joining me today is gerald friedman his professor economics at the University of
Massachusetts is also the
author a funding plans for a number of proposed
single-payer health care systems at the state level
professor friedman we've been hearing kinda three-pronged opposition to the
Affordable Care Act some opposition comes along the lines have
labeling it as socialistic communistic
then we have the economic arguments are doing that it's simply not affordable
and then we have the quality of care arguments arguing that we would actually
have worth
healthcare under a Obamacare or
even further a single pair type system with you I want to focus specifically on
the economics and the affordability
before we kind of get into the details you've actually put together plans which
show quite clearly
that transitioning from an employer-based for-profit system to
single pair
would be very affordable wouldn't yes absolutely it would say
if we did it for the whole United States would save in the first year about $600
billion dollars
that's $600 billion so
up if you talk about sustainability
and whether a health care plan can be maintained into the future
are the real question is whether week can do
anything except single-payer
and in that I include the Affordable Care Act which
is a step in the right direction arm
will make the health care system more efficient
will cover more people arm so
it's good in all those things but it doesn't really
address the cost issues and sustainability
the White House estimates that the Affordable Care Act will say
$800 billion dollars over the next decade which
sounds like a lot of money until you think that will be spending about forty
trillion dollars on health care over the next decade
so the Affordable Care Act will produce minimal
savings and the reason for that is because it's not socialist
it's certainly not communist its the up
the Affordable Care Act is basically are true it was basically drafted by the
Heritage Foundation
and was first proposed in congress by newt gingrich
that the ones who proposed on it individual mandate
on and the establishment of the exchanges
um I and that was translated in Massachusetts
into Romneycare arm
a system that still leaves the private insurance system
in control and as long as the private insurers remain in control of the system
on we will have a fragmented billing system that is very expensive to operate
oMG and we won't be covering everybody so hot
let's pick up because it pick up there with the proposed single-payer funding
plans
let's take it one sided time first the savings and then the expenses
what areas would a single-payer system reduce cost
in as compared to this for-profit employer connected healthcare system
that we have now we're with the savings be
okay savings would come in three areas: the first
is by eliminating excess administration
excess bureaucracy in the insurance sector itself
arm the federal government provides
medicare to virtually all senior citizens that a great many
are disabled and needy people under age 65
and it does it at with the administrative burden
I'll under two percent that is not on
less than two percent about what is spent is spent
on processing bills and paper
the rest is spent on health care for what the private insurance system
the ratios spent on bureaucracy
and waste and paperwork is close to the twenty-percent
so we could save about $200 billion dollars
right away if we moved to
a medicare administration instead a private insurance
know it's important to play devil's advocate could you could one not
argue that it would not be reasonable to assume that if the entire population in
the US were to be wrapped
into a similar type of program there would be no question that that two
percent
ratio would go up with that be a fair criticism urs that 100
know that would be it would actually go the other way because they're all what
economists call a condom is to scale
in operating I insurance system
if you include everybody it's even easier
to process the paperwork that if you include only part of the population
okay good for example you don't have to check eligibility
you just have to see if the persons living in grieving an american and then
they
the cup I'll so the savings would be even greater than I'm assuming
second I'll and you have about the same two hundred billion dollars in savings
om in provider offices the average American Hospital these thirties
has more people involved in billing then they have
day its if this is just eat conceivable haven't waste goes on
in hospitals and provide a offices because that have to deal with so many
different insurers
that the process so much paper for so many different companies
so we would be able to save a money in providing offices
of people working in billing insurance operations and offices could go do
something useful with the lots
and third we have and no miss waste because a monopolistic practices by the
drug industry
and medical device manufacturers
arm American drug prices of
according to the McKinsey corporation about 60 percent higher than prices for
the same drugs in other countries
might do it weird Rome right now and my daughter was set
we took it to a hospital are where there was no bill
no processing paper and they gave us prescriptions
I took the prescriptions to a pharmacy and
4 as z-pak antibiotic which sells for about sixty dollars in the United States
I paid 8 euros one
it as much all the rest to the United States is
waste troll would and monopolistic profit for the trip drug industry
we would get rid of that with the single-payer system so that would give
us six hundred billion dollars in savings right away
and the savings would increase over time because instead of war was waged for
competition
with every different hospital building maternity wards Inc
competing for cardiac programs at cetera
are we would just organized
its health care to provide efficient quality health care for everybody
and try to keep everybody healthy so those things those are the savings
numbers on the programs themselves and I think in the limited time we have left I
want you to touch a little bit on an intangible which is
if employers no longer needed to administer health insurance benefits
isn't there a savings to be had there for all of these small businesses and
large corporations that are
in principle so worried about the cost of health care
absolutely absolutely on I'd talk to
friends who run small businesses around amherst massachusetts in the towns
around there
and they hate having to deal with insurance
because it's a really difficult decision that they have to make what type of
insurance they have they know the people who work for them
and they know that the what their needs are but they have to deal with the
expense
than the average american business stands thousands of dollars
processing deciding what processing paper and decide it will ensure it to
a higher on last year american business that a min
over 30 billion dollars choosing insurance plans
on that expense would just go away and people would be free to choose
way to work on the basis of what the best job
is for them instead up where they can get health insurance
are businesses would be able to hire people to visit who's good for the job
instead of having to think well that person they tryna medical bill so we
can't deal with them
so I where is the best place where is the best place for our audience to see
your entire
a presentation on this because I think many of our viewers would be would be
very interested in that
well if you google made there are various presentations
are up on YouTube whatever where run through the plans
a little more thoroughly on real news network not to
that your competition the hell does that work did a four part series with me
last year also you can look at the National
oppositions the national health plan p.m.
HP dot orc they have
are links to various things that Britain including my analysis
love I HR 676 the national Medicare for All bill
all right we've been speaking with gerald friedman professor economics at
my alma mater the University of Massachusetts thanks so much for being
with us again
and we're proud to you david thank you page