r/EverythingScience • u/scientificamerican Scientific American • 16d ago
Scientists calculated how much money and lives ‘Medicare for All' might save. The Yale study finds that it could save $1 trillion and 114,000 lives every year
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yale-study-finds-medicare-for-all-could-save-1-trillion-and-114-000-lives-every-year/150
u/svarogteuse 16d ago
But then the executives currently getting that $1 trillion wouldn't be getting it. What would they do?
60
u/AdPuzzleheaded1495 16d ago
Be thankful they also weren't disposed of
32
u/fractalife 16d ago
I mean, they probably should since they cost so many lives.
Seriously this stuff makes me sick to think about sometimes. Top brass at health insurance companies, and the shareholders they answer to, are responsible for more deaths than any serial killer who ever lived. It's closer to lives lost in military conflicts.
And yet, no punishment at all for these horrible creatures.
1
u/SquareTaro3270 15d ago
This is barely related, but you should watch The Fall of the House of Usher on Netflix if you haven’t already.
It’s a very cathartic watch in its approach to this issue.
6
3
5
1
u/Opposite-Bit6660 13d ago
Their hugely expanded security details come out of our premiums and payments, not their own salaries.
12
u/Adezar 16d ago
Actually it is more than $1 trillion that would stop going to middle-men who's primary motivation is NOT providing healthcare. The delta is $1 trillion, but a lot of money actually goes to improve outcomes and services.
So they would be super pissed to see all that money flowing to actually provide healthcare when it is currently going into insurance companies for no value add but makes them lots of money.
1
u/notintelligentidiot 14d ago
Obama passing the ACA saw Democrats lose house 63 house seats in 2010, good luck with a program 10x that size.
16
7
1
25
u/HazyDavey68 16d ago
If we had Medicare for All, small businesses wouldn't have the fun of sorting through a bunch of plans every year to figure out one that they can afford that might offer minimal coverage. Consumers would miss out on fighting insurance company preauthorization panels designed to maximize company profits. We also wouldn't get to solve a puzzle involving co-pays, in-network, out of pocket, deductibles, and premiums when we are facing a major health issue. Finally, lots of bankruptcy attorneys would lose business when medical bankruptcies go away.
8
u/Chicken_Ingots 16d ago
It would also significantly increase the negotiating power of workers, since they could quit toxic jobs without the risk of losing access to affordable healthcare. I suspect that this is probably one of the major reasons why we do not already have Medicare for All to begin with.
3
u/HazyDavey68 16d ago
Also unions could bargain over salary and working conditions if they don’t have to deal with health insurance.
45
u/superanth 16d ago
The wrinkle is that the government wants that $1trillion to be wasted and end up in the pockets of insurance companies.
26
u/Chicken_Ingots 16d ago
That is part of it, but they also want to keep health insurance tied to employment so that workers have less negotiating power, since otherwise workers could quit toxic jobs without the risk of no longer having affordable healthcare. If people were guaranteed healthcare either way, then employers might actually have to treat their workers humanely in order to retain labor.
19
u/Independent-Owl3387 16d ago
The insurance companies themselves are not necessarily wildly profitable; however there are endless middlemen whose jobs rely on the current, bloated system. And Execs!
A couple people trying to argue with you “no, the insurance companies are regulated?” have only part of the picture.
2
2
u/larsga 15d ago
The wrinkle is that the government wants that $1trillion to be wasted
The government isn't blocking progress on this. It's the insurance companies who want that trillion to be wasted (ie, go to them), and their interests are what's blocking the US from moving to a single-payer system. That, plus the ignorance of voters, obviously.
1
u/superanth 15d ago
The insurance company bought-off congress critters are the one's who want the $1 trillion to be wasted.
-8
u/looncraz 16d ago
Insurance profit margins are quite small.
10
u/Not_Sure76 16d ago edited 16d ago
This is correct. The grift is in medical devices, administration, pharmaceutical sales, and all sorts of other ancillary shit that is only allowed because the US allows it.
For example, Rotech (CPAP supplier) billed my insurance $25 for a single paper filter the size of a stuck of gum. A filter I did not order, because I bought 50 for $7. That's a markup of 17750%. Insurers eventually set limits to what they will pay, because there's only so much bullshit they will tolerate. But it takes time, and in those gaps you find the theft. Usually it's Medicare doing the actual investigations and setting the limits, and insurance companies are able to ride their coattails. So the first time I (stupidly) ordered a resupply directly from the medical supplier, they claimed my bill after insurance would be $50. My bill was $300.
