You've outdone yourself, lol.


>https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/02/10/pete-buttigiegs-health-care-plan-is-a-joke/
>
>Jeff Stein at the Washington Post got to the bottom of this
>question in December and reported that it is the latter: the
>Obamacare mandate on steroids. Under Buttigieg’s plan,
>rather than paying a $695 fine at the end of the year if you
>are uninsured (as in the now-repealed Obamacare mandate), you
>could pay a fine as high as $7,000. This sort of lump sum
>shock is going to wreck most of the households hit with it and
>be even more of a political disaster than the much more modest
>Obamacare fine, which was itself a bit of a political
>disaster.
>


This is like, all a lie.

The public "option" isn't a "mandate" tho, and there's no fines. Retroactive enrollment is a completely different mechanism than an individual mandate, no? Think about it:

*(ACA)Individual Mandate: The law "mandated" people to enroll in some form of health insurance coverage, whether employer-sponsored or off the exchanges, or face penalty. Since it's the modern age (lol), the feds were able to determine who lacked coverage pretty damn easily and levy the fine.

*(Buttigieg Public Option) Continuous Auto-enrollment, Retroactive Enrollment + Backstop fund: People who're without health insurance coverage by choice (unlikely) or indigent folks lacking health insurance coverage because they're off-grid or whatever can receive care and/or enroll at point-of-care.

IIRC, the ACA individual mandate basically tried making it *illegal* to go without health insurance coverage. Pete's public option contains no such provision (Ctrl-F the plan for yourself: https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-webapp/documents/MFAWWI_white_paper_FINAL.pdf ... Are the words "mandate", "penalty", etc. even in the document??).

I mean, look at the FPL distribution of the uninsured population: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/8848-06-figure-5.png. About ~half of this population would be Medicaid eligible in states that expanded it (https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/medicaid-income-eligibility-limits-for-adults-as-a-percent-of-the-federal-poverty-level/), meaning they would qualify for no co-insurance/free coverage under Pete's public option. Folks caught in non-expansion states, who "would" have been eligible had their state expanded Medicaid, qualify for no co-insurance/free coverage too.

ONLY people eligible for free-coverage i.e. at/below the Medicaid FPL would be auto-enrolled. Retroactive enrollment would ONLY occur if for whatever reason somebody's uninsured by choice or off-grid (eg. homeless) but turned up somewhere needing care. The backstop fund incentivizes providers to treat these people and prevents them from going uncompensated in doing so. There's NO avenue to levy a fine or penalty on a patient whatsoever in this framework. And EVEN if there was, half the uninsured qualify for free coverage so what's X% of zero?? Bruenig's claim doesn't make any sense.


>Buttigieg’s own effort to defend his plan is to make
>big-number claims about how Medicare for All will cost $30
>trillion or $50 trillion. The suggestion of these attacks on
>M4A is that his plan is much cheaper. But in fact, it is
>clearly more expensive, at least when we look at what matters:
>total national health expenditures.
>


First of all, those $30T+ cost estimates for Bernie's single-payer system are widely accessible, empirical, and shockingly robust across multiple studies, methods, and partisan orientations. Bernie himself has admitted those $30T+ cost estimates multiple times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uy8D7MXSYo
https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1231734509835554820

And, again, we've argued at length about this federal spending v. NHE thing. Total NHE is like... an estimate of the US aggregate "healthcare economy" (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/NHE-Deflator.pdf). There's all sorts of stuff in there not directly related to care provision like R&D, investments, construction, manufacturing/production (eg. medical equipment); federal healthcare spending only accounts for one component of it. But federal spending is the far more relevant metric to compare different healthcare proposals/bills for many reasons, incl. that its much easier to standardize and relates directly to gov revenue required to fund a specific plan (eg. incl. any necessary TAX REVENUE). It's entirely possible the US "healthcare economy" could "contract" (i.e. reduced NHE) while federal spending on healthcare dramatically increases, or vice versa (eg. cuts to federal healthcare spending despite skyrocketing utilization and prices in medical goods + services, which both drive NHE growth). But my main issue with you guys is how you always either conflate them, or present *insert federal spending estimate* as less than *insert status quo NHE estimate*. A federal spending increase needs to be compared to your baseline federal spending to make sense. Same with NHE (https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/dont-confuse-changes-federal-health-spending-national-health-spending).

Anyway: nowhere, noway, nohow is Bernie's single-payer healthcare proposal less expensive than Pete's or any other candidate. Stop blatantly lying lol. It's been deemed more expensive for the US by like every reputable independent quantitative analysis so far. Your shameless disinfo just inspired me to do a whole ass lit review in this post lol. I don't even care if you don't see this either, this is to stand up for the truth. I just can't with the way yall straight up lie on this issue. Hopefully I pull the right numbers bc I'm rushing, but I'll share the links in case I mess up. Studies I can remember reading off top:


STUDIES COMPARING CANDIDATES' PLANS (*laying out Bernie v. Pete given the article you linked):

(non-partisan) URBAN INSTITUTE, 2019
=====================================

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SPENDING CHANGE OVER 10y
Bernie's Single-Payer............................+$28.4T
Pete's Public Option..............................+$1.2T

ESTIMATED NHE CHANGE OVER 10y
Bernie's Single-Payer.............................+$7.2T
Pete's Public Option..............................-$0.2T


