadudemon
I decided to do the math based off of a few variables/constants:

1. The above, cited, per capita costs of healthcare: $10,348
2. Each year, the average number of people in the US I set to 320,000,000
3. Average yearly inflation is 3.22%
4. Number of years I set to 10

Since this is not compound interest, each year will get assessed at different interest rate based on the year and each year gets summed after completing that calculation. Going backwards from year 10, these are the numbers:

$4,546,162,399,795
$4,404,342,569,071
$4,266,946,879,549
$4,133,837,317,913
$4,004,880,176,238
$3,879,945,917,688
$3,758,909,046,394
$3,641,647,981,393
$3,528,044,934,502
$3,417,985,792,000



Total: $39,582,703,014,544

(Yes, I forgot the investment formula for this so I did 10 individual calculations and "summed" them...don't judge me).

Meaning that under the current system, it will cost Americans a total of $39 trillion. That's 2019-2028, or 10 years.


That's much more than any of the other numbers that DS0 cited.

So using the most expensive numbers that DS0 cited for us, Bernie's plan using the highest numbers present (Urban Institute), will save Americans $7 Trillion. And my numbers are calculated without taking into consideration how fast medical costs are increasing under current system vs. the cost-control savings that would be realized if the Medicare System was expanded to all Americans. That also does not include the cost savings from the massive reduction in administration costs for existing medical insurance companies.

Likely, the money saved by Americans would be several trillion dollars more than the $7 trillion my rough calculation offers.



Conclusion: Bernie's far-too-liberal proposal (one that I am not on board with because it needs to be scaled back a bit) would save Americans $7 trillion over 10 years, minimum, if all other factors remained EXACTLY the same (they wouldn't).

DarthSkywalker0
I mean the Urban Institute within the study itself says that the plan will not cost 6.6 trillion more than we already spend nationally. People tend to ignore that fact. But the number you provided is not much more than any data point mentioned. Blahous believes if we disregard Sanders' assumption it will cost around 40 trillion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I mean the Urban Institute within the study itself says that the plan will not cost 6.6 trillion more than we already spend nationally. People tend to ignore that fact.

They are wrong. Check my post.

DarthSkywalker0
In the process of more research, but already seems very presumptuous to value your numbers over Mercatus, Urban, and CMS.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
In the process of more research, but already seems very presumptuous to value your numbers over Mercatus, Urban, and CMS.

They fundamentally failed to represent the true costs of healthcare so their numbers were doomed to fail from the beginning.

I accept their estimate of Bernie's costs, that's fine. But I don't have to accept their incorrect numbers of true costs of healthcare, current date, because I found a different source that actually is still a bit low-balled.

You can accept their estimates for Bernie's numbers, no problem. But there are other sources for the true costs, per capita, for healthchare in the US. Whether shared or not, it doesn't matter, for the purposes of this comparison, we only need to calculate the total cost of healthcare over 10 years. And that's what I did.


So if you accept the Urban Institute's estimate for Bernie's healthcare costs, then we can very easily calculate costs for healthcare if the plan is not instituted. We can throw out the Urban Institute's very clearly dishonest attempt to represent true costs of healthcare not under Bernie's plan.


No matter how big the name of the researching organization, you don't have to accept comparison numbers at all. They ran simulations against Bernie's plan. So be it. They didn't readily account for the massive drop in costs under Bernie's plan. So we can already tell that their numbers have at least one significant issue. The fact that they also go the true cost of healthcare way way way wrong is also an issue.


Edit - $39,582,703,014,544 is a low-balled figure because it used average yearly inflation to calculate instead of the much higher rate of increasing medical costs. If you can find the rate at which medical costs are increasing, on average, over the last 20 years, I can come up with a much more accurate number for 10 years. It will be much higher than $39 trillion, I assure you. Healthcare costs have been outpacing inflation for a very long time.


Edit 2 - Found it:



http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/healthcare-prices/


I will redo the numbers, then.

DarthSkywalker0
I didn't just mention the Urban Institute, almost every major organization has a different estimate then you. Also, what makes you say that they failed to represent the true costs. Your own forecast? This is inherently circular logic if that is the case.

DarthSkywalker0
I realized the problem here, the 32 trillion is referring to an increase in federal spending not the total cost of the plan.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I didn't just mention the Urban Institute, almost every major organization has a different estimate then you. Also, what makes you say that they failed to represent the true costs. Your own forecast? This is inherently circular logic if that is the case.


Got it:


$44,226,924,694,684


$44 trillion over the next 10 years.



No, it's not my own circular logic. It's based off the fact that the true costs of healthcare, per capita, in the US, is $10,348.



And my only naughty assumption is the average population of 320,000,000 at all 10 years.

Would you like me to refine my numbers even further? I bet you the average number of people in the US will be greater than 320,000,000 over the next 10 years making the number even larger. smile

DarthSkywalker0
Refer to my latest post. The same applies to the Mercatus number as well.

Robtard
@ddm US population growing at around 3.3million people per year, but that's likely to go up as well with each year

DarthSkywalker0
DDM's number is possibly an understatement it could be almost 47 trillion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Refer to my latest post. The same applies to the Mercatus number as well.


Got it:


$10,915 trillion under current system. Here is the latest 10 year projection to see where I got that number:

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#4

Does 32+11 = 44?

No, but it is only $1 trillion less.


If we adjust my numbers for population based off the same population growth...then we'd have to calculate for each year and sum all 10 years. It would probably be greater than $44.


You suggested $47 trillion. Perhaps. Do we want to do the math? LET'S TRY!!!

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
Got it:


$10,915 trillion under current system. Here is the latest 10 year projection to see where I got that number:

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#4

Does 32+11 = 44?

No, but it is only $1 trillion less.


If we adjust my numbers for population based off the same population growth...then we'd have to calculate for each year and sum all 10 years. It would probably be greater than $44.


You suggested $47 trillion. Perhaps. Do we want to do the math? LET'S TRY!!!

The difference there is the time frame. Again, Blahous suspects it'd be about 40 trillion with the new time frame.

dadudemon
Oh crap!!!! My numbers are way off. US Population was estimated at 325 as of 2017.


Numbers are way way higher.



So already, even just taking the most liberal numbers out there (and there were clear problems with their calculations), Bernie's plan will already save the US trillions over 10 years.


Found the table:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html

330,269
332,639
334,998
337,342
339,665
341,963
344,234
346,481
348,695
350,872



Okay, give me a bit, I'll calculate it.

DarthSkywalker0
Not all of those people are covered. Here is what you can do, these are numbers provided by the CBO regarding national healthcare spending from 2022-2031(billions):
4,562 4,819 5,091 5,370 5,696 6,042 6,410 6,799 7,213 7,651

These are the conservative numbers provided by Blahous

4,244 4,475 4,670 4,915 5,207 5,516 5,844 6,191 6,559 6,950

Add 8 trillion to the sum.

DarthSkywalker0
This is about 3 trillion more the NHE.

dadudemon
Calculated it:

$47,221,815,837

I have to capture all points and redo the formulas in excel. So I can reuse this calculator, later. big grin




So that's how much healthcare will cost Americans over the next 10 years.


Bernie's plan will cost 32+11= $43 trillion and I rounded up.



So Bernie's plan, which I think is too much, still saves us a bit more than $4 trillion.







So there is not a single reason at all to oppose Bernie's plan other than ignorant and stupid partisanship. And I think Bernie's plan goes too far.



Does the Urban Institute calculate the fact that medicare is over-utilized compared to the population average because medical care use increased exponentially after 40. According the the census, 65.6% of the population is 44 or younger:

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf




Has anyone properly represented healthcare costs by proportional healtchare utilization by age?

If not, then every single estimate is automatically way way way over estimated.


And medicare already breaks it down for us:

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2012AgeandGenderHighlights.pdf


If you consider the fact of who can get medicare under the age brackets...the data starts to make less and less sense that these other places are coming up with. The young people who can qualify for medicare are special circumstances. They are extreme over-utilizers, compared to their age peers.




So now the healthcare costs are put into perspective.

DarthSkywalker0
Read my analysis.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Read my analysis.


Already did and discarded your numbers.

Read mine and then stop arguing against Bernie's plan.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
Already did and discarded your numbers.

Read mine and then stop arguing against Bernie's plan.

