Worst Songs to Play at a Wedding

I’ve been doing stand up comedy for a while. I am not great, but I enjoy it. Yesterday I was trying to write some jokes from some previous notes. I had music on and  the U2 song “Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” came on and my brain lit up- This would be a terrible song to play at a wedding! It made me think of what other songs have been played at weddings that were equally terrible. Maybe songs that had a nice rhythm and no one listened to the lyrics or a song where the lyrics were misunderstood.

In no particular

Separate Ways (Worlds Apart) – Journey
The only thing sadder than the death of a love affair which once held infinite promise is probably Journey lead singer Steve Perry’s rock mullet which can be seen in the original video version here. Technically I believe it falls under the trashmullet classification.

Sample Lyric:
”Troubled times
Caught between confusions and pain, pain, pain
Distant eyes
Promises we made were in vain, vain, vain”

Love Will Tear Us Apart – Joy Division
Songs have credited love with many things over the years, but never tearing anybody apart. Joy Division’s seminal classic seems to bemoan the death of a relationship due to a couple’s priorities changing – rather than any actual physical dismemberment.

Sample Lyric:
”When routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions wont grow”

Little Known Fact:
Joy Division were an influential and critically praised band, but didn’t sell many records. Released in April, 1980 this song didn’t chart. A month later, depressed over poor health and a broken marriage, lead singer Ian Curtis hanged himself. The single was re-released in June and became their first and only hit.

I Don’t Love Anyone – Belle and Sebastian
If you don’t love anyone (except “maybe my sister” as the song states), then what the heck are you doing getting married in the first place? And maybe don’t move to Iran anytime soon. Repeated spins of this song are sure to induce serious second-thoughts in one or both members of the happy couple.

Sample Lyric:
”I don’t love anyone
You’re not listening
You’re playing with something
You’re playing with yourself”

A Man Needs A Maid – Neil Young

Thankfully, modern gender roles are no longer as strongly defined as they once were. That having been said, brides who hear their new husbands request this song during the reception may have a few choice words for him during the limo ride to the airport.

Sample Lyric:
”I was thinking that maybe I’d get a maid
Find a place nearby for her to stay.
Just someone to keep my house clean,
Fix my meals and go away.”

A Quick One, While He’s Away – The Who

The plot of the story is simple. A girl is sad that her boyfriend is away. Her friends suggest that she take a substitute lover, Ivor The Engine Driver. When the boyfriend returns, she confesses her infidelity and is forgiven. Repeated listens might discourage the groom from going on long business trips for the first couple years.

Sample Lyric:
”I missed you and I must admit
I kissed a few and once did sit
On Ivor the Engine Driver’s lap
And later with him, had a nap”

I Am Trying To Break Your Heart – Wilco

“Don’t sugar coat it, Wilco.” Anti-romantic statements don’t get clearer than the title of this ditty. Will they release a follow up entitled “I am Going to Cheat on You With your Best Friend”? While you’re wondering, pick something else for the reception playlist.

Sample Lyric:
”I’d always thought that if I held you tightly
You’d always love me like you did back then
Then I fell asleep and the city kept blinking
What was I thinking when I let you back in?”

Suspicious Minds – Elvis Presley
This classic tune paints the picture of a relationship so severely damaged by mistrust (and probably infidelity) that the couple involved probably won’t make it. Not the sort of optimistic ode you want to hear on your first day of marriage. It’s perfectly acceptable in Nevada, however, to have Elvis pronounce you man and wife.

Sample Lyric:
”If an old friend I know
Drops by to say hello
Would I still see
Suspicion in your eyes?”

never really been an Elvis fan. Enjoy the FYC version.

Gold Digger – Kanye West
For all its talk of gold digging, prenuptual agreements and misspent alimony money – this song is still very popular on dance floors across the nation. Be careful and don’t let it slip under the radar at your wedding. The results could be… expensive.

Sample Lyric:
”18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo kids got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin child support for one of his kids
His baby momma’s car and crib is bigger than his.”

I Hate Everything About You – Ugly Kid Joe
Forget the fact that the title alone would qualify it for our list, but the protagonist of this frankly awful song is not someone you want to walk down the aisle with. Especially, apparently, if you have a younger sister. Fostering good relationships with your bride’s family is a good idea – but this is ridiculous.

Sample Lyric:
”I don’t really care about you’re sister,
Fuck the little bitch ’cause I already kissed her,
One thing that I did to your old lady,
Was I put her on the bed and she didn’t say maybe.”

All my Exes Live in Texas – George Strait
We’re just hypothesizing here, but if you have so many exes that it drives you out of the largest state in the union, you might have a few bad dating habits. No one likes to be reminded of their significant other’s prior love interests and this song might just dredge up a few bad memories if played on your wedding day.

Sample Lyric:
”All my exes live in Texas,
And Texas is a place I’d dearly love to be.
But all my exes live in Texas
And that’s why I hang my hat in Tennessee.”

Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now – The Smiths
Miserable now? Morrissey – you’re always miserable. Similar to the next selection in our list, the title of this song alone makes it a poor choice for anyone’s marital celebrations. Upon close examination of the lyrics the extremely depressed protagonist of this song sounds like a victim of “beer goggles”. Perhaps this 1984 tune is a more appropriate soundtrack for the eventual bad decisions made by single members of the wedding party.

Sample Lyric:
”I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour
But heaven knows I’m miserable now.”

Little Known Fact:
This ultra-gloomy song by one of Manchester England’s finest was actually named as one of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s “500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll”.

It’s the End of the World as we Know it – REM
Unless considered a plea for more personal space, this song has little lyrical content that might be interpreted as unlucky on a wedding day. The title alone, however, might drive a wedge between a new couple. We would definitely advise against dedicating it to your new life partner, regardless of how much they may love Michael Stipe.

Sample Lyric:
“It’s time I had some time alone.
It’s time I had some time alone.”

Little Known Fact:
Part of the lyrics came to lead singer Michael Stipe in a dream. He dreamt he was at a birthday party, and everyone had the initials L.B. except him. This is evident when he talks about Lester Bangs, Leonid Breshnev, Lenny Bruce, and Leonard Bernstein.

Another One Bites the Dust – Queen
Domestic violence is a tragedy that has marred more than a few once wonderful marriages. Inviting your brand new spouse to take a swing at you is a conversation best saved for a much later date and after you’ve given her a darn good reason. Wait at least a week.

Sample Lyric:
“There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man
And bring him to the ground
You can beat him, You can cheat him
You can treat him bad and leave him when he’s down
But I’m ready, yes I’m ready for you”

50 Ways to Leave your Lover – Paul Simon
On your wedding day you can plan on receiving all kinds of advice from friends and family. How to resolve arguments, balance joint finances and raise children may all be among the gems that you hear. How to break up with the lover you’re currently having an affair with, however, is luckily much less commonplace.

Sample Lyric:
“She said why don’t we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you’ll begin to see the light
And then she kissed me and I realized she probably was right
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover.”

Little Known Fact:
While Paul may elude to 50 ways, he only actually mentions 5 – Slip out the back, make a new plan, set yourself free, hop on the bus and drop off the key. What a ripoff, Mr. Simon!

Run for Your Life – The Beatles
Unless your beloved betrothen goes by the name of Charles Manson, playing this song at your wedding might seem just a tad inappropriate to most brides. “Helter Skelter” is a much more tasteful choice.

Sample Lyric:
“Well I’d rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or I won’t know where I am”

Better Man – Pearl Jam
She dated the starting quarterback on your high school team and also allegedly had relations with at least one of her brilliant college professors. But when all those other guys failed to work out – she finally settled for you, Mr. Groom. Doesn’t that make you feel special? Of course not. Don’t play it.

Sample Lyric:
“Memories back when she was bold and strong
And waiting for the world to come along…
Swears she knew it, now she swears he’s gone.”

Little Known Fact:
This is about a woman who settles for the man she has because she doesn’t think she can do any better. Vedder had his stepfather in mind when he wrote it and at some concerts has dedicated it to “The bastard who married my mother.”

