OOPS: Right-Wing Study Admits Medicare For All Saves Money

For FREE help finding a Medicare plan,
Click here or call 1-800-729-9590.

$32 trillion. You may have seen this number in corporate media coverage and Republican propaganda. It’s the estimated cost of universal health care over a 10-year period.

It’s a big number—a big, scary number. So hacks like the editorial board at The Washington Post use it to scare people with titles like “Single-payer health care would have an astonishingly high price tag.”

Not just high—astonishingly high.

Of course what the editorial board of The Washington Post leaves out (though you think they’d know better) is any comparison to what we’re currently spending.

Compared to what we’re currently spending, universal health care or single-payer health care would save us $17 trillion over 10 years…

Read More At:

Support The Show On Patreon:

Here's Our Amazon Link:

Follow Kyle on Twitter:

Like the show on Facebook:

Clip from The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio Monday – Friday 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern time zone.

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Check out our website – and become a member – at:

 

Share This:

85 thoughts on “OOPS: Right-Wing Study Admits Medicare For All Saves Money

  1. pfft, you’re thinking long term though, we all know these people can’t think that far ahead. Or maybe they do know it will save money, but still won’t do anything because that would require doing something to help people.

  2. At this point, anyone saying the USA shouldn’t have Medicare for all and that it should stay private is like saying we should send a mission to mine cheese from Mars to solve world hunger. It’s so ridiculous that no one I’ve read the age of four should even consider it as a possibility.

    • The $2 Trillion savings is a massive understatement. It is more realistically closer to $17 Trillion because the Koch funded study didn’t take into account how much healthcare prices would rise every year and if you actually took into account how much the market will bubble over 10 years, the more correct estimate would be that our current system would cost somewhere around $48 Trillion, which is how people get the $17 Trillion in savings.

    • well its British Trillions, which is billions for the rest of the world. that makes 0 diference to this discussion but billions and trillions have different definitions in the british empire and the rest of the world.

  3. “Waaaah! The word ‘socialism’ triggers me regardless of the type! How dare you save us trillions of dollars!”
    – typical right wing behavior regarding democratic socialism

    • Lisa Murphy Why is it an “evil”? Does that mean the Canadian system is more evil than out system? I marvel at the successful brainwashing.

    • kay jay Either they’re brainwashed or they genuinely believe giving health care insurance to poorer people by taxing the rich is evil. Making them Ayn Rand cultists who never grew up out of that 14 year old stage.

    • if you consider the government coordinated contractors, sure. The main issues with a pure free-market healthcare system is that its disincentivized to treat the root cause to lose its customer base and Obamacare said: Just subsidize this mess and conservatives said that, Nixon’s HMOs, Emergency care which they refused to fund the mandate as originally proposed so basically they just past the bankrupting costs back to you; or just replace it austerity and just die in the sewer but if you want to make it quick, have a gun.

  4. The MSM gets a TON of advertising money from Big Pharma and Health Insurance companies……they stand to LOSE money if the Medicare for all is accepted

    • The monopsony of Medicare has the power to tank costs and possibly save 17 trillion in 10 years. There’s so much for the for-profit health companies to lose and they’re now losing the argument.

    • @Kevin: you would think the usual idiots and degenerate lairs who prowl progressive chanels would see reason about that point but no they’re still jerking off to their shrine to donald trump

    • That’s right, that’s the core of the issue right there. It’s why politicians aren’t allowed to support single payer healthcare, lest they be cast out by the wayside and have their careers destroyed. It doesn’t give them or their donors profits.

    • the thing that people need to understand from this is that these people (the elites) know exactly what works for working people. they know good and well that they’re on the incorrect side. they have nothing else to do except lie and misrepresent their opponents and it works very successfully on the American public

    • Jeff T Well, when the government becomes the only insurer, that is, the only source of income for the health care industry, that means that price gouging could be a thing of the past. More or less. But price gouging is what Big Pharma is all about. Of course they don’t like it. Why should they? It is only natural for predatory capitalists to fight any kind o government program that meddles in their business.

  5. The ~300 billion number is per year, which I think is the per year peak at the end of a decade. Range is 2-17 trillion in savings over the entire decade.

    • Isaak Mercado if it could be proven to your satisfaction that there was exactly zero savings, but everyone was covered without deductibles or copays, would you be for or against Medicare for all?

    • No it doesn’t, it predicts that it would decrease, not that there would be none. You’re making a fallacious argument.