Why did you discard my numbers? Also, that 47 trillion would cost less then UHC, a lot less...

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Why did you discard my numbers?

Your numbers are grossly overly inflated on purpose because you have a bias. My only purpose was to use the Urban Institute's, the highest figure you presented, previously, from a semi-reputable organization.



Additionally, each number I use is cited.



Bernie's Single Payer idea <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Than the current costs of healthcare.




There is now no justification or reason, at all, to not support Bernie's plan. The only arguments to be had from here are to argue the true costs of Bernie's plan using correctly calculated figures and not the gross mistakes the Urban Institute made.

DarthSkywalker0
I didn't make up my numbers, I used numbers provided by the CBO and the Mercatus Institute. I'd imagine the Mercatus Institute has the same analysis given the fact that they found an increase in NHS.

dadudemon
Costs under the current system if we keep using the same system, 2019-2028:
$47 trillion


Total cost under Bernie Sanders' plan if we use his idea, according to Urban Institute*: $44 trillion


*Multiple flaws in their estimates of Bernie's plan





Conclusion: partisan politics prevents America from improve the system even under the most asinine of restrictions on cost estimates.

Robtard
As a maths wizard, I can tell you with absolute certainty that 47 is greater than 44

BackFire
Originally posted by Robtard
As a maths wizard, I can tell you with absolute certainty that 47 is greater than 44

Agree to disagree.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I didn't make up my numbers, I used numbers provided by the CBO and the Mercatus Institute. I'd imagine the Mercatus Institute has the same analysis given the fact that they found an increase in NHS.


Okay, let's use Mercatus' numbers:

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/federal-fiscal-policy/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system




So we go back to the drawing board and find out the total costs between 2022 and 2031.


So here's how the new numbers come out to from 2022 to 2031:

$7,060,664,460
$6,751,451,949
$6,454,707,288
$6,027,851,137
$5,694,346,263
$5,378,507,718
$5,079,492,808
$4,796,561,118
$4,528,828,171
$4,275,529,856



Total:
$56,047,940,768,320


Compare to Mercatus' numbers:
$32.6 trillion over the same period of time + costs of healthcare of over that same period of time (it is not $11 trillion because the costs are increasing by 6.2%, on average, using the numbers I cited, before). To get the final 3 years, simply multiply each year by 1.062 to get your last 3 years:

$14,448 trillion


Now add:
$47.048 trillion


Compare:

Is $56,047,940,768,320 (actual costs of healtchare 2022-2031>$47,048,000,000.000 (estimated costs to use Bernie's plan)

Yes


Conclusion: It will cost $9 trillion less to use Bernie's plan based on Mercatus' numbers.







So what was your point, again?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
As a maths wizard, I can tell you with absolute certainty that 47 is greater than 44

He tried to pull a fast one and use mismatched years with Mercatus' numbers.

But the case gets even worse if we go with Mercatus' numbers:


56>47

no expression


So....




Why is anyone opposing Bernie's plan? Even I admit that it's too generous and it needs to be scaled back. Despite that, going full apeshit like Bernie wants to...it will still save Americans a CRAP ton of money.

dadudemon
And, dudes....I haven't even cracked open the issue of medicare costing far less for people under 44 because they use medical care far far less than people older than 44.

Meaning, the cost of medical care of 65% of the population will be far less than 35% of the population.


So while contributions may go up for the population, because of utilization, the true costs for the program will be far less than if it was expanded to the original utilizers.


I will explain it a different way:


The way the numbers are being presented...it's as if the cost per person will be the same as it currently is under medicare. That's not true at all. People under 44 use medical care far far less than people over 44. So the cost per person will drastically drop if it was expanded to all. The costs will NOT increase to those ridiculous $32 trillion figures. Current costs for medicare: $11 trillion. Additional figures people are presenting: $32 trillion more.

Numbers don't match up, based on utilization. Just this, here, should indicate that their figure are suspect.




So all of these numbers are bullshit and over-inflated. Even if you play but the stupid rules and use their crappy data...it still saves an absurd amount of money! gasp and weeeee!

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
He tried to pull a fast one and use mismatched years with Mercatus' numbers.

