In public debates over Medicare for All, the first victim is always the truth about costs, savings and taxes. And the recent struggle in California over the proposed state-wide single payer medical bill, the California Guaranteed Medical Care Act, was no exception. A closer look at the media coverage of the bill, also known as AB 1400, reveals numerous statistics and figures, but this simple fact is nowhere to be found. With the current system, California’s medical costs will be estimated at $ 517 billion in 2022. .. Many articles cite California Republican opposition that the AB1400 costs $ 400 billion annually. Given the alternative, it sounds like a deal!
Perhaps the proponents of the current system should be asked how to pay the $ 517 billion. How can they justify spending an additional $ 117 billion on medical care, while neglecting to guarantee medical care to all Californians?
The current system has major inequality, coverage gaps, restricted access to health care, and management, as reported by the Healthy California for All Commission, a single payer medical task force appointed by the state government. Characterized by complexity, it was estimated in 2031 to be $ 323-469 billion more than a single payer system for everyone. This means that all California adults and children will pay $ 8,000 to $ 12,000 more medical care than we need.
The same movement can be seen in the debate over Medicare for All at the national level. In 2020, economists at the University of California, San Francisco reviewed 22 national health care finance studies and found that 20 of them showed savings from a single payer model. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Office of Management and Budget has decided that the federal government’s Medicare for All will generate $ 650 billion in savings.
But what about taxes, a favorite horror tactic for those who benefit from the current dysfunctional system? According to a survey by the Healthy California for All Commissions, medical costs are currently the largest “tax” paid by the middle class, ranging from 25 to 40 percent of household income. Financing a single payer eliminates that burden. Replacing premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and deductions with modest public tax increases for businesses and high-income earners seems like a very good deal. (Under California’s AB 1400, households under $ 600,000 a year will see a tax increase of less than 1%.)
And costs are rising at an alarming rate. Under the current scheme, average family insurance premiums have increased by 22 percent over the last five years and 47 percent over the last decade.
Corporate medical costs are also rising. It’s easy to forget that the largest portion of the cost of commercial health insurance is borne by the business. Single payers are also a good deal for them. Under California’s AB1400, businesses of all sizes can save significant on medical costs, even with tax increases in mind. And SMEs will be completely exempt from tax increases.
If readers are surprised at the savings from a single payer, chalk down the impact of the medical industry, which has repeatedly lied to not be able to buy universal health insurance since 1993. The industry can claim literally anything. What we want now is that a single payer represents a direct challenge to its profits and powers.
Consider the industry’s ability to set health policy agendas. Counting lobbying spending and election donations, the medical sector spends more on influencing parliamentarians than any other industry.Research published in Journal of American Medical Association Between 1999 and 2018, “The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent $ 4.7 billion lobbying the U.S. federal government, averaging $ 233 million annually. Presidential and Parliamentary Election Candidates, National $ 414 million for donations to party committees and external spending groups. $ 877 million for donations to state candidates and committees. ”
Where does this money come from? It comes from us. This comes from the premiums paid by workers and the premiums paid by businesses (a common reason to refrain from raising wages). This results from out-of-pocket costs paid to prescription drugs, hospitals, and doctors. Our own money is used to prevent negotiations on prescription drug prices or to oppose any effort to limit what hospitals, insurance companies and doctors can charge us.
Our money is also used for high executive salaries, M & A and shareholder income. Over the past few years, Wall Street investors have significantly expanded ownership of healthcare companies.
The profits of the largest healthcare companies are obscene. Kaiser Permanente’s 2021 net income reached a record high of $ 8.1 billion. That same year, HCA, the largest commercial hospital company, posted a profit of $ 7 billion, and UnitedHealth, the largest commercial insurance company, reported a profit of $ 17.3 billion. The desires of prescription drug companies are well known, probably because of reports on the Covid-19 pandemic. Total sales from Pfizer and Modena’s Covid vaccine are projected to reach $ 60 billion in 2021 and 2022. Profit for 2021 was $ 22.77 billion, an increase of 14.6% over the previous year. Meanwhile, patients died of insulin deficiency, and Congress has so far been unable to limit the price of medicines decades ago (which could limit the price of prescription medicines made by a single payer. Because I couldn’t do it).
Sifting fear tactics, misrepresentations, and impacts on the healthcare industry’s purchases reveal patterns that benefit from human suffering and protect economic interests at the expense of our health. increase. California, like the rest of the United States, can save money and address health inequality by adopting a single payer system. Yes, we need and can afford to provide the health care that deserves it. In fact, we can’t help it.
..