    • C’mon den now, even the hill folk in ‘bama know dat dem dere monay be saved with dat dere Medicare for All. (And indeed, polls show it is supported by a large portion of Republican voters.)

  6. I just read a “so called analysis” of Medicare for All and they were trying to debunk even The Koch brothers analysis calling it “overly optimistic”. For those of us who actually have an Economics and Finance background we realize that cutting out insurance company profits and negotiating medical and pharma prices (in addition to 30 million more citizens being covered) makes it virtually certain that Kyles ($17T/decade) is the better number. That and it takes health care out of the equation for companies which I guarantee you will make them very happy except for the evil companies like Walmart who hires 90%+ of their employees part time to avoid benefits.

    • That’s not even considering the fact that they are *drastically* underestimating the current system’s future costs, and therefore underestimating the potential savings of Medicare for All. They set current system expenditures as fixed costs, when anyone looking at the unstable for-profit system we have knows that it will do anything but remain fixed–it couldn’t possibly get cheaper either due to incentives of the current system, so that means it will only get more and more expensive over the next decade. To prove this, we only have to observe overall health costs since the ACA was enacted in 2010, which would show steadily increasing costs year-over-year. This is obviously an oversimplification, as our system is by FAR the most complicated in the world, but it is true nonetheless.

  7. Ben Shapiro:America is founded on Christian values, Jesus was a fine example of a good man.

    Jesus cured the ill, and never demanded any payment from it.

    Ben Shapiro: HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGH! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT OVER MY WIFE’S WORK! YOU WANT TO ENSLAVE US ALL!!

    • Saminul Haque I’ll repeat what I already asked before you got here buddy: if I didn’t acknowledge the need of money why would I want the government to fund them huh?

    • Marlon White I trust them to keep our servicemen and women in good health so I’d trust them to keep me in good health. Do you see battlefield medics wearing Blue Cross Blue Shield armbands? I don’t think so. If they can give our military the care they need with our taxpayer money they sure as hell can merely insure all of us. And let’s be real: Medicare for all isn’t about government workers providing care, it’s about government insurance covering everyone (more efficiently) at private hospitals.

    • Marlon White So I’m assuming that you grow all your own food? Because when you go to a grocery store, you are trusting the government with your health by buying FDA-inspected food. But of course Con-servatives like you don’t ever think about the specifics.

  8. Guess what Kyle, Fox News did a poll of their own audience. The question was posed like this: “Medicare for All would cost $32 trillion. Is it worth the cost?” 73% of their own audience said YES!

    • Also, these are fox viewers, you don’t think the number 32trillion is scary enough to them. When they see that they probably think their taxes would have to increase but they still would rather everyone have healthcare. The question was “is it worth it” and they said yes.

    • whyamimrpink, lets say taxes did go up, lets say the average American pays $100 a year more. How many of them would get full coverage for that? Then add cheaper prescriptions, no more deductibles or co pays. Its this dumb logic that reduce your tax by $2 a week and ignore health insurance going up $20 a week.

  9. The president in office when social healthcare is implemented will probably go down as the greatest president in modern US history. (Bernie)

  10. I believe most studies are in that $2-3 trillion range for the savings. But when even the super-conservative, corporate-funded study can’t make it be more expensive than our current system, and it’s *still* not being implemented, you know that something’s fucked.

    • John – Poor? No. They’re not poor. They’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Once their lottery numbers win, it’ll all trickle down from there. They’re sure of it. They were told so by a vision of Saint Ronnie.

    • Squabble Bot – Bullshit. Pushing trickle down economics is not indicative of a desire for the poor to be successful. Neither is defunding and insidiously trying to privatize all education. It’s indicative of wanting to be able to piss on the heads of the poor and convince them that it’s raining. That racket is for the poor to thrive, but still be poor, so that they’ll never run out of labor peons to support an overworking and underpaying system. Properly taking care of them can provide more ready access to opportunities which would facilitate success. They can still “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” in that case. The difference is that more will actually even have bootstraps in the first place. Are you against that?

    • Squabble Bot – _”Every rich person used to be poor.”_
      Wow, you’re a very determined bullshit artist. Evidently, your determination is aimed towards being wrong. Your statement is answered with this: There are many rich people who have never been less than very rich a day in their lives _because they were born into wealthy families._ People can and do inherit ridiculous wealth without any real working effort to earn it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *