Medicare for all: more for less

Currently, Medicare and Medicaid cost 23% of the budget, or about 800 billion, and ER care for the uninsured costs 168 billion (source: American Association of Emergency Physicians); the overhead costs for everyone else insured is 450 billion (at 15% overhead) for private insurers: that totals a little over 1.4 trillion,and subtracting the 50 billion for Medicare overhead (1.3% overhead), we arrive at just about what Professor Friedman arrived at. We can insure 100% for the same costs now being spent, which is like getting 30 million insured at no cost, by cutting out the parasitic middle man and eliminating the ER last resort services for the uninsured.

Now, that suggests that we can insure everyone without spending an extra dime. The cost insuring those 30 million uninsured currently. using the existing system would cost an extra 150 billion. We can save that money by using Medicare for All. Another 300 billion a year can be saved, according to Professor Friedman, by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums each year. That 300 billion could expand Medicare to 100% coverage plus vision and dental.

Another 75 billion would be saved ($1300 per Medicare client) by ending the current $105 a month Medicare payments. Plus, many seniors pay another
$120-200 a month for the 20% coverage Medicare currently does not cover---a gift within Medicare to the private insurers.

Conclusion: Medicare for all would expand coverage to all at 100% including dental/vision with a likely surplus. The only losers would be the parasitic private insurance industry, which continue to provide private insurance for those willing to pay price, as is the case in Germany and the UK, where the private market is about 10%.

Even doctors and hospitals would save money by having to deal only with one single payer thus eliminating a mountain of paperwork.

By what logic does it make sense to pay more for less?