But the case gets even worse if we go with Mercatus' numbers:


56>47

no expression


So....




Why is anyone opposing Bernie's plan? Even I admit that it's too generous and it needs to be scaled back. Despite that, going full apeshit like Bernie wants to...it will still save Americans a CRAP ton of money.

Also worth noting that this plan was proposed knowing full well that it had no chance of passing or even being seriously considered by the current congress/president.

Most likely, if a single-payer type plan ever did get introduced with the intent to actually use as legislation, more effort would probably get put into controlling costs. This is little more than a proof of concept type idea.

snowdragon
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is anyone opposing Bernie's plan? Even I admit that it's too generous and it needs to be scaled back. Despite that, going full apeshit like Bernie wants to...it will still save Americans a CRAP ton of money.

It would save businesses TONSSSSSS of money because they wouldn't need an HR dept to handle enrollments, businesses wouldn't have to shop for insurance yearly and soak up time better spent on doing what they do. Businesses wouldn't HAVE to pay for employee benefits.

I mean really the benefits are far greater than just saving money, thanks for doing the math.

DarthSkywalker0

BackFire
Turn off your phone or you might get sent to detention.

dadudemon
I will make a massive mess of this I will explain, why, later, but this is just a start:

According to this study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

67% of all healthcare costs occur after 40. 35% of that comes from those 65-84.


Only 19.5% of all healthcare costs occur at younger than 40.

65% of of Americans are 44 or younger.



Do you see the math adding up?


Let's go ahead and pretend that 44=40 even though this comparison does not favor my point.





So 80% of healthcare costs occur after 44 and 65% of the population is younger than 44.




325,000,000 people


211,250,000 younger than 44. Current costs for the government (includes more than medicare): $11 trillion


211,250,000 is 1.85 times the size of the 44 and older population. But that population will only use 1/5 of their medical costs, per person.


To put the proportions in order: is 1.8 > 5 (44 and over use 5 times the costs as younger than 44).



So we don't even need to get into the numbers since the proportions are not even close.


But I can come up with something....


$19.8 trillion





That's my rough estimate on how much it would cost in 2019 if the plan is implemented as presented. That purely based on medical care utilization by age bracket and it is a rough order of magnitude estimate that does not have any nuance. It would probably fluctuate by 1-2 trillion if I added nuance.

snowdragon
Something that you are also not figuring in is that utilization will increase significantly at least for first dollar type benefits (medications, office visits) so it's hard to build a true model for the future unless you can predict the patterns of utilization (which would increase.)

People under 40 would participate at a much higher rate if they didn't have to spend their beer/fun money on the visits as well.

dadudemon

dadudemon
Originally posted by snowdragon
Something that you are also not figuring in is that utilization will increase significantly at least for first dollar type benefits (medications, office visits) so it's hard to build a true model for the future unless you can predict the patterns of utilization (which would increase.)

The study I cited shows actual cost utilization by age bracket. Additionally, if there is an upfront nominal cost associated with entry level stuff like $1 here and $5 there, that could offset frequently used items will keeping costs down. A margins equation.


Frequency of use: 30% of all acute care visits:

Primary Care Physician Visit: $150
Patient Cost under Single Payer: $20


Under a much more generous system:
Primary Care Physician Visit: $150
Patient Cost under Single Payer: $0


Expensive Acute Care used only 0.5% of the time:
MRI: $850
Patient Cost under Single Payer: $20

Under a much more generous system:
MRI: $850
Patient Cost under Single Payer: $0

As you can see, people can afford the $20 but it has a MUCH larger impact on cost savings for the taxpayer compared to MRIs. Your idea works very well but for the opposite reason you intended.

Originally posted by snowdragon
People under 40 would participate at a much higher rate if they didn't have to spend their beer/fun money on the visits as well.

Also, this has been studied quite extensively in other countries that have UHC and Single Payer systems and your conclusion is just not true. The oppose is actually true: young people use healthcare even less under single payer or UHC plans because they can get preventive work done that they did not before, preventing absurdly large bills down the road:


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12101


https://i.imgur.com/g28ndLX.jpg

snowdragon
That would happen eventually but in the short term there would be a significant increase, I don't believe the numbers you presented for 10 years would be accurate.