Love Stinks – J. Geils Band
The first verse of this song paints a picture of a sordid love triangle. Maybe even a love hexagon. Unless you’re getting married in Utah it’s not going to be very romantic or inspirational to a new couple and should be avoided at all costs on the big day.

Sample Lyric:
“You love her but she loves him
And he loves somebody else
You just can’t win
And so it goest ill the day you die
This thing they call love it’s gonna make you cry .”

Little Known Fact:
Lead singer Peter Wolf’s roomate at a Boston Art college was none other than the famously dark filmmaker, David Lynch. That certainly explains a lot.

If you Wanna be Happy – Jimmy Soul
At many weddings we’ve been to over the years, Sinatra’s “The Way You Look Tonight” is often played in tribute to the bride. Slip this little number on the turntable during the first dance instead and after her father gets through with ya – you’ll feel like you’ve been worked over by a few of Frank’s shadier pallies.

Sample Lyric:
“Don’t let your friends tell you you have no taste
go ahead and marry anyway
Her face is ugly her eyes don’t match
take it from me shes a better catch.”

Used to Love Her (But I Had to Kill Her) – G N’ R
When all other options have been exhausted, the final straw in a troubled relationship should be two people parting ways – politely or otherwise. Guns n’ Roses suggested a second alternative back in 1988 which would have likely seen your next love affair taking place in the shower room of a state prison.
Sample Lyric:
“I used to love her
But i had to kill her
I had to put her six feet under
And i can still hear her complain .”

Little Known Fact:
Axl Rose wrote the lyrics as a joke and it was rumored that the song is about his dog which he had to have put to sleep and then buried in his backyard. Unfortunately, we expect most of his fan-base weren’t privvy to this info, and we hope none took it to heart.

Every Breath You Take – Police

Unless you’re marrying your creepy stalker, this is not a romantic song! Many people apparently take the song’s “every breath you take / every move you make / I’ll be watching you” lyrics as a lover’s vow, but Sting says he had more sinister things in mind — for example, governments spying on their citizens. “I think the song is very, very sinister and ugly,” he told BBC Radio.

 

I Will Always Love You – Whitney Houston (It’s about a break up. Please, no talk of “bittersweet memories” at your wedding.)

Tears in Heaven – Eric Clapton (Yet another death song I’ve heard at too many weddings. I know there’s the life insurance policy, but it’s a little too early to be talking about death, don’t you think?

I Will Survive – Gloria Gaynor. Not only have I heard this at a million weddings, but I’ve also seen it on lists of “popular wedding songs!” People, it’s a song about surviving a horrible breakup! Don’t play this at your wedding.

Jesse’s Girl – Rick Springfield Go ahead. Fuel rumors that the bride is sleeping/has slept/will sleep with the Best Man.

Closer –  by NIN. This is a no-brainer. Unless you are having a Magic Mike XXL-themed wedding, in which case, CARRY ON, and may I please attend because you are my hero

Advertisements
Posted in Humor, Music | Tagged | Leave a comment

Sessions’ LIES.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, in six months, the Trump administration will terminate DACA, the Obama-era program that allows young undocumented people brought to the United States as children to live and work here legally. He slandered DACA’s nearly 800,000 recipients in nativist language with barely concealed racist undertones.

More importantly he lied.

First: Sessions claimed that DACA “contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border.” This allegation, often touted by far-right xenophobes, is false. A study published in International Migration, a peer-reviewed academic journal, found that the surge in unaccompanied minors actually began in 2008. (DACA was announced in 2012.) The authors pointed to a host of factors contributing to this phenomenon, including escalating gang violence in Central America, as well as drug cartels’ willingness to target and recruit children in Mexico. But the study found that DACA was not one of these factors. Its authors concluded that “the claim that DACA is responsible for the increase in the flow of unaccompanied alien children is not supported by the data.”

