Gerald Friedman, the UMass economist whose economic analysis was cited in the Wall Street Journal article that claimed that Bernie Sander's proposals would cost the US $18 trillion thinks it is the Wall Street Journal that doesn't understand the math.
Doing all the calculations Friedman concludes that Single Payer health care and Bernie's plan for it will cost the US $5.081 Trillion LESS over the next ten years than the US is currently paying, while also insuring every uninsured person in the United States, and eliminating all copayments and deductibles!
The stunning chart and the Huffington Post article that outlines his math is linked following the julienne carrot:
Projected 10-Year Impact of HR 676 -- (John Conyers' Single Payer Healthcare Bill)
Increased Tax Revenue from Progressive Taxation: $17.568 Trillion
Deficit Reduction from Tax Increase Excess $02.889 Trillion
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion
Total Savings from Health Care Efficiencies $09.634 Trillion
Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
Additional Spending -- Cost of Covering Everyone, $04.553 Trillion
and eliminating all co-payments and deductibles!)
Net REDUCED National Health Care Spending $5.081 TRILLION!!!
Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 5:44 AM PT: Really liked Bruh1's comment on the increased tax costs in Gerald Friedman's chart. Although there will be increased taxes, much of that increase is simply a redirection of current corporate healthcare payments, [and employee healthcare payments]. Under the new plan corporations and individual will be taxed for healthcare, rather than paying it directly to health care insurance companies, and the government will use those dollars to fund the single payer healthcare system that effectively allows the government to offer better healthcare benefits to company employees at a lower rate:
Bruh1's Comments:
"These three are paying that money anyway. The tax is swapping one for the other. It is not on top of what they are paying. The number that's relevant from a financial stand point is what one saves. You don't buy a car by saying 'well it would cost me 10000 here, but the same car would cost me 7000 there, so the price tag on the 7000 car is too expensive.' You say 'it saves me 3000 to buy from the other guy.' It's completely irrational to ignore basic finance here. From a financial standpoint, the businesses, employees and individuals are gaining $5 trillion for savings, consumption, wages, profits and building businesses. The guy who is being paid 50,000 is now may be able to ask for a raise of 53000 because there's that extra money sitting there not going into his health insurance. The employer may not give him the full savings, but the employer now loses the argument that wages are depressed due to health care. They can now afford to give more to the employee. And, if you are afraid they won't, you place the tax burden on the employer because its still less than the employer would have paid for health insurance on the open market. That's how you talk about it to the American public. You point out what they gain from it. Not act as if they are complete idiots who can't get the idea of what a bargain is. Unlike other programs, where the cost is just a new tax, the argument here is fairly easy to make if one is not a far right wing ideologue pretending to be concerned or a partisan trying to support this or that candidate."
by bruh1 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 02:07:16 PM PDT
______________________
While, it's not quite that simple, another easy way way of looking at these numbers is provided by ypochris
"The only lines that are pertinent, the two lines used to come up with the figure of a $5.08 trillion savings, are
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion
Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
__
Total savings $ 5.08 Trillion
by ypochris on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 12:26:47 PM PDT