That's right. A report that was supposed to discredit the single-payer solution found that, even after the benefits of a Medicare for All program are realized-"additional healthcare demand that arises from eliminating copayments, providing additional categories of benefits, and covering the now uninsured"-the potential cost of the plan would still be less than "potential savings associated with cutting provider payments and achieving lower drug costs". In a special study published by The Economist in April, the magazine argued in in favor of a universal health care system, stating that poor and rich would benefit from it.
But, now, a Koch brothers supported project is making the case for the "Medicare for All" reform that has been championed by progressives such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. "House Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted, "$32.6 trillion dollars. In the first year, the federal government would drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55 - a proposal also backed by many centrist Senate Democrats - as well as enrolling everyone now on Medicare and everyone younger than 18. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said. "It is just absurd".
He said they'll need to convince the public that even though taxes will likely rise, nobody will have to pay premiums or out-of pocket costs. On page 18 of the paper, in a section titled "Effects on National Health Expenditures and the Federal Budget", came mention that under the Sanders plan "national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings".
These changes would lead the US government to control virtually all health spending in the United States - Sanders' plan would also cover dental care and vision care - in what may be the biggest increase in federal expenditures in history, according to Blahous.
Federal health expenditures refer to health spending from the federal government in particular.
What that translates to is what Medicare for All advocates have been saying all along: Under a single-payer system, Americans would get more quality care for more people at less cost. "But, $32.6 trillion in higher federal spending and taxes over 10 years, which sounds scary".
"It's a surprisingly positive view of Medicare for All from a very conservative research institute", Larry Levitt, a health-care expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said of the Mercatus report. "There is such a thing as a free lunch, per Mercatus".
The US could insure 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket health care expenses while saving $2 trillion in the process, according to a new report about Medicare for All released by the libertarian Mercatus Center.
Mr Sanders' plan would provide coverage for various elements of health care, including preventative to emergency care, mental health and substance abuse services and prescription medications - and all by a federally administered single-player health system.
The study notes that the projected spending increases are "conservative" estimates "because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors' goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs". For example, the Sanders plan would apply Medicare's lower payments for medical services to the entire health care system - an effort that would no doubt meet considerable resistance from the health care industry. "It's not clear to what extent those savings are politically feasible, and socially beneficial". "This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers response to the growing support in our country for a "Medicare for all" program".