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.
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
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.
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!
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Sep 11th, 2018 at 12:47 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Per capita cost of healtchare, by year, calculated using the figure that stated the average cost of increase in healthcare costs would be 5.2% (if we use the government's figures, it is actually 6.25% which would make this a much higher number):
And, finally, the total cost of healthcare, by year, using the two previous figures:
$7,060,664,459,719
$6,751,451,949,319
$6,454,707,288,022
$6,027,851,137,360
$5,694,346,262,750
$5,378,507,718,440
$5,079,492,807,620
$4,796,561,117,650
$4,528,828,171,300
$4,275,529,856,140
Total: $56,047,940,768,320
Coming up with the $47 trillion figure was using your very own source straight from Mercatus Institute + the government's own estimated costs + 3 additional years that I had to calculate.
Sorry, good sir, there's no wiggle room or debate to be had. None of the figures support keeping the system the same to the explicit exclusion of Bernie Sander's idea.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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:
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 killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
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?
Last edited by snowdragon on Sep 11th, 2018 at 01:34 PM
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 11th, 2018 12:23 AM