Basing your numbers on an existing system with normalized behaviors isn't remotely the same as a new system.

dadudemon
Originally posted by snowdragon
That would happen eventually but in the short term there would be a significant increase, I don't believe the numbers you presented for 10 years would be accurate.

Basing your numbers on an existing system with normalized behaviors isn't remotely the same as a new system.


So because you don't feel like numbers will work, we should forgo the trillions of dollars in savings that would be realized, long term?


How long are supposed supposed to sit and wait for you to feel like the numbers work well for you before you agree to the clear cost savings?



Let me recap:

You: Frequently used services would cost us more under single payer because they are frequently used and that's obvious. Also, single payer would cost more because young people would use it more.

Me: No, frequently used services can realize an even greater cost savings than a straight comparison because they are more frequently used and the copay margin is much much higher (which offsets the costs to the taxpayer much more significantly than expensive acute service). Also, it costs less and research shows the young people clearly use it less because of the definition of what "preventive care" means to young people can access affordable preventative care.

You: Well, I feel like the numbers have to be wrong, though. Just because I said it will take a while for the numbers to feel right.

Me: Do you have a better argument than your feelings?

snowdragon
Originally posted by dadudemon
So because you don't feel like numbers will work, we should forgo the trillions of dollars in savings that would be realized, long term?


How long are supposed supposed to sit and wait for you to feel like the numbers work well for you before you agree to the clear cost savings?



Let me recap:

You: Frequently used services would cost us more under single payer because they are frequently used and that's obvious. Also, single payer would cost more because young people would use it more.

Me: No, frequently used services can realize an even greater cost savings than a straight comparison because they are more frequently used and the copay margin is much much higher (which offsets the costs to the taxpayer much more significantly than expensive acute service). Also, it costs less and research shows the young people clearly use it less because of the definition of what "preventive care" means to young people can access affordable preventative care.

You: Well, I feel like the numbers have to be wrong, though. Just because I said it will take a while for the numbers to feel right.

Me: Do you have a better argument than your feelings?

Me telling you about the realities of a new "free service" and utilization has ZERO to do with my feelings. I spent over a decade selling and implementing employee benefit platforms with health insurance, I reviewed claims and utilization of services.

I'm not coming at from left field, you are simply assuming your math is the ultimate predictor of price without realizing human behavior.

When you implement a service that is "free" you will see higher utilization if there are no out of pocket costs. People that have sat on injuries for years thinking they can tough it out will pop up, people that tough out "colds" will be more likely to use services. It's human nature that doesn't fit your numbers.

That said I already think its better than our existing plans, I want insurance out of business. I would like families to be able to rest easy not worrying about if they can afford a doctors visit or fixing their car because of budgets etc.

DarthSkywalker0
Urban Institute

1. You are comparing data from 2019-2028 from data from 2017-2026.
2. You incorrectly assess federal healthcare spending of 2017-2026. The Fed spends about 1.4 trillion dollars in healthcare a year, assuming no growth(which is obviously not correct). This would give us an NHE of 48 trillion. I trust the Urban Institute analysis; however because I assume they accounted for more variables when looking at federal expenditure.

Mercatus Institute

What I don't understand is why you concoct your own numbers for NHE when CMS has already compiled the statistics. I am going to use their data when comparing to the Mercatus's estimation.

CMS Data(in billions per year from 2022-2031):4,562 4,819 5,091 5,370 5,696 6,042 6,410 6,799 7,213 7,651

This amounts too: 59.653 trillion

You do something is incredibly bizarre. Rather than using the data actually provided in the Mercatus study you attempt to create your own dataset. Let's actually use the one from the study:

4,244 4,475 4,670 4,915 5,207 5,516 5,844 6,191 6,559 6,950

This amounts too: 54.7 Trillion.

Blahous says this number is about 8 trillion too low. Which gets us too: 62.7 trillion in NHE. And this is the actual differential. You made the mistake of trying to assess federal spending on your own, rather then using the dataset provided by Mercatus.

snowdragon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Urban Institute

1. You are comparing data from 2019-2028 from data from 2017-2026.
2. You incorrectly assess federal healthcare spending of 2017-2026. The Fed spends about 1.4 trillion dollars in healthcare a year, assuming no growth(which is obviously not correct). This would give us an NHE of 48 trillion. I trust the Urban Institute analysis; however because I assume they accounted for more variables when looking at federal expenditure.