Links:
(Bernie's Single-Payer slide) https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/Blumberg_comparing_reform_options_building_ACA_single_payer_db.pdf#page=11
(Pete's Public Option slide) https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/Blumberg_comparing_reform_options_building_ACA_single_payer_db.pdf#page=8
(Full Analysis) https://urban.org/research/publication/incremental-comprehensive-health-reform-how-various-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs



(non-partisan) CRFB, 2020
=========================

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SPENDING CHANGE OVER 10y
Bernie's Single-Payer......................+$30.6T
Pete's Public Option........................+$2.8T

ESTIMATED NHE CHANGE OVER 10y
Bernie's Single-Payer........................+6% (around +$3T)
Pete's Public Option.........................-2% (around -$1T)

Links:
(Federal Spending figure) http://www.wdw.crfb.org/sites/default/files/fig%202%20costs%20vs%20offsets.JPG
(NHE figure) http://www.wdw.crfb.org/sites/default/files/fig%204%20change%20in%20nhe%20comparison.JPG
(Full analysis) http://www.wdw.crfb.org/sites/default/files/fig%202%20costs%20vs%20offsets.JPG



STUDIES COMPARING 2019 PROPOSAL (Long-Term Care + Support Services incl.) v. CURRENT LAW/STATUS QUO:


ESTIMATED FEDERAL SPENDING CHANGE OVER 10y
(progressive) Hopbrook Institute-UMass/Friedman Study, 2019......+$19T
(non-partisan) Rand Study, 2019...................................+$31T
(non-partisan) Urban Institute Study, 2019........................+$28.4T
(conservative) Heritage Foundation Study, 2019....................+$23.9T
(non-partisan) Committee for Resp Fed Budget, 2020................+$30.6T
(Author is Sanders Advisor) Yale/Galvani Study, 2020...............+$7.73T

ESTIMATED NHE CHANGE OVER 10y
(progressive) Hopbrook Institute-UMass/Friedman Study, 2019......-$13.0T
(non-partisan) Rand Study, 2019....................................+$5.1T
(non-partisan) Urban Institute Study, 2019.........................+$7.2T
(conservative) Heritage Foundation Study, 2019......................Not Analysed
(non-partisan) Committee for Resp Fed Budget, 2020.................+6% (~$3T)
(Author is Sanders Advisor) Yale/Galvani Study, 2020..............-$4.5T (~450B x 10y)



STUDIES COMPARING OLD SANDERS SINGLE-PAYER PROPOSALS (no Long-Term Care + Support Services incl.) v. THEN LAW/STATUS QUO:

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SPENDING CHANGE OVER 10y
(conservative) Mercatus/Blahous Study, 2018........................+$32.6T
(Fmr Clinton Appointee on Healthcare) Emory/Thorpe Study,2016......+$25T
(progressive) PERI-UMass/Pollin Study,2018.........................+$29.3T

ESTIMATED NHE CHANGE OVER 10y
(conservative) Mercatus/Blahous Study, 2018.........................-$2.0T
(Fmr Clinton Appointee on Healthcare) Emory/Thorpe Study,2016.......-$4.0T
(progressive) PERI-UMass/Pollin Study, 2018.........................-$5.1T (*uses HCE not NHE, but incl. since HCE is large proportion of NHE)



STUDIES ESTIMATING BURDEN ON US TAXPAYERS UNDER BERNIE'S SINGLE-PAYER PLANS v. CURRENT LAW/STATUS QUO


ESTIMATED TAX HIKE
(Fmr Clinton Appointee on Healthcare) Emory/Thorpe Study, 2016.........+20%
(conservative) Heritage Foundation Study, 2019.........................+20%
(Author is Sanders Advisor) Yale/Galvani Study, 2020...................+15% (*10% Payroll tax + 5% Income tax)

ESTIMATED PCT OF US HOUSEHOLDS w/ NET INCR. HEALTH SPENDING
(Fmr Clinton Appointee on Healthcare) Emory/Thorpe Study, 2016............70%
(conservative) Heritage Foundation Study, 2019..........................65.5%
(Author is Sanders Advisor) Yale/Galvani Study, 2020.............Not Analyzed?



Links:
(conservative) Mercatus/Blahous Study, 2018
www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#page=7

(progressive) Hopbrook Institute-UMass/Friedman Study, 2019
https://www.hopbrook-institute.org/single-post/2019/03/29/Working-Paper-No-2-Yes-We-Can-Have-Improved-Medicare-for-All

(non-partisan) Rand Study, 2019
https://rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html

(non-partisan) Urban Institute Study, 2019
https://urban.org/research/publication/incremental-comprehensive-health-reform-how-various-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs

(conservative) Heritage Foundation Study, 2019
https://heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-medicare-all-harms-working-americans

(non-partisan) Committee for Resp Fed Budget, 2020
https://crfb.org/papers/primary-care-estimating-leading-democratic-candidates-health-plans

(Sanders-Affiliated Author) Yale/Galvani Study, 2020
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext
*non-paywall/ad-block friendly link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/here-s-that-medicare-for-all-study-bernie-sanders-keeps-bringing-up/ar-BB10ctVo

(Author Clinton Admin Appointee on Healthcr) Emory/Thorpe Study,2016
https://www.healthcare-now.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-s-analysis-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-single-payer-proposal.pdf

(Progressive) PERI-UMass Study
https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all




>I don't want to really discuss this with you either, last
>month you went full mask off and were spewing some vitriolic
>hate towards Bernie's movement so I know none of these
>arguments are in good faith. One example is reply #170 here:
>
>https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13344033&mesg_id=13344033&listing_type=search#13361750


Lol what mask? What hate? Feel free to disprove anything I said.