Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: The Heartland Institute’s Very Stupid New Medicare for All Report

  1. Top | #1
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    14,331
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    17,365
    Rep Power
    85

    The Heartland Institute’s Very Stupid New Medicare for All Report

    https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/medic...kins-heartland

    A right-wing think tank just released a study slamming Medicare for All. It brings us no pleasure to inform you that its analysis is amateurish and riddled with errors.

    The Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins put out a paper purporting to be a distributional analysis of Medicare for All. The paper is one of the shoddiest think tank reports I’ve ever seen, raising the usual question about conservative think tank output: intentionally deceptive or merely incompetent? I will not answer that question in this post, but I will break down just how bad Haskins’s paper is.
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  2. Top | #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,924
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,368
    Rep Power
    68
    To save you all some reading, the think tank report fails to account for most of the savings of expenses from individuals, employers and the government that the writer says would be realized under a medicare for all system done right.

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,351
    Rep Power
    14
    It's worth reading because it gives some idea of why and how Sander's plan would likely work.
    When we make only these (conservatively estimated) modifications to Haskins’s spreadsheet, we get a very different result.

    With the $1.4 trillion allocated back to households, the breakeven point for singles is around $90,000 while the breakeven point for families is around $140,000. Meanwhile middle-class families see dramatically higher savings than Haskins lets on. Under Haskins’s approach, a family making around $50,000 saves about $2,200. But when you reallocate the saved money like I do here, it shoots to $10,000.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,307
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,655
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    To save you all some reading, the think tank report fails to account for most of the savings of expenses from individuals, employers and the government that the writer says would be realized under a medicare for all system done right.
    Why would we assume it's going to be "done right"? I've floated the idea of having "medicare for all" with a constitutional cap on per capita spending set at top European country levels and there are never any takers.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,924
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,368
    Rep Power
    68
    Why does anyone think its hard to figure out how to do it? Just copy a system already doing it. Canada is right next door.

  6. Top | #6
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,406
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,521
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    To save you all some reading, the think tank report fails to account for most of the savings of expenses from individuals, employers and the government that the writer says would be realized under a medicare for all system done right.
    "Done right". That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Why does anyone think its hard to figure out how to do it? Just copy a system already doing it. Canada is right next door.
    We'd have to cut military spending. That's a good thing, but not something those in power would ever agree to do. Most of the first world countries that have some variant of UHC also outsource their defense to the USA. And they don't even pay us to defend them, because they know we're stupid enough to do it for free. Or in the case of South Korea, stupid enough to pay them to let us defend them.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,924
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,368
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    To save you all some reading, the think tank report fails to account for most of the savings of expenses from individuals, employers and the government that the writer says would be realized under a medicare for all system done right.
    Why would we assume it's going to be "done right"? I've floated the idea of having "medicare for all" with a constitutional cap on per capita spending set at top European country levels and there are never any takers.
    Why have a cap, and what happens when the cap is reached? What would your system look like?

    Also, if it winds up costing more than the current system (and it very well may cost less), why would that be a problem? I don't think health care should be considered based on cost and with a profit in mind. It should be considered based on need and with efficiency in mind. If it winds up being a big net financial loss for the system, but is delivered with maximal efficiency, I'm more than fine with that. Public health is worth it.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,924
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,368
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    We'd have to cut military spending. That's a good thing, but not something those in power would ever agree to do. Most of the first world countries that have some variant of UHC also outsource their defense to the USA. And they don't even pay us to defend them, because they know we're stupid enough to do it for free. Or in the case of South Korea, stupid enough to pay them to let us defend them.
    It would mean giving up US hegemony and no longer being able to bully the rest of the world. I agree, unlikely may powers that be in the US would be willing to give that up. I don't agree you'd need to in order to bring in universal health care though. It isn't as expensive as people there seem to think. You could scale back the military by enough to still be dominant. US spending on military today is ridiculous and way more than needed to bully the world.

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,307
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,655
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    To save you all some reading, the think tank report fails to account for most of the savings of expenses from individuals, employers and the government that the writer says would be realized under a medicare for all system done right.
    Why would we assume it's going to be "done right"? I've floated the idea of having "medicare for all" with a constitutional cap on per capita spending set at top European country levels and there are never any takers.
    Why have a cap, and what happens when the cap is reached? What would your system look like?

    Also, if it winds up costing more than the current system (and it very well may cost less), why would that be a problem? I don't think health care should be considered based on cost and with a profit in mind. It should be considered based on need and with efficiency in mind. If it winds up being a big net financial loss for the system, but is delivered with maximal efficiency, I'm more than fine with that. Public health is worth it.
    Have a cap to ensure we achieve the promised savings. They would need to design a system that does not exceed the cap. They obviously could not legally spend money that violated the Constitution. They'd have to prioritize.

  10. Top | #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,409
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    58,702
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post

    Have a cap to ensure we achieve the promised savings. They would need to design a system that does not exceed the cap. They obviously could not legally spend money that violated the Constitution. They'd have to prioritize.
    That sounds like a really shitty healthcare system that would abandon those who need it the most and kind of be the exact opposite of what a health care system should be doing.

    I should have known Americans would be able to find a way to fuck up UHC and make it as useless and inefficient as possible solely for the sake of then being able to point out how useless and inefficient it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •