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.
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.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
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.
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!!!
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.
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
I have to capture all points and redo the formulas in excel. So I can reuse this calculator, later.
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:
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.
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.
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.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
KMC Community Forums
Sep 10th, 2018 11:26 PM