Even without the study, it should be obvious that DACA played no role in this surge of unaccompanied minors because the theory itself makes no sense. Undocumented children who arrived in the United States following DACA’s implementation would not qualify for the program. Only those individuals who “have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007” and “were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012” could receive DACA status. Why would parents send their children to the U.S. to participate in a program in which they are not legally permitted to participate?

 

Second: Sessions alleged that DACA has “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.” This line is obviously drawn from the false narrative that immigrants steal jobs from American citizens. There is no actual evidence that DACA recipients have taken jobs from any Americans, let alone “hundreds of thousands.” There is, however, strong evidence that killing DACA will significantly damage the economy—a fact that Sessions conveniently omitted from his speech.

Once DACA is fully rescinded, its former recipients will lose their work permits (and thus their jobs) and face possible deportation. According to the left-leaning Center for American Progress, about 30,000 people will lose their jobs each month as their DACA status expires. The loss of these workers could reduce the national GDP by $280 billion to $433 billion over the next decade. According to estimates by the libertarian Cato Institute, DACA’s demise will cost employers $2 billion and the federal government $60 billion. Trump’s decision to end DACA isn’t a job-saver; it’s a job-killer.

Toward the end of his speech, Sessions praised the RAISE Act, a Republican-backed bill that would tightly curtail immigration into the U.S. Sessions claimed the act would “produce enormous benefits for our country.” In reality, the measure marks an effort to return America to an older immigration regime that locked out racial and ethnic minorities. Sessions has praised the 1924 law that created this regime—a law whose chief author declared that his act was meant to end “indiscriminate acceptance of all races.”  Sessions revived this principle in slightly more polite language.

The attorney general’s utterly gratuitous defamation of young Latino immigrants tells you everything you need to know about the decision to kill DACA. Before Tuesday, the Trump administration seemed eager to frame its DACA decision as respect for constitutional separation of powers: Congress, it insisted, not the president, must set immigration policy. But after Sessions’ speech, it is difficult to view this move as anything other than an attempt to implement the white nationalism that Trump and Sessions campaigned on.

You may or may not agree with DACA and how it was implemented through executive order. Please just make a legitimate argument against it. No more lies.

Posted in Current events, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Things I Love about September

Daily Candy Editorial - Spring Books

First bonfires of the season. Most of my neighbors will have a fire of some sort. Some are just cleaning up and have a burn fire. Others are created with the purpose of bringing us together.

You get the fall color without having to rake any leaves. I love to see the colors change. I hate raking.  Watching the leaves change on the trees, going apple picking, and unpredictable temperatures all begin in the wonderful month of September. Each day of the month has the potential be a different temperature outside, and that unpredictability of September allows us to wear a plethora of outfits- often in the same day! For example- It was 47 F when I left my house this morning. It will be 80 F by this afternoon and tonight will be back in the high 40’s/ low 50’s.

fullsizeoutput_4857

Tangy chill cuts the summer heat but doesn’t actually make the air cold. Cool mornings and evening and warm days! Great for Sleeping and Hikes.  Awesome for practices in the gym!

FOOTBALL SEASON- Whether you are a fan of college ball or an NFL nut like my wife All fanatics await the month of September because it is finally time to start repping your team jerseys, grabbing a hot dog, and to going to the stadium to support your team.

Octoberfest beers are rolled out. 

Excuse to buy yourself back to school outfits. Even if you’re not in school!

Touring bands get back to playing shows that aren’t gargantuan festivals. I love live shows but I am on the wrong side of 50 to go to a music festival without feeling a little creepy.

You can stop coating yourself in a rubbery layer of sunblock every day, and you can let your beach bod go.

Grocery store shelves are moved so the forklifts can roll in with small mountains of Halloween candy.

Rolled-up car windows mean fewer people hear you singing along to “Still Breathing”

It’s time to unpack the sweaters.

New Beginnings- September allows everyone to shed their summer skin, and maybe some summer sins, and begin setting new goals for the last few months of the year. With January creeping around the corner, September is the best month to remember, and scurry to complete, those New Year’s resolutions.

You can bike somewhere without arriving soaked in sweat.

The BEST month to waterski/ wakeboard- The water is still warm from the summer months. There are days where you will be the ONLY boat on the water and the lake is like glass. You are in good shape from a summer of skiing.

