You must pay attention to Medicare for All and what “studies” attempt to demonstrate

A new study says that Medicare for All will lower employer premiums by 8% and individual premiums about the same.

Source: View this report at

Before you read the following, you must know that the top 20% income group starts at about $76,000, hardly in the wealthy group which means at a minimum, based on this study, their net costs will rise by $2,812, but that doesn’t matter because this plan is intended to redistribute wealth.

“For families, our results show that Medicare for All can promote both lower average costs and greater equity in financing health care. For example, we find that for middle-income families, the net costs of health care will fall sharply under Medicare for All, by between 2.6 and 14.0 percent of income. By contrast, with high-income families, health care costs will rise, but still only to an average of 3.7 percent of income for those in the top 20 percent income grouping and to 4.7 percent of income for the top 5 percent income group.”

Cost Saving Potential under Medicare for All

Medicare for All has the potential to achieve major cost savings in its operations relative to the existing U.S. health care system. We estimate that, through implementation of Medicare for All, overall U.S. health care costs could fall by about 19 percent relative to the existing system.

The most significant sources of cost saving will be in the areas of:

1) administration (9.0 percent savings in total system costs);

2) pharmaceutical pricing (5.9 percent savings in system costs);

and 3) establishing uniform Medicare rates for hospitals, physicians, and clinics (2.8 percent savings in system costs).

An additional, more modest source of cost savings, at least in the initial years under Medicare for All, would be to reduce the high levels of waste and fraud that currently prevail in service provision. As a low-end figure, we assume that achievable cost savings in these areas would be about 1.5 percent of total system costs in the first year of full operations.

We also assume that further gains in waste reduction and fraud control are achievable in later years, at a rate of about 1 percent per year for roughly a decade.

The Political Economic Research Institute is a left leaning organization affiliated with the Center for American Progress, but that shouldn’t matter if facts are the guideline. The problem is that all of this is based on a set of assumptions that can reasonably be challenged.

I am not an economist, I don’t have computer models to assist me and I’m not trying to sell any ideas, but I do want people to consider the reality of the situation and the consequences.

For example, how would M4A reduce waste and fraud when today’s Medicare can’t do that? And, that’s what Obamacare was supposed do too.

This study projects significant administrative savings for physicians via one claim system, but Medicare can’t use its current inadequate system and still reduce waste and fraud and manage utilization.

At the same time under this plan health care provider income is reduced by 20% or more by using Medicare allowable fees. Will this lead to more or less health care utilization?

But here is the main thing Americans need to think about, “overall U.S. health care costs could fall by about 19 percent relative to the existing system.” Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but in any case that is the aggregate spending for the entire Country and that has little to do with what each American family will spend in taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket costs.


  1. Why we should not believe any of the projected M4A cost estimates or cost savings –

    “Nearly 50 years ago, at the time of Medicare’s enactment, it was projected that the federal government would spend $9 billion on Part A hospital services in 1990. Actual spending in that year totaled $67 billion—an increase of 644% compared with initial estimates.
    9 Billion = 38 Billion 1990 $$$, still way more than the estimate.

    “Likewise, government officials originally projected that Medicare Part B physician services would require ‘federal appropriations of about $500 million a year from general tax revenues.’ Last year, the federal outlay for that program was $163.8 billion—overshooting the original estimate by more than 4,400%.” The $500 million would only = 4 Billion in 2018 $$$. So much for government cost estimates.

    There will be no cost savings with M4A, just like the lie every family will save $2400 per year on healthcare under the Unaffordable Care Act.

    Those who do not know the history of government spending estimates are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past good deeds.

    I believe big business will push this crap M4A, because it does not allow for private health insurance and they will save billions in no longer having to provide health insurance to their employees. Be careful what you wish for, from our corrupt government officials, we will all be poorer with M4A.


  2. Currently physicians get reimbursed lesser amounts from Medicare than they do from private insurers for the identical medical services.Has there been a study of what physicians think of Medicare for all?


    1. I don’t know about studies, but there are physician groups that are strong supporters and others strongly opposed. I think the supporters see far less hassle than with private insurance and no bad debts, but when it comes to less hassle and paperwork, they are going to be disappointed I believe.


  3. Interesting. According to the Bankrate survey that was posted here earlier, the average household income for those over 34 was in excess of $76k. That might mean that everybody over 34 should expect to see their costs go up by $2812. Price controls have never worked. Believe that cutting Medicare fees by 20% won’t have a negative impact is just irresponsible. In truth, I didn’t see any cost savings only the redistribution of wealth. I see nothing that will lower costs for drug, medical hardware, procedures, or the education of doctors and nurses. The nation’s medical bill is still the same, just who is going to pay for it is the question.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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