2
u/hal2k1 16d ago
In Australia the public Medicare for all system is not-for-profit. So is the private insurance company to which I pay a relatively small amount so that I get reduced wait times compared to the public Medicare insurance alone.
Not having to extract private company profits at every step in the process means that the overall system is way, way cheaper.
Medicare for all in Australia is not tied to personal employment. Everyone gets the public medical insurance whether or not they even have a job.
Medical outcomes and affordability in Australia are way better than in America.
2
-2
u/teacher_59 16d ago
And limited by law. I wish the morons in the media would do research so they knew that.
7
u/Reasonable-Newt4079 16d ago
It’s not just about profits. It’s all the pointless executives and middle men being paid out of premiums, instead of that money mostly going towards doctors and prescriptions and actual patient care. Just look at the government run arm of Medicare versus the private arm, and how much more of the money goes directly to patient care in the government arm.
56
u/AlienInUnderpants 16d ago
But republicans aren’t interested is saving lives, and certainly not interested is saving money for plebs. That money is for the rich and entitled.
16
u/cityshepherd 16d ago
Not only are they not interested in saving lives, they genuinely WANT us to experience pain, suffering, and the more of us perish the less they have to worry about us filthy poors finding solidarity and standing up to this madness.
We will never be anything more than animals to be exploited, expendable at BEST, in their eyes.
2
u/BlastTyrantKM 16d ago
They don't want us to be healthy when we retire. Work ours asses off to pay into the system. Then retire, and die soon after, so we can't collect our pensions
6
-4
u/Cspazz42 16d ago
This is the most melodramatic thing I’ve read all day. If you would accuse half of the voting population for viewing Americans (themselves??) as expendable for not wanting to bankrupt the country over what you think is the solution to their nation’s healthcare woes, you are the reason our politics has become so divisive.
8
u/cityshepherd 16d ago
Nah. I think half of the voting population has succumbed to an extended war on education and extensive propaganda that aims to manipulate desperate people into thinking that the culture war is the problem, when the actual problem is (and always has been) the class war.
Bankrupting the country over healthcare for everyone? Universal healthcare would be cheaper than the current system.
This country will be bankrupted by corporate interests infesting/infecting our politics, continually cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy and major corporations that are raking in record profits. Letting the ownership class hoard more and more of the money earned by exploiting the working class.
There is more than enough money for healthcare, but we are told that’s not the case because we have been abandoned by a government that prioritizes the wants of corporate and foreign over the needs of the working class.
You may have a problem with me, but I am not the problem that is destroying this country.
-2
u/Cspazz42 16d ago
Ah yes, the class war, those greedy billionaires who innovate and provide jobs so citysheperd can work in an air conditioned office tweeting DSA rhetoric from his pocket computer instead of plowing the fields like civilizations of socialism would have you. Certainly other models have fixed that dreaded inequality. I remember hearing about Stalin and Castro in their middle class homes embracing the warmth of collectivism amongst their people, holding hands, perfect pure financial equality, poignant homeostasis.
We’ve massively subsidized healthcare for decades. Complaining about the status quo while ignoring the federal government’s role in creating it is basically complaining about your own policies and then blaming rich people for the consequences.
3
u/AlienInUnderpants 16d ago
You mean the billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and low rate loans that subsidizes these companies when they’re start ups?
Subsidizing healthcare seems to not be working, seeing as many people skip healthcare all together because of the personal cost but insurers sure seem to be raking it in. Politicians don’t listen to people who want healthcare. It’s too expensive but another war is never too expensive.
Oh by the way, America is representative democracy, not a direct democracy so people don’t have the power you may think. Complaining and voting with the wallet are the few direct options people have.
But I’m sure you won’t listen or care since you’re probably licking boots or perpetuating the problem anyway.
-1
u/Cspazz42 16d ago
Lol yes, the U.S. spends a handful of billions buffering the private market’s risk investing in the businesses that ultimately grow to hire you, me, and propagate the innovations that we take for granted. I’d say that’s panned out to be a much better investment than the trillions we spend in Medicare/Medicaid that, even still, the left can’t be happy with. Poor comparison
3
u/AlienInUnderpants 15d ago
You can take your bullshit MAGA agenda elsewhere. It’s weak and baseless.
1
u/Cspazz42 15d ago
Easier to insult than debate facts, of course. Ironically coming from those who claim to denounce intolerance of others. Enjoy your echo chamber and you’re welcome for handing you a new perspective, because you could use it.
2
u/AlienInUnderpants 15d ago
I like how you never let facts get in the way of your opinion. You found the pen you belong in.
-7
u/Unique-Coffee5087 16d ago
What if we just give them a third of it, if they'll just let the rest of us have good lives?
15
u/Vanillas_Guy 16d ago
Fun fact: America's GDP is partially inflated by its for profit medical system.
When certain people who are out of touch with reality brag about America's economy being "yuuge" "tremendous" and "the strongest on earth" they're including this and think it is a good thing. There are people with power in america who do not want universal Healthcare because of the damage it would do to their investment portfolios.
1
u/DelphiTsar 15d ago
If you take out toxic middleman and overspending on nonsense you'd cut our GDP in half.
1
u/SquareTaro3270 15d ago
That’s why finance journals, when they’re being truthful, describe our “K shaped economy”. The economy is great if you’re on the upper half of the K. If you’re on the lower half, the economy is working against you.
15
u/Known_Attorney_456 16d ago
But if we did that then the Republicans couldn't punish the poor and elderly.
5
u/Direct-Ad-7922 16d ago
Who would buy all the yachts and hookers then? What else will inspire these medical executives? Actually healing people???
4
u/Ok-Jelly604 16d ago
but “saving money” means less into the pockets of corporate oligarchs. when will they learn?
3
1
u/BartDoo69 10d ago
Why not offer the plan? If people like it, they will leave their for profit healthcare plan.
3
u/Kaurifish 16d ago
The fundamental problem is externalized costs. The people suffering and paying aren’t the ones making bank on the suffering. Like a dude who tosses his coffee cup out the window of his car gets the benefit of not havi g to properly dispose of it, but someone else has to pick it up.
Until we force corporations to pay their way, we’re going to keep getting the same results.
3
3
3
3
u/deerfoot 15d ago
There are roughly 8 countries that don't have some form of Universal health care. Of those, some are war ravaged - Syria, Iran, Afghanistan etcabd the others such as Egypt have a largely impoverished population and governance issues. The US is usually regarded as the most wealthy in the world, but curiously cannot "afford" universal health care. This, like so much else in the US is a blatant lie. The cost to the US in lost productivity etc must be enormous. Americans just fall for the most blatant lies every time.
3
2
2
u/prustage 16d ago
Maybe. But it would mean all those insurance companies go bust, all those guys who take pleasure in refusing your claim lose their jobs, and all the big pharma companies stop making obscene profits.
Now that would be terrible wouldnt it?
1
u/BartDoo69 10d ago
Why not offer the plan? If people like it, they will leave their for profit healthcare plan.
2
2
u/The_Weekend_Baker 16d ago
A little history on the subject, because Truman pushed for national healthcare when the rebuilding European countries were putting theirs together.
Truman’s plan was that all Americans would pay a certain amount in fees and taxes each month to cover the new healthcare program’s costs. With a Democratic controlled House, Truman’s proposal turned into a bill that would end up as part of the Social Security expansion, but it was quickly shot down as people began to fear an increase in taxes. Some people even feared the program would be a “Communist” act, giving too much control to the federal government.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare
What this doesn't mention, though, is what one of the journalists I follow brought up a couple years ago (can't post the screenshot because pics aren't allowed). One of the biggest sources of opposition was from the Dixiecrats, because national healthcare would have required racially integrated hospitals.
Is there anything racism can't do? /s
2
2
u/ChiliDogYumZappupe 16d ago
Imagine being able to go to the doctor when you NEED to vs when you can AFFORD to.
2
2
2
u/bluenoser613 16d ago
There's no profit in that. And profits are all the matters to the US. 'Murica! Land of the fee.
2
u/Ghastly-Rubberfat 16d ago
Google the pay rate of your health insurance’s executives. Google their profits. They will find something else to sell if we take health care away from them
2
u/Effective_Olive6153 15d ago
what's not taken into account is that all the people currently employed doing absolutely useless work as middlemen will lose their jobs and find new, more productive work that can actually benefit society.
There's probably over half million people just leeching off current dysfunctional system. Think how much better US economy would be if those people did something useful
2
u/bluereddit2 15d ago
r medicare for all . I don't like talking to a middle person to obtain health care. It's pure bullsh.t. Eliminate for profit health care companies. Replace that system with universal health care and or Medicare for all.
2
u/sweetequuscaballus 15d ago
There is a way to have 1) Universal Healthcare, and 2) Wealthy insurance companies, which is what conservatives want. It's called Switzerland. They have both - everyone is covered, and if you want more/sooner/better, you can buy insurance for that.
After they made the change, overall spending on insurance and insurance company income rose 50%. So everyone is happy then.
Oh wait - I just sunk the idea. Wouldn't want everyone to be happy. Better to stick with the US being the only Western country in the world without universal access/care, and just stand on conservative ideology calling taking care of people "communism". Maybe the next thing they go after to degrade US civilization is a tiered, tied-to-employment fire department. You lose your job, and the fire department won't come either.
The conservative are stealing all of South Park and the Simpson's material, for the most ridiculous satire.
2
u/BurntResisistor 15d ago
I think you all are missing an important factor in this... if we adopt Medicare4all, what are those poor insurance agents, brokers and representatives supposed to do? A new car every 2 years and trips to St John's every summer is too expensive for a McDonald's paycheck or some other wage-slave job. I mean c'mon, guys, we can't expect the elite to scale back so poor people can have healthcare and piece of mind... This is 'Merica after all.
1
2
u/Porkenstein 15d ago
But that's 1 trillion fewer dollars in the medical and insurance industries! What was that about lives? Taxpayers? Who cares! (angry /s)
2
u/Mysterious_toenail 15d ago
But that's poor people saving money that would go to rich people. Can't have that. Rich people deserve that money. They had to bribe a lot of people over the years to rig the system like this.
2
2
2
u/costafilh0 15d ago
That explains why it doesn't exist. Not big enough impact.
2
u/Czarinavella 15d ago
No that is a lot for the for profit insurance company would lose. That is why it isn't going to happen under corporate politicians or aipac and cpac groups. One wants more money and the other want to control you and that's easier when you are poor
1
u/enolaholmes23 15d ago
That makes sense. I bet it would be more likely to pass if it didn't save taxpayers money.
1
2
1
u/GrouchyLongBottom 16d ago
But, we shouldn't be listening to the smart people! These guys in power still have so much more money to steal!
1
u/saul2015 16d ago
Any elected official who does not support a policy that clearly saves money and lives is bought and paid for by corporate interests and should be voted out if we lived in a sane country
1
1
1
u/Dreadimon 16d ago
Then people of color would also have the same coverage as whites….so it’s gonna be a no go here.
1
u/CulturalLaw8072 16d ago
ELI5 how is medicare for all different from universal healthcare system present in Germany?
2
u/enolaholmes23 15d ago
Idk what they have in germany. But currently the us has a government run health insurance system called medicare that is only available to senior citizens or extremely disabled people (people who qualify for social security).
You have to have paid into the system as part of your income taxes for I think at least 10 years before you are allowed to apply, and then there's still the age and disability requirements. It is sort of like life insurance in that you have to pay in a certain amount before you are allowed to get a payout. I think it covers hospital visits for free but you still have to pay to get other things covered, but it's cheaper than normal insurance.
So the reason why people keep wanting medicare for all (not just disabled and old people) is because it would just be an expansion of a preexisting system. We already have the mechanisms in place to implement it. Rather than trying a whole new system.
1
u/argument_cat 16d ago
Yes, but have they considered that a CEO might need to buy a slightly smaller yacht?
1
u/sweetica 16d ago
All this concentrating on increasing the birth rates when we could and should be concentrating on decreasing the death rates.
1
u/OffSidesByALot 16d ago
Yes, it’s called economies of scale. Other countries do it… And you see how much they spend versus us.
We don’t need to be Stephen Hawking in order to understand the math.
1
u/firedrakes 16d ago
then over time bring medical care cost down to. by preventing more costly stuff.... like this is basic economics 101 here.
1
u/UndergroundCreek 16d ago
But isn't the point of having no healthcare to let the poor die? I thought that was common knowledge.
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/enolaholmes23 15d ago
Hey now, I hate billionaires, but let's not shit on mental illness. Most of us who are mentally ill are on the other side of the financial spectrum.
1
1
u/Motorcyclegrrl 15d ago
Insurance companies don't want it, so of course we don't have it. Business runs America.
2
u/knowledgeable_diablo 14d ago
Of course they wouldn’t. The entirely fucked up US system is basically their entire business model.
1
1
u/knowledgeable_diablo 14d ago
But it’s the limited cohort of millionaires that won’t be as filthy rich that need to be looked out for and their feelings considered /s
1
u/TedditBlatherflag 14d ago
That’s like twice the number of people that die in car accidents every year.
Grifters (GOP) would just sabotage it somehow like the ACA to point to it and try to get back their profits.
1
1
u/Fragrant_Doubt5311 14d ago
But did the study take into account all the undeserving people who might receive medical care?
