r/FluentInFinance • u/The-Lucky-Investor • 13d ago

“Medicare for All” would save the U.S $5.1 Trillion over 10 years Discussion/ Debate

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/11/30/easy-pay-something-costs-less-new-study-shows-medicare-all-would-save-us-51-trillion
21.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/edm4un 13d ago

Can we count on the government to successfully implement Medicare for all without it being just as expensive as non Medicare options?

2

u/NotAnurag 13d ago

I mean, pretty much every other developed country managed to pull it off

1

u/ConsequenceDesperate 13d ago

That’s not necessarily true.

https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/02/05/germanys-health-crisis-why-europes-biggest-economy-is-fending-off-a-chronic-doctor-shortag

2

u/NotAnurag 13d ago

Even with those problems it is still significantly better than the American system.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1371632/healthcare-waiting-times-for-appointments-worldwide/

The average wait time to see a physician in the US is significantly longer than in Europe. They have to wait 5x longer compared to Germany.

1

u/ChiliTacos 13d ago

Germany doesn't have a M4A type system anyway, so I'm not sure why that guy picked it or you think every other developed nation pulled it off.

1

u/NotAnurag 13d ago

Even if Germany doesn’t have M4A, they still have a system that allows everyone to have affordable healthcare. Obviously there are multiple ways to achieve universal coverage, but the point is that the US is significantly further behind other developed countries when it comes to having affordable care that can cover everyone.

0

u/ChiliTacos 13d ago

The system there, and many other places, is what the ACA was dreamed of being. People seem to think its either we have what we have now or M4A. A public option and regulations are probably far easier to achieve and would have us closer to what we desire. Posts like this (The OP, not you) are pissing me off because we don't have to dickride a plan from Sanders that a lot of people would be unhappy with to have more affordable healthcare. I only replied to you because every time these posts come up I feel the need to scream into the ether that universal healthcare isn't only single payer and conflating the two can be a detriment to the goal of universal coverage.

2

u/ScoopDL 13d ago edited 13d ago

And there's a difference between government provided insurance and government run healthcare (Medicare vs VA). In one case, the government runs the hospitals, treatment centers etc, and the other they just collect the money and pay the bills.

1

u/ChiliTacos 13d ago

Which is which? Because I know for a fact it's not that simple. You can check my history, but I am a veteran with a high disability rating and the VA very much out sources my current cancer treatment. They pay, and I've had great care. I would wish everyone to be so lucky, but I'm not sure it's as simple as having someone pay equals great care. The VA's budget is like the GDP of Darmark, bit a lot of Reddit thinks they are underfunded with $400 billion. I have no experience with Medicare. The VA is wildly hit or miss and we let people in public discourse often steer a ship they're never been been on. Actually, tbh, I'm moderately hammered so I'm not entirely sure of your point atm. Elaborate and I'll check it out tomorrow.

1

u/ScoopDL 13d ago edited 13d ago

People conflate having the government pay (insurance) with a wholesale government takeover of the entire hospital, doctor and pharmacy system.

It'd be like saying that if the government took over car insurance, then all cars and repair shops would be sold or run by the government. The insurance and the product being insured are two completely different things. Private hospitals and such will still exist, and can either take the government insurance or not.

And the VA generally gets shit on since it has really outdated systems in place, so if it's better than I've heard, then great.

I really feel like if a government option was so horrible, then let the democrats run it and don't handicap it in any way so there's no excuse for its failure. If it's really that bad, nobody will choose it.

But Republicans won't let that happen because it will likely prove that we could receive much more affordable health insurance without shareholders and corporate boards profiting billions off of our premiums.

1

u/ConsequenceDesperate 13d ago

Well Sweden have similar complaints about wait times and lack of staff. The Germany article states how doctors are not finding it lucrative anymore to be a physician also mention other countries doctors doing the same. Moving to other countries where the salaries are higher.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272133/problems-with-national-health-care-system-in-sweden/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202023%20survey,considered%20to%20be%20pressing%20issues.

1

u/ConsequenceDesperate 13d ago

That could be attributed to the population being larger and USA having less doctors per capita. The thing is each state has a different ratio. So wait times vary from state to state. Comparing USA with individual countries from the EU is difficult to assess especially like Sweden with the population of 10-11 million people.

https://www.aamc.org/news/data-based-look-america-s-physicians-and-medical-students-state-state#:~:text=Physicians%20in%20patient%20care&text=For%20those%20active%20physicians%20who,337.5%3B%20Rhode%20Island%2C%20330.9.