Cider. Just bought a Cider Press. I will be making my own Apple Cider this weekend and then plan on having the neighbors over to a bonfire.

International Talk Like a Pirate Day, September 19.

Proximity of holidays where my kids will be home becomes palpable.

Posted in life | Tagged | Leave a comment

This I Believe

Tony Retrosi

Beginning in 1951, radio pioneer Edward R. Murrow asked Americans from all walks of life to write essays about their most fundamental and closely held beliefs . In creating This I Believe, Murrow said the program sought “to point to the common meeting grounds of beliefs, which is the essence of brotherhood and the floor of our civilization.”

In spite of the fear of atomic warfare, increasing consumerism and loss of spiritual values, the essayists on Murrow’s series expressed tremendous hope. They heard a country moving toward more equality among the races and between genders. They heard parents writing essays that are letters to their newborn children expressing the hopes and dreams they have for them. And they heard the stories of faith that guide people in their daily experiences.

The events in Charlottesville, VA show us that as in the 1950s, this is a time when belief is…

View original post 582 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If You Have A Racist Friend

The Specials. 1984

If you have a racist friend

Now is the time, now is the time for your friendship to end

Be it your sister

Be it your brother

Be it your cousin or your, uncle or your lover

If you have a racist friend

now is the time, now is the time for your friendship to end

Be it your best friend

Or any other

Is it your husband or your father or your mother?

Tell them to change their views

Or change their friends

Now is the time, now is the time, for your friendship to end

So if you know a racist who thinks he is your friend

Now is the time, now is the time for your friendship to end

Call yourself my friend?

Now is the time to make up your mind, don’t try to pretend

Be it your sister

Be it your brother

Be it your cousin or your uncle or your lover

So if you are a racist

Our friendship has got to end

And if your friends are racists don’t pretend to be my friend

So if you have a racist friend

Now is the time, now is the time for our friendship to end

Goodbye

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

America is still hooked on the drug of white supremacy | Carol Anderson | Opinion | The Guardian

The United States is in a tailspin. White supremacists are on the march – and have left a trail of blood and destruction in their wake. A march in Charlottesville, Virginia, filled with torches, Nazi flags and chants of “White Lives Matter” culminated in violence that claimed at least one life, and left many more injured.

This is just what many feared the Trump presidency would unleash. David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, supported that view when he said on Saturday that the march “fulfills the promises of Donald Trump” to “take our country back”.

The president was slow to disabuse people of that view. When the nation turned to the president on Friday to condemn the unrest provoked by the “Unite the Right” far-right rally, he instead blamed “many sides”. In other words: he lumped together anti-racist protesters with white supremacists.

It took more than 36 hours – and a killing believed to have been carried out by a neo-Nazi – for the White House to denounce white supremacists. Although the president prefers to communicate directly with the American people through Twitter, he didn’t do that this time. Instead, the delayed statement was attributed to an unnamed White House spokesperson.

None of this makes sense. Unless, that is, we come to grips with the reality that we are seeing the effects of far too many Americans strung out on the most pervasive, devastating, reality-warping drug to ever hit the United States: white supremacy.

Like all forms of substance abuse, it has destroyed families and communities and put enormous strains on governmental institutions. It has made millions of Americans forsake their God and jettison their patriotism just to get a taste.

High on its effects, its users feel powerful, heady, even as they and everything around them disintegrates. And, as with most drug crises, while not everyone may be strung out, everyone is very surely affected.

In 2017, millions of Americans are hooked on this drug. As clearly as track marks in the arms, the most visible signs are all around us.

The “Heil Trump” salutes at a gathering of white nationalists shortly before the inauguration. A uptick in reported hate crimes across the country. The killing of Lt Richard Collins by a white supremacist in Maryland. The double homicide and severe wounding of Good Samaritans defending teen girls in Portland from another emboldened white supremacist. The nooses found at and near the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

There are other signs, too – signs that this addiction is always lurking, demanding to be fed. The 2016 election brought that into stark relief as voters flocked to Donald Trump, despite his explicit racism or, just as important, because of it. His birther harangues lent him a stature among hardcore supporters that no other candidate could match.

Play Video

Trump was the antithesis of Barack Obama, and therefore, in the Gregor Samsa world of white supremacy, the most attractive candidate. Yet, odious as he may be to many, Trump is, in fact, only a symptom.

All of his racist rants would have dropped him on the outskirts of the lunatic fringe if it hadn’t been for the way that a major political party had spent decades making white supremacy the Republican party’s drug of choice.

The Republicans, of course, believed that they could control it. Getting a little taste every now and then, the party would swear that it wasn’t hooked, but, inevitably it needed an even more powerful strain each time to feel that high.

In 1968, Richard Nixon dabbled in it when he ran for office on the Southern Strategy, which promised a curtailment of black civil rights in order to woo disaffected white Americans from the Democratic party into the Republican party. And the disaffection ran deep.

No Democrat running for president has won the majority of white voters since Lyndon Johnson legally acknowledged that African Americans were actually US citizens. But if Nixon was like a weekend user binging on “law and order” between detoxes on affirmative action in government contracts, subsequent Republican presidential candidates have bowed down to the drug supreme: there was Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen”, George HW Bush’s “Willie Horton”, Mitt Romney’s “47%”.

With white supremacy’s current grip on the Republican party, everything the addict once valued has become expendable. Gone from power are moderate Republicans who believed in limited government, fiscal restraint and civil rights. Gone, as well, is the clout of the national security hawks, who put American sovereignty, might, and global leadership first.

Alliances with Nato and Europe now hang by a thread as global white nationalist movements, backed by Trump’s benefactor Vladimir Putin, have worked to undermine democracy in Britain, France and Germany.

Domestically, the picture is just as deranged. The Republican’s flag-waving base and congressional leadership have supported Trump’s denigration of the CIA and humiliation of the FBI. Like a God-fearing suburban soccer mom turning tricks to feed the habit, the symbols of patriotism and love of country have been no match for the addiction.

As long as Trump gives the white supremacists one more Ice raid, one more deportation, one more Muslim travel ban, one more hunt for “illegal voters” in a sanctuary city, the craving is temporarily satisfied. And as with any addict, anything that gets in between the user and the drug has to go.

Republican congressional leaders fully understand. Trump, the pusher with a bad Russian habit, has become a way for the base to mainline. And because their very survival is tied up with feeding their constituency’s constant need for a fix, Republicans, acting like rogue cops straight out of Serpico, have made the decision to protect the pusher, bury his misdeeds, and attack his accusers.

In June 2016, Paul Ryan swore his caucus to secrecy when a meeting with a Ukrainian official led one congressman to conclude that “I think Putin pays … Trump. Swear to God.”

In October 2016, Mitch McConnell threatened Obama if the president announced that 17 intelligence agencies had evidence of Russian interference in the election. In March 2017, the congressman Devin Nunes sabotaged his own committee’s hearings to protect Trump.

In May 2017, Senator Ted Cruz went after former the deputy attorney general Sally Yates because she had the audacity to issue a warning that Michael Flynn, the National Security Adviser, was subject to blackmail by the Kremlin. In June 2017, the fired FBI director James Comey came into the Republican party’s crosshairs, and many believe special prosecutor Robert Mueller is next.

Republicans have convinced themselves, as addicts do, that they’re still in charge, that they’re getting out of this what they’ve always wanted – tax cuts for the rich, eventual destruction of the Affordable Care Act, a supreme court that will overturn Roe v Wade, and decisively fewer regulations on private industry – but none of these, if they were truly sober and in their right minds, are worth destroying the United States for.

Yet, here we are. We’re not all addicted, but we’re surely enduring the consequences.

Source: America is still hooked on the drug of white supremacy | Carol Anderson | Opinion | The Guardian

Posted in Current events | Leave a comment

How Much Would Single Payer Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program

How Much Would Single Payer Cost?

A Summary of Studies compiled by Ida Hellander, M.D.

