Comments by "FrozEnbyWolf150" (@FrozEnbyWolf150) on "Libertarian Study Shows Medicare-For-All Saves $2 Trillion" video.

  1. "Okay class, a simple arithmetic problem. What's 49 minus 32 ?" "Uh... 81?"
    23
  2. BTW those weren't just random numbers. $49 trillion is how much the US will spend on healthcare over the next ten years, under our current system. Medicare For All would cost $32 trillion over ten years, thus saving $17 trillion. Whenever the corporate media talks about it though, they act as though it would cost $32 trillion on top of what we're already paying, meaning they add the 49 to the 32.
    12
  3. No, the healthcare system is inefficient due to the for profit insurance industry, and the $17 trillion savings estimate refers to the Medicare for All system, which would cover everybody. Having 44 million people with no healthcare actually drives up costs in the long term, since preventative care is cheaper. The economy loses over $124 billion in productivity each year from people lacking healthcare.
    4
  4. Funny, when corporate apologists themselves cite the $32 trillion figure by falsely claiming it would be the amount of additional spending, they never call into question its validity. ETA: The $49 trillion figure comes from the annual NHE, which was $3.4 trillion in 2016, and the estimated growth rate of 5.6% over 10 years. The $32 trillion figure comes from an Urban Institute study that adds up the estimates of expenditures on different categories of care. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf But you don't have to take my word for it.
    2
  5. Yeah, just make blank assertions without any citations or logical explanation. You know what causes an increase in demand under the current system? The need for emergency care due to lack of preventive care, with the former being much more expensive. People go to the ER because they have no other choice, typically for conditions that could have been caught earlier and treated more cheaply with preventive care. https://www.thebalance.com/preventive-care-how-it-lowers-aca-costs-3306074 You have yet to prove how the two figures are mutually exclusive or contradictory. The $32 trillion figure comes from adding up the costs of different types of healthcare. The $49 trillion projected NHE is tabulated by adding up, "...type of good or service delivered (hospital care, physician and clinical services, retail prescription drugs, etc.), source of funding for those services (private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, out-of-pocket spending, etc.) and by sponsor (businesses, households and governments)." A single-payer system would eliminate out of pocket expenses, business expenditures on insurance, and private health insurance. The providers would be the same, Medicare and Medicaid would be combined, and the government would be the sole sponsor. One figure looks at who pays for it, the other looks at what it pays for. You are essentially arguing that one can't compare the charges for a $1,000 emergency to the expenditures on a $1,000 emergency, because the cost is based on the treatments provided, and the money spent depends on who pays for it.
    1