The analysis, from the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, focuses on legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and estimates that his proposal to create a national health insurance system would lead to a $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period.
The eye-popping figure is tied in large part to the fact that under
Medicare for all, the federal government is designed to take on almost all health spending. Which explains why federal spending would go up significantly.
Proponents of
Medicare for all, also known as a single-payer system, are quick to note the study also estimates national expenditures on health care would decrease by about $2 trillion by 2031 if the Sanders bill were signed into law.
That means overall health-care spending would decline, but the government’s share of that figure would go up, something small-government Republicans find unsettling.
“People just have to decide what they’re comfortable with,” said Charles Blahous, the study’s author. There won’t be an increase in health spending, but “this would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government.”
Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the Mercatus study is a good indicator of both the “promise and peril” of Medicare for all.
“You can save money and cover everyone, but it would be a big shift from private payers to the public, and a $32 trillion increase in taxes is going to be scary,” Levitt said, adding that Medicare for all supporters have a tough task ahead of them.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/399715-new-study-ignites-debate-over-cost-of-medicare-for-all