Mercatus Institute

What I don't understand is why you concoct your own numbers for NHE when CMS has already compiled the statistics. I am going to use their data when comparing to the Mercatus's estimation.

CMS Data(in billions per year from 2022-2031):4,562 4,819 5,091 5,370 5,696 6,042 6,410 6,799 7,213 7,651

This amounts too: 59.653 trillion

You do something is incredibly bizarre. Rather than using the data actually provided in the Mercatus study you attempt to create your own dataset. Let's actually use the one from the study:

4,244 4,475 4,670 4,915 5,207 5,516 5,844 6,191 6,559 6,950

This amounts too: 54.7 Trillion.

Blahous says this number is about 8 trillion too low. Which gets us too: 62.7 trillion in NHE. And this is the actual differential. You made the mistake of trying to assess federal spending on your own, rather then using the dataset provided by Mercatus.

I'm not going to read all those studies but I did read this:

http://prospect.org/article/why-san...s-campaign-says


And that was very well done. That said we have certain unquantifiable numbers which no study can actually provide.



What I have said many many times is that no one can truly factor in the savings that many businesses will have getting out of offering health insurance to their employees. They will no longer have to do enrollments, forms, hr etc etc. Many Fortune 500 companies create their own insurance companies within to bypass costs associated with our current system. These studies while very good do not accurately portray the system we use because of vacuum math.

I would also like to add how can you possibly predict the uptick in happiness/productivity of folks that no longer have a weight on their shoulder keeping them from focusing on their jobs?

Surtur
*Reads last few pages*

Yeah so...was Bernie correct or not?

DarthSkywalker0
No, he wasn't.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Urban Institute

1. You are comparing data from 2019-2028 from data from 2017-2026.

Try to be honest. This will not make up the trillions gap. You're reaching. But if you want to pretend you have a point:

1. The per capita healthcare cost number I used is also from 2016 and it is obviously higher in 2018.
2. The US Government's own numbers indicate that healthcare costs are increasing ~6.2% annually, not 5.2% as that other source I used states.

I noticed you didn't present an actual counter argument using facts, though. Go ahead: make your point actually doing the math. smile

I also noticed you didn't correct my source error when you're in love with CMS' numbers. They state 5.5%, not 5.2%. Why aren't you honest?

And they also state that from 2021-2026, that the number will be 5.7%. That's much greater than my originally cited 5.2%. Hint: the higher that number, the stronger my point.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
2. You incorrectly assess federal healthcare spending of 2017-2026.

I did not. I took it straight from their very own Excel Spreadsheet and I cited where I got it from. Nice try but pay attention. Hint: they project costs out to 2028.




Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Mercatus Institute

What I don't understand is why you concoct your own numbers for NHE when CMS has already compiled the statistics. I am going to use their data when comparing to the Mercatus's estimation.

CMS Data(in billions per year from 2022-2031):4,562 4,819 5,091 5,370 5,696 6,042 6,410 6,799 7,213 7,651

This amounts too: 59.653 trillion

You do something is incredibly bizarre. Rather than using the data actually provided in the Mercatus study you attempt to create your own dataset. Let's actually use the one from the study:

4,244 4,475 4,670 4,915 5,207 5,516 5,844 6,191 6,559 6,950

This amounts too: 54.7 Trillion.





If you don't understand the math, that's okay. I laid all my work out therefor you to see and cited all sources. Ever last element to what I did is available. For you to continue to reject it but support numbers which are clearly wrong, this also demonstrates your bias.

It's rather simple math, though.

Current cost -> annual cost increase -> cost during a period of time.

But...if you want to use CMS' numbers, their 2026 number is $5.7 trillion. Mine is $5.4 trillion. Meaning, their costs (not Bernie's plan) are projected to be higher than mine. Making my point even stronger. Why are you trying to make my point stronger?




Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Blahous says this number is about 8 trillion too low. Which gets us too: 62.7 trillion in NHE. And this is the actual differential. You made the mistake of trying to assess federal spending on your own, rather then using the dataset provided by Mercatus.

