Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Speaker Pelosi-There's no need to reinvent health care -- just improve Obamacare [View all]Gothmog
(145,968 posts)43. Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis
This is from a non-partisan think group that is well respected http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis
Proposals to adopt single-payer health care in the United States have grown in popularity in recent years, as numerous lawmakers and presidential candidates have embraced Medicare for All. However, few have grappled with how to finance the new costs imposed on the federal government. By most estimates, Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over the next decade. How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications.
In the coming months, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will publish a detailed analysis describing numerous ways to finance Medicare for All and the consequences and trade-offs associated with each choice. This paper provides our preliminary estimates of the magnitude of each potential change and a brief discussion of the types of trade-offs policymakers will need to consider.
We find that Medicare for All could be financed with:
Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue. Some of these consequences could be balanced against each other by adopting a combination approach that includes smaller versions of several of the options as well as additional policies.
In the coming months, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will publish a detailed analysis describing numerous ways to finance Medicare for All and the consequences and trade-offs associated with each choice. This paper provides our preliminary estimates of the magnitude of each potential change and a brief discussion of the types of trade-offs policymakers will need to consider.
We find that Medicare for All could be financed with:
A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches
Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue. Some of these consequences could be balanced against each other by adopting a combination approach that includes smaller versions of several of the options as well as additional policies.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Speaker Pelosi-There's no need to reinvent health care -- just improve Obamacare [View all]
Gothmog
Sep 2019
OP
Considerable difference between MFA and a Public Option. PNHP represents 2% of physicians.
Hoyt
Sep 2019
#2
Always thought the public option was an excellent idea. "Try before you buy." n/t
Beartracks
Sep 2019
#6
You can't expand the existing medicare system for all...it will be a new system and damned expensive
Demsrule86
Sep 2019
#13
ZIIIINNG!!! Pelosi is doing great on impeachment, but she has this one wrong!!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Oct 2019
#28
Relative to PO I don't see how MFA is a good idea, MFA would be starting over completely
uponit7771
Sep 2019
#9
NBC/WSJ poll shows Biden's healthcare stance (optional Medicare buy-in) much more popular
Gothmog
Sep 2019
#16
Speaker is absolutely right. It took a tremendous effort to get to Obamacare. We should do as she &
onetexan
Oct 2019
#22
Oh Nancy. We can do better and provide coverage and healthcare to more people.
aikoaiko
Oct 2019
#21
73% of people favor [the] public option that would keep private insurance in place
Gothmog
Oct 2019
#39
Support for a public option has been increasing, and for Medicare-for-All has been decreasing
Gothmog
Oct 2019
#41
Joe Biden's health care plan will be ready to go the day he's sworn into office
Gothmog
Oct 2019
#47
yeah. no. *health care* will still be beholden to the all mighty dollar. that is not sustainable.
Kurt V.
Nov 2019
#52
I assume there is some sort of point you're trying to make with this.
Act_of_Reparation
Nov 2019
#57