Friday, September 04, 2009

A Single-Payer Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Hi everyone,

Looks like the possible savings are beginning to penetrate the skulls of even the most fraidy cat phalangists out there... but here's some more ammo.

First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Expanding Medicare to include the uninsured, and these on Medicaid or employer-sponsored health plans, and expanding coverage for those with limited Medicare, would have the following immediate impacts:

  • Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008)
  • Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues
  • Add $100 billion in employee compensation
  • Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues



Rich Kasten said...

Hmmm and from such a reputable, non-biased source... I am more likely to believe those without a financial benefit (like job security, etc.)

With the huge amount of dollars this thing will require, the majority of that $100 billion will go to the government.

Mpeterson said...

My job receives no benefit from any of this at all -- in fact, you're the source of my financial benefit -- and yet you don't believe *me*. :^)

Rich, Obama said it and I agree with his position: if we can't fund this thing with waste already in the system and in a way that pays for itself, we shouldn't do it. Do you not want to take "yes" for an answer?

And if it's that you simply don't trust the Congress, well then, I don't either. :^)

PaulyW said...


Studies like these are for the benefit of the payer. How can we pay for healthcare when our government is over-spending now and is seemingly out of control.

Covering everybody and claiming it creates jobs and will cost us no more is so far fetched. This just adds to the suspicion that our current administration can not control costs and really has no idea what they are doing.

Mpeterson said...

I guess that all I want to say Pauly is that everyone else in the world can do it, and if Spain and Switzerland can manage health care for their citizens, we should be able to as well. And if we can't, I'd like to know why not. So far, all I've heard is complaints that we can't afford it when the CBO reports I've seen, going back over 20 years, suggest we can.

Do you not want health care for everyone or do you think it's simply impossible? And if you think it's impossible, where do you disagree with the Congressional Budget office?

PaulyW said...

You tout Spain and Switzerland. How about Canada and the UK???? Prime examples of how the universal system is a failure. If the government provides the public option for come all the freeloaders. A system that makes everybody accountable to pay for their healthcare, supports wellness yet does not pay for every trip to the DR for a sniffle, provides coverage for pre-existing conditions, does not pay for illegals, removes malpractice as the #1 way for lawyers to make money, and makes congress use the same plan as the rest of us is what we need to do.

You always conveniently forget those that choose not to be covered, or are between jobs, and the illegals. Some of them have the right to choose not to be covered.

Why do you think it costs so much to go to the hospital? They are passing on high malpractice costs, extra test costs, un-insured costs. There is part of the reason some people end up in bankruptcy.

Go ahead, let them charge ahead, but it will not be the last time the elected officials will hear about it. It will cost money, no doubt, and a government that can't controll itself now is destined to make this even more of a costly mess.

Mpeterson said...

I'm not touting, I'm just saying.

And Canada isn't a failure... Canadians and Brits overwhelmingly like their systems.

Do you think all poor people are just free loaders? Wow. So, when your job gets outsourced you don't think I should have to pick up your insurance for a while? Doesn't seem fair to me Pauly.

Anonymous said...

Here's my two cents: The new jobs created under this plan is going to take away from jobs somewhere else. Statistics are deceiving... but you know that already. If 2.6 millions jobs will be created, how many will be lost somewhere else?

Obama constantly says that we will have a choice to keep our current coverage. And he is right... we will have a choice. But the choice will get harder as the government begins taxing insurance companies to subsidize the costs of the universal health care plan. When the costs of keeping our own insurance becomes so unbearable that we have to purchase ObamaCare... it doesn't matter whether or not we have a choice.

PaulyW said...

I never said freeloaders were poor, I said they will attach themselves to what ever is cheaper. If a company drops coverage and pays the fine under the proposed law, we would pick up the cost. These people have the money to purchase insurance, but would look at the free-bee and surely start taking the free healthcare you and I pay for.

Illegal aliens are freeloading on our system now. Using government services which you and I pay for, yet they do not pay taxes. They work underground.

If the work gets out-sourced, they are by law able to purchase insurance using the Cobra rules.

Do you have personal knowledge of a Canadian citizen that thinks the system is great? I know a Canadian or two and they tell me "good luck with the universal system".

Mpeterson said...

Well, during the 8 years I lived in Toronto, pretty much all of them thought it was just fine.

Ask your friends if they'd rather have OUR current non-system.

Plus there have been a ton of polls done up there (and in Britain) recently -- in the wake of all the noise we're making -- and there are overwhelming majorities who think they have a better system than we do.

Incidentally, World Health Org numbers prove they do too... US rates for infant mortality and deaths from treatable illness puts the US behind every other industrialized country.

Anyway, that's been my experience and that's why I've been stumping for a single payer system.

Looks like we won't get one now so, good for your side. More debt, higher deficits, and worse health care at higher costs. Sounds great! :^)

PaulyW said...

scare tactics.....if you don't do it, we are doomed.

Mpeterson said...

If you aren't scared by the projected deficits we'll face if we do nothing, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Anonymous said...

wow. talk about not paying attention.
YOU are the financial source of my "job"
and yet "you" don't believe me!.

Hey, how about we get together and talk about it over coffee, but I should really pay for your cup-
I mean, don't you think I should pitch in a little bit for at least something in your *life*?

Mpeterson said...

Grin. Okay, thanks. You say where and when.

PaulyW said...

By adding costs and claiming to make healthcare cost neutral by fixing the current fraud is such a stretch.
You are wrong if you think I like where we are headed. Fix the problems we have now, not take on new and more expensive programs we don't have the money for.

Not 1 dang thing this administration has done has created a job or turned around the economy. But they just want to tax the hell out of everything to keep spending.