The left never quits.
Now... they are calling Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan "mainstream"... at least among Democrats.

'Medicare for all' could save businesses trillions of dollars

Rick Newman
August 6, 2018

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan has gained traction among some mainstream Democrats, including possible presidential contenders such as Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. And buried in the details of some recent analyses is an intriguing notion: American businesses, now the biggest source of health care coverage in the United States, could completely exit the business of providing health care, if national or even statewide single-payer coverage ever takes root. That could make American firms more competitive globally and leave a lot more money for employee raises and other benefits.

The United States is the only advanced economy where employers are the primary source of health care. Famed investor Warren Buffett has called employer-provided health care the “tapeworm of American competitiveness,” because it forces American firms to bear a costly bureaucratic burden their foreign competitors don’t have to deal with. As health care costs have soared during the last three decades, employers have set aside more and more for benefits, leaving less for raises. In theory, there are reasons for the business community to support a single-payer system that would relieve them of an onerous obligation completely unrelated to most companies’ business models.

The enormous cost

But first, the eye-popping price tag for Medicare for all. New analysis by Charles Blahous of the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that single-payer health care for all Americans would cost at least $32.6 trillion during the first decade, or $3.3 trillion per year. Total federal spending now amounts to $4.2 trillion per year, so adding Medicare for all spending to that tally would nearly double federal outlays. Other analyses of Medicare for all have put the cost of the Sanders plan in the same ballpark.

That might seem outrageous, but it’s worth keeping in mind that a Sanders-style single-payer system would transfer all health care spending to the federal government. “I’m scoring the federal cost here, and it’s enormous,” Blahous told Yahoo Finance. “The other side of the coin is businesses, individuals, states and others are not going to be paying these costs. They’re going to be given to the federal government.”

On the whole, the Blahous analysis finds that total health spending would actually decline under the Sanders plan, compared with the status quo, with the feds paying a lot more, but everybody else paying nothing. And more people would get coverage, since everybody would be eligible. As the only buyer of health care, the government would have the power to demand deep discounts, and there would be lower overhead because there would only be one administrative structure. Of course, we’d all have to get care through the government, and deal with the pitfalls that would entail.

Still, the tradeoffs for businesses could be attractive. Federal tax revenue from individuals and businesses will total about $3 trillion this year. So taxes would need to more than double to cover a giant new health care plan. Doubling everybody’s taxes sounds like a death wish for politicians. But it might not be as crazy as it sounds.

Businesses now pay about $1.2 trillion in health care costs per year, which provides coverage for about 49% of the American population. Federal income tax payments for businesses will only total around $243 billion this year. So corporate America pays 5 times as much for health care benefits for employees as it pays in federal taxes. If you tripled or even quadrupled corporate income taxes, while eliminating all their spending on health care, it would still amount to a net savings for businesses.

Individuals pay about $365 billion per year for health care, with some paying their own insurance premiums and others paying out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. Individual taxpayers are the biggest source of federal tax revenue, forking over an estimated $1.6 trillion this year. So you could raise individual income taxes by $365 billion, or roughly 23%, and leave consumers on average no worse off.

The math here is vastly oversimplified, and it doesn’t take account of the massive disruption that would occur were the nation to revamp a sector that accounts for about 18% of the U.S. economy. It’s also obvious that President Trump and his fellow Republicans, who just passed a huge tax cut, would never entertain the idea of giant tax hikes to finance a huge socialized medicine program.

State Medicare equivalents

But that doesn’t mean the idea is dead. Legislators in several states, including Massachusetts, New York and California, have proposed legislation that would create statewide equivalents of Medicare for all, and several Democratic candidates for governor are touting the idea in this year’s elections. New York asked the Rand research organization to analyze the prospect of a statewide single-payer system, and the results suggest a bit more bang for the buck if the state took over health care.

Under the New York plan, the state would have to hike taxes by 156% per year to offer health care to every resident. Right—sounds terrible. But nobody would pay premiums anymore, and out-of-pocket costs would be cut in half. On the whole, overall health spending would decline slightly, even as more people got access to care. Rand estimates that net health care costs, including new taxes, would fall for 90% of the state’s residents, while they’d rise for the top 10% of earners. There would be unpredictable consequences as businesses and workers debated whether to stay in the state or leave.

This sort of change would be an epic political fight. A whole swath of the insurance industry would face extinction and fight like mad for its survival. The government’s concentrated purchasing power would drive down doctor payments and many other fees, forcing the adoption of new business models. With new patients surging into the system, demand for services would soar, straining capacity at many providers.

We’re not ready for all that. But we’re also not happy with the status quo, and we shouldn’t be, since Americans pay the most for health care and generally get the worst outcomes among advanced nations. If business leaders ever come around to the idea that their firms would be better off shedding the obligation to provide health care, it could bring lobbying power to a cause gaining populist support. That could be a recipe for revolution. Someday.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news...llars-190500400.html

Doubling taxes might not be as crazy as it sounds?

Then I dare the Democrats to run on that idea.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Doubling taxes might not be as crazy as it sounds?

Then I dare the Democrats to run on that idea.

Roughly half of all Americans pay no income tax at all.

Double of zero is still zero.

It'll be more free shit for the free shit crowd.

Boy howdy, if that's their idea of "mainstream"...

You see what they are trying to do here?
They are trying to get employers to push their employees toward government provided, single payer, health insurance. You know, because it would lower costs and make the employer more competitive internationally. But when have you ever heard a Democrat concerned about the health of corporations? It's just the latest way they are trying to push socialism.

Separating employment from health insurance is actually a good idea. There is no reason to couple health insurance with employment. The tax code never should have been used to do so... but this can be fixed by changing the tax code. No socialism required. It would open the individual market to competition.

If it was no longer tax deductible to the corporation to provide health insurance, they wouldn't provide it. A quarter to a third of your pay would no longer be "benefits". You would receive cash instead of the standard package of "benefits".

Why should you get this type of insurance through your employer? You don't get homeowners or auto through your employer, do you? Yet they are competitive. Why?
Because people have an incentive to shop.

quote:

As the only buyer of health care, the government would have the power to demand deep discounts, and there would be lower overhead because there would only be one administrative structure.

Yeah, right!

The providers are all in DC, infesting the halls of Congress weeping and wailing to get more money, just like every other government program beneficiary, department or bureau, no incentive to save money, be efficient or otherwise. In fact, the opposite.

This is nuts!

quote:

This is nuts!

You betcha. The commies never quit.

Pelosi was stuttering about "...the sacred right of healthcare..." the other day.

Newsflash- Sacred Nature sez; when you are born you can breath and you have an appetite. If you live long enough, you can fight to stay alive. Everything else you have the right to earn.

quote:

'Medicare for all' could save businesses trillions of dollars

And 'Food for all' could save restaurants trillions.
And 'Electricity for all'
And 'Housing for all'
And
And
And

It's all so freakin' simple. Why hasn't this been tried before?

Oh, wait. It has. Didn't work, people figured out and the instigators propped it up with violence and coercion and history's worst police states. And it still didn't work.

Never mind.

I recall reading that company provided health insurance grew out of the WWII wage caps and labor shortage. Companies started offering free medical insurance to entice workers to stay or hire-on. Once started down that path they could not end it later. Is that true?

I cring when politicians and the media refer to "The high cost of healthcare " when they really mean " Medical Insurance ".

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
I recall reading that company provided health insurance grew out of the WWII wage caps and labor shortage. Companies started offering free medical insurance to entice workers to stay or hire-on. Once started down that path they could not end it later. Is that true?

That is what I've always heard.

I agree that linking insurance to employment is ridiculous. If you want to have group buying power, it could just as well be the NRA, AARP, or Sigforum as the sponsoring entity.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
I recall reading that company provided health insurance grew out of the WWII wage caps and labor shortage. Companies started offering free medical insurance to entice workers to stay or hire-on. Once started down that path they could not end it later. Is that true?

I cring when politicians and the media refer to "The high cost of healthcare " when they really mean " Medical Insurance ".

Language warfare.

I believe Henry Kaiser offered healthcare to his shipyard/steel mill employees during WWII, it was a competitive market around the SF Bay Area with multiple shipyards building for the war effort. After the war, Kaiser became more invested into hospitals and medical care as the US shipbuilding industry was legislated towards extinction.

The math is simply wrong. Even if accepting the numbers as given...

"Mason University found that single-payer health care for all Americans would cost at least $32.6 trillion during the first decade, or $3.3 trillion per year."

"Businesses now pay about $1.2 trillion in health care costs per year"

"Individuals pay about $365 billion per year for health care"

$1.2T + $365B = $1.565T < $3.3T

In fact, current spending is less than half of proposed costs of $3.3T. So this proposal would more than double health care spending. This has to be paid with taxes from individuals and businesses, but somehow individuals and businesses will save money? How?

This is retarded.

“The other side of the coin is businesses, individuals, states and others are not going to be paying these costs. They’re going to be given to the federal government.”

The Feds will of course have to tax businesses, and individuals to pay for it. Again, effectively doubling total costs.

Quite literally, doubling my taxes will bankrupt me. Bankrupt as in left destitute. There simply isn't enough left after taxes to double it.

Yes, Obamacare was such a wildly great thing, it could only be improved by letting the Federal government take over healthcare altogether! Business would soar once the government takes over the cost of providing healthcare. That is until it gets time to pay the taxes... oh, yeah.. and whatever the government decides to do after that will be OK, because they’re providing you with life through the healthcare system. There will be no government shutdowns, everyone will comply with whatever the Dems say once that heart transplant comes via the goodwill of the Fed. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

I lost a 40 year old son to Obamacare a year ago today. I can’t wait to have the rest of my family endangered by the government.

They'll save money paying for healthcare...that they'll promptly lose paying payroll taxes. And any raise the employees see will go to income taxes.

Hmmmmm....

People like me would be hit worse of all. Healthy and making enough money to pay taxes. So, I'd be slammed with massive new taxes in exchange for "free" healthcare that my family and I will consume at a far less than average rate (and it will suck when we do).

The very sick with good incomes may have it be a financial wash as the article stated...but crappy care in return. And of course all the "takers" who don't contribute anyway.

I hate how "health insurance" is always conflated with "health care." Is this on purpose? The 2 things are totally different...

My Canadian friends are not happy with their system. If you like to wait long periods of time for elective surgeries and trust the government to know what is best for you, Medicare for all is for you. CMS the bureaucratic organization that runs Medicare is not a finely tuned machine by any stretch of the imagination. There is a reason many medical specialties no longer accept Medicare patients.

Healthcare reform is no more about healthcare than gun control is about guns. Both are about power and centralizing it in the Federal government.

Bernie's been self-medicating too long.