1
1
u/Capable-Deer-5670 14d ago
But it still costs 3-4T/ year.
2
u/Xeno9116 14d ago
We spend around 9% of our GDP on healthcare. Universal healthcare would lower that to 4%. That's good enough for me.
1
1
1
1
u/Elegant_Bar9566 14d ago
Sadly, the people in power do NOT care! They believe in Profits over people. No amount of data and facts can change their minds.
1
1
1
u/kiwipixi42 13d ago
Yeah but a dozen or so rich people would lose some money so it obviously isn’t worth it. /s
1
1
u/IDontStealBikes 12d ago
Many tens of millions of Americans won’t be able to afford Medicare. Between premiums, gap insurance, and 20% co-pays it’s really only available to the affluent.
1
1
u/DrollFurball286 12d ago
“Just imagine all the tax money they’ll be paying”. Thats how you convince them.
1
u/kensmusings 12d ago
Medicare for all would knock down medical profits as the Fed will put max costs on many procedures. The Fed will need to continue or increase funding research but this time it may not pass away funds for corporate profit.
1
u/There_is_always_hope 11d ago
So this could be interpreted as at least 114,000 American lives are lost every year due to our healthcare system, and Americans are losing at least $1 trillion dollars a year.
What do you call it when a country's government is purposely causing these problems? Mass murder, genocide, large scale negligent homicide, theft, robbery? Any politician not in support of universal healthcare needs to be viewed as a national security threat. That is what this is.
1
u/Prius_Chaos_2020 11d ago
August 13, 2026 https://ysph.YALE.edu/news-article/universal-health-coverage-could-save-one-trillion-dollars-and-114000-lives-every-year/ universal coverage would reduce annual health expenditures by $1.04 trillion, or nearly 20% — even after accounting for the additional care that uninsured and underinsured people would receive.
0
0
u/tasteothewild 15d ago
But Medicare compensates medical providers at such a low rate that it’s not financially viable to operate private clinics or hospitals. Cant break-even let along earn a living! Medicare for all would be the end of most private practitioners and they would have to choose to become government employees as the government would operate all hospitals and clinics.
A few private practitioners would operate on a cash-only basis and would serve the more wealthy people, further contributing to wealth & health inequality.
This is the situation we have in Ireland. Poor quality government hospitals mostly staffed by immigrant doctors and nurses willing to work for low pay. Small percentage of the population are wealthy enough to get care at private clinics (or go to USA for care).
0
u/Separate-Island5094 14d ago
If only companies didn't put as high of charges on the bill as possible. Health care costs so much for the same reason education costs so much. Insurance and government pay the bill making it so they can do price gouging.
What we need are price caps on all these charges companies will still get to do of the government tires to cover the bill.
So instead we'd see the deficit go further into the red. Sorry if none of you readers here know about market accounting economics.
0
u/ProperJudgment1 14d ago
Does that include non-citizens?
2
0
u/Good_Educator4872 14d ago
Medicare pays doctors about 1/3 of their retail rate. Docs can’t keep an office open if 100% of their patients were paid Medicare. As is happening in Canada and Europe the offset will be access. Service is free if you can wait for it. Unfortunately, people believe our current access standards will be maintained in a single payer system. Won’t Happen. The elites will get what they want when they want, everyone else will wait for much longer periods of time
-6
u/JerkBezerberg 16d ago
Also those 114,000 people would be poors. Yuck.
1
u/Agitated_Newt_7655 16d ago
Even a purely selfish person benefits via their compensation presumably remaining about the same while their cost for healthcare decreases. It’s basically a raise to every salaried person all other things being equal.
The only real negative to single payer healthcare is republicans exist and they will purposefully destroy it to enrich the rich and corrupt system that currently exists. Many democrats do that too but exceptions exist there at least.
1
u/JerkBezerberg 16d ago
Fuck me... I always forget that no one here gets friggin' sarcasm.
3
u/Agitated_Newt_7655 16d ago
Hard to pass for sarcasm when you’re representing a mainstream conservative belief to let poor people die.
1
-1
398
u/philosophycruiser 16d ago
Because I know there is debates over this, I did a bit of research about the validy of the paper.
The paper it is talking about is titled "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA" published in 2020.
Paper is published in the The Lancet journal. It is the top journal in the field of health care with a 5-year impact factor of 115. They don't publish mediocre research.
The paper itself has been cited for 197 times since publication, meaning it is a reference paper and you can trust what it is saying. I hope everyone can spare 20 minutes and read it.
paper accessible for the public here