Study: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all?mod=article_inline

The WSJ has an opinion piece today in which an economist claims, “A single-payer health-insurance system can finance good-quality coverage for all U.S. residents while still reducing overall health-care spending by roughly 10%, according to a study I co-authored last November. The WSJ article is behind a pay wall, but the study it cites is not (link provided).

11 thoughts on “Study: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

  1. I am not impressed by the economist’s claims. They remind me of the old joke in which a businessman is asked, “How do you manage to stay in business when you sell all your products below cost?” The business man replies, “Volume.”

    I am not sufficiently interested in the study to analyze its methods and findings in detail: Even if everything it says were true, I reject any proposal to give our government direct control over our medical services industry in its entirety. Nor am I much moved by the notion that more people will suffer in an imperfect world than otherwise they might in a more nearly perfect one.

    Nevertheless, the study itself appears to have merit, at least based on the reviewers’ comments, not all of which accept the findings as presented.

    PDF of Reviewer Assessments:
    https://www.peri.umass.edu/images/ReviewerAssessments_MFA.pdf

    Like

  2. No studies needed. Everyone who has ever had any kind of interaction with our current healthcare industry knows first hand what a hot mess it is. It almost literally could not be any worse. Meanwhile, other countries get better results for less cost while covering EVERYBODY and enhancing the real freedom of their people.

    You may not be interested in the study but it noteworthy that the economic case for Medicare-for-all is compelling enough to get into the WSJ.

    Like

    1. RE: “Everyone who has ever had any kind of interaction with our current healthcare industry knows first hand what a hot mess it is.”

      I’ve had lots of interaction with our current healthcare industry, especially lately. I don’t agree with your judgement.

      Nor would I assume — fallaciously — that the authority of the WSJ has any relevance at all to the credibility of the study.

      Like

      1. More goofy counterfactual obtuseness. Even on the most routine transaction, the bills, the co-pays, the deductibles, what is covered and what is not and who will see you and who won’t is just about indecipherable.

        Like

        1. _RE: “More goofy counterfactual obtuseness.”

          In other words, no opinion that varies from yours, even one based on real experience, must be wrong. That sounds goofy, counterfactual and obtuse to me.

          Like

          1. Personal attack or reasonable response to someone who glibly denies the OBVIOUS TRUTH of this statement . . .

            “Even on the most routine transaction, the bills, the co-pays, the deductibles, what is covered and what is not and who will see you and who won’t is just about indecipherable.”

            You do not want greater government role in the healthcare system so any evidence that says it might be beneficial you simply pretend is not real. This is your usual mode of “argument.” And that is a defining characteristic of Trump and Trumpism – If the Truth does not help then offer a lie and the bigger the better.

            Like

          2. RE: “Even on the most routine transaction, the bills, the co-pays, the deductibles, what is covered and what is not and who will see you and who won’t is just about indecipherable.”

            If you personally find all those things incomprehensible, it might be wise to become educated instead of advertising your own incompetence. Does it even occur to you that admitting your own stupidity undermines calling other people stupid?

            Like

          3. If being confused by the typical billing and insurance documents produced with any significant medical service means that I am stupid and/or incompetent, then so be it. But, that makes just about everybody in this country stupid and/or incompetent because NOBODY – including you – can decipher such documents without major effort.

            If you want to pretend that you are the very rare exception who has thousands of obscure medical service codes, the details of a long and complex insurance contract, which drugs are covered and which are not, the current state of the insurer’s provider network list and the current state of your co-pays and deductibles readily in mind then knock yourself out. Pretend all you want.

            I have lived in Single Payer and Single Provider countries where when you are ill or injured you get the service you need without any such confusion and overhead. Maybe you haven’t and you think a dog’s breakfast of paperwork, co-pays and deductibles is the only way that healthcare can function?

            Like

          4. RE: “If being confused by the typical billing and insurance documents produced with any significant medical service means that I am stupid and/or incompetent, then so be it.”

            Works for me.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s