Medicare for all would save almost $5 trillion over ten years and give every American access

Discussion in 'Politics' started by UsualName, Dec 6, 2018.

  1. UsualName

    UsualName

  2. Arnie

    Arnie

    I have no doubt this will happen in the next 10 years.
    The problem with "one size fits all" is that we will lose our edge in innovation as risk taking won't be rewarded in a govt controlled market.
    I would much rather see them expand Medicare/Medicaid to those that need it most, while preserving the option for others to have more choice.
     
  3. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    While I am supportive of implementing a public plan - which certainly would be better than the ACA mess...

    The reality is that "Medicare for all" would cost trillion of dollars to tax payers. While having a centralized system would lower the cost of some medical / drug expenses plus possibly better outcomes therefore "saving" some money -- the reality is that the burden for the majority of medical spending would simply be moved from the private sector to the taxpayers --- and the "savings" are merely noise within the overall size of the government medical expenditures under a "Medicare for all" plan and the cost of expanded coverage to more people would quickly wipe out the "savings"

    This does not even touch on the waits that will be endured for medical care under a public option plan. Want that MRI? Wait 4 months. Want that knee surgery? Wait 11 months.

    It is all a question of trade-offs.
     
  4. UsualName

    UsualName

    Yet here we are allegedly on the cutting edge of innovation, paying the most for healthcare in the world and with the lowest life expectancy of the developed nations.

    I’m just wondering what’s so innovative about that?
     
  5. UsualName

    UsualName

    I will trade paying too much for healthcare for every American having coverage. Sounds good to me.