No, I used Mercatus' own study and their numbers and other sources to come up with my own estimates. Nice try on the attempt to lie just to be right, though.



I don't know what you tried to just do but you just made my point even stronger. Actual healthcare costs are even higher than my projected numbers. My estimate is less than the projections by CMS by more than $2 trillion.



After reading your arguments and checking sources, you're right: projected costs will be even higher than I estimated under the current system.

In other words, Bernie Sanders' plan cost <<<<<<<<<< our current projected costs.



Guys, DS0 is in agreement with me and due to CMS' numbers, it's much worse than I made it out to be.


Here are the new and corrected numbers:

$7,306,045,847,918
$6,966,221,531,710
$6,641,098,669,293
$6,184,280,492,126
$5,825,506,981,177
$5,486,747,464,008
$5,166,980,840,651
$4,865,301,367,417
$4,580,669,591,755
$4,312,172,486,710


Total: $57,335,025,272,765


$57 Trillion (current system) > $43 Trillion (Bernie's Idea)

DarthPlaguis12

DarthSkywalker0
This is the most irrelevant counter I've ever seen. You literally had the wrong time horizon the growth rates have no bearing on this point.



Whose Excell spreadsheets because you say that the Federal Spending is 11 trillion a year that is not substantiated by a single source.




It's not a matter of me not understanding the math, its a matter of you using numbers that aren't within the study. You are comparing your own idea of how much Bernie's plan would cost against Mercatus, rather than using their data.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Neeurd89h7s/W5fOySxmUmI/AAAAAAAAGYc/OKmXL7lzsqEAhTTzWwo8qMO0itMT462DgCL0BGAYYCw/h382/2018-09-11.png

The 43 trillion number you provide is simply incorrect, the study makes it clear the costs are 54.7. Stop using your own estimates of cost, and actually use Mercatus. Jesus Christ. No one has made the argument. Bernie said his plan was 3.3 trillion dollars cheaper because that's what the study indicated, your just spewing out horse shit at this point.

snowdragon
And here we are the battle to be "right" over providing honest answers and solutions.

HMM how could we go wrong with so much ego.......

Robtard
The Bernie detractors here (you scum know who you are) owe that old crazy Jew an apology; that's what the math is showing.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
The Bernie detractors here (you scum know who you are) owe that old crazy Jew an apology; that's what the math is showing.

Can you kindly articulate why I am wrong? Rather than appealing to math; which is not supported by any of the researchers on this subject.

DarthPlaguis12

Robtard
@thedarthboys DDM already showed the math over the last 2-3 pages or so.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
@thedarthboys DDM already showed the math over the last 2-3 pages or so.

It was incorrect.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
@thedarthboys DDM already showed the math over the last 2-3 pages or so.

But the numbers he provided from Mercatus are inaccurate, so can you explain why he is correct?

Robtard
Okay, how so?

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, how so?

He claimed that Mercatus purports that Bernie's plan costs 43 trillion, but in the study, they say 54 trillion.

Robtard
Show it?

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Robtard
Show it?

I have I posted a chart above.

dadudemon

DarthSkywalker0
Oh, I see the issue you are just looking at the costs of Medicare. Observe the costs of healthcare in it's totality in the chart above. You have to look at pharmaceutical costs and subsidies. This is the problem with in-house data. According to CBO, healthcare will cost about 22 trillion dollars.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
He claimed that Mercatus purports that Bernie's plan costs 43 trillion, but in the study, they say 54 trillion.

Try not to lie. I actually posted a correction to the numbers. To make it a pure apples to apples comparison. See my above post. smile

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
Try not to lie. I actually posted a correction to the numbers. To make it a pure apples to apples comparison. See my above post. smile

No, you just say the 14 trillion dollars in Medicare costs, but that is not all of Federal Healthcare spending.

DarthSkywalker0
You have to include: This includes federal Medicaid payments, Medicare outlays net of receipts, tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

DarthSkywalker0

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You have to include: This includes federal Medicaid payments, Medicare outlays net of receipts, tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

No, I don't. You do. You make your argument for you, I don't have to.



$56,047,940,768,320 (actual costs of healtchare 2022-2031>$47,048,000,000.000 (estimated costs to use Bernie's plan)


Edit - Looking at their numbers break down. They included that, already, in their 32.6 figure. It says it right on the chart that they include those. Look at bullet point e:

"e This includes federal Medicaid payments, Medicare outlays net of receipts, tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers"

DarthSkywalker0
Your 47 trlllion is a severe lowball as you do not include: tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

DarthSkywalker0
The number I posted: 54 trillion does include all of those variables, hence why it is more accurate. IDK, why are you acting as if your in-house data is superior to an actual reputable economist who spent months parsing this out?

DarthSkywalker0
Yes, but the 32.6 trillion figure is just the additional costs of UHC not including all of the money we currently spend on health care: 22 trillion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Your 47 trlllion is a severe lowball as you do not include: tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Looking at their numbers break down. They included that, already, in their 32.6 figure. It says it right on the chart that they include those. Look at bullet point e:

"e This includes federal Medicaid payments, Medicare outlays net of receipts, tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers"



Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
IDK, why are you acting as if your in-house data is superior to an actual reputable economist who spent months parsing this out?


You don't know why I am quickly able to debunk and point out errors in calculations that other organizations have done?


Since I showed my work and cited all sources and did not inject any bias at all, the numbers speak for themselves. I am not doing any magic or voodoo. It's very clear.

Their numbers are not even internally consistent, as I have shown.


Here is how actual projected costs play out, by year going back from 2031:

7,306,045,847,918
6,966,221,531,710
6,641,098,669,293
6,184,280,492,126
5,825,506,981,177
5,486,747,464,008
5,166,980,840,651
4,865,301,367,417
4,580,669,591,755
4,312,172,486,710
4,058,966,467,470
3,820,269,102,470
3,595,308,334,000


Look, I've shown my work. My numbers are directly based off of census data and per capita costs that came straight from the very website. There's no secret to what I've done. It's all right there.

And if we just take 2022-2031, that total is:

$57,335,025,272,765

How is there anything secret all about that? What do you not understand? there's nothing magical about how I got those numbers.


Here's a new flash for you: if another site calculated different numbers than mine and cites CDO, same time period, it's wrong! big grin The math is that simple.


Here's what happened: you fell for bad numbers and bad arguments again because there's not an original thought in your body.

DarthSkywalker0
Holy shit, how stupid are you. Your federal spending number's don't include: tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

How is my data biased, if I am going directly from the CBO. I also don't deny that NHE(with no M4A) would cost 57 trillion. I am just saying that the Mercatus's estimate is 54 trillion.

DarthSkywalker0
The problem with DDM's logic. He correctly assesses the NHE assuming no UHC. However, when determining the costs of Bernie's plan, he incorrectly reports the amount of Federal spending. This is due to the lack of variables included in that number. When I show him the CBO data, he calls it biased stats and continues to spew out the same bullshit. Why do economists reach DDM's numbers? Maybe, cause the guy is way over his head.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Holy shit, how stupid are you. Your federal spending number's don't include: tax subsidies for employer-provided and ACA marketplace coverage, CHIP, other ACA subsidies and
research funding, net of revenues from employer-mandate penalties and taxes on health insurance plans and providers.

How is my data biased, if I am going directly from the CBO. I also don't deny that NHE(with no M4A) would cost 57 trillion. I am just saying that the Mercatus's estimate is 54 trillion.

It's $57 trillion. This one is not up for debate. That's how much it will cost 2022 through 2031. That's the current system cost.



You have yet to make an argument, though.


How much will it cost under Bernie's plan, 2022-2031? Show your work and cite your sources. I'm ready. big grin

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The problem with DDM's logic. He correctly assesses the NHE assuming no UHC. However, when determining the costs of Bernie's plan, he incorrectly reports the amount of Federal spending. This is due to the lack of variables included in that number. When I show him the CBO data, he calls it biased stats and continues to spew out the same bullshit. Why do economists reach DDM's numbers? Maybe, cause the guy is way over his head.

You're wondering why I can make clear, unbiased arguments while showing my work? And have different numbers than people you think are brilliant economists?


Gosh, you must think I'm a super genius, then. One day you may plagiarize me. The highest compliment you give people.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>