3 ms·

Medicare is the reason there is fee-for-service, which is the biggest administrative overhead design if there is one. Also all private insurance works based of

Medicare is the reason there is fee-for-service, which is the biggest administrative overhead design if there is one. Also all private insurance works based of of medicare in the rates they pay, the way they code themselves etc. On the extrapolation, of course they are all simplistic and wrong, both mine and yours. You are capping the NHE of GDP to cap medicare, as if the expansion of medicare were going to eliminate out of pocket or private health. Because it doesnt, if it replaced only half of expenditures, the 24% becomes 33%. Its true Medicare takes care of older patients, but also private insurance subsidizes medicare all along the path to that because it pays more than medicare to every provider, which means on the pool of patients, the medicare patients tend to represent losses and the rest profit. Furthermore there is the argument that if medicare expanded 7 fold, it would also be less efficient the bigger it gets, which is true of private and public organizations alike. We cant know, its messy and even expert economists cannot get this right: but it has to be in the order of magnitude of 25 to 40% of gdp. That is state-crushing expenditures.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> On the extrapolation, of course they are all simplistic and wrong, both mine and yours. You are capping the NHE of GDP to cap medicare No, I'm not, I'm using the current expenditures as the projection baseline. I'm clearly not using the current NHE share of GDP to cap Medicare because the projection (24% of GDP) is greater than the current NHE share of GDP. > as if the expansion of medicare were going to eliminate out of pocket or private health. No, you made a claim about Medicare expenditures being 40-50% of GDP if it covered the whole population, not other expenditures. Now you're moving the goalposts (and still not supporting your mutating guess with any actual concrete basis.) > We cant know, its messy and even expert economists cannot get this right: but it has to be in the order of magnitude of 25 to 40% of gdp. Well, that's a sudden drop in your estimate of what now seems to be total NHE from your earlier claim that Medicare expenditures alone would be 40-50% of GDP. Another round of this and you'll be conceding costs below the current 18% of GDP.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> On the extrapolation, of course they are all simplistic and wrong, both mine and yours. You are capping the NHE of GDP to cap medicare No, I'm not, I'm using the current expenditures as the projection baseline. I'm clearly not using the current NHE share of GDP to cap Medicare because the projection (24% of GDP) is greater than the current NHE share of GDP. > as if the expansion of medicare were going to eliminate out of pocket or private health. No, you made a claim about Medicare expenditures being 40-50% of GDP if it covered the whole population, not other expenditures. Now you're moving the goalposts (and still not supporting your mutating guess with any actual concrete basis.) > We cant know, its messy and even expert economists cannot get this right: but it has to be in the order of magnitude of 25 to 40% of gdp. Well, that's a sudden drop in your estimate of what now seems to be total NHE from your earlier claim that Medicare expenditures alone would be 40-50% of GDP. Another round of this and you'll be conceding costs below the current 18% of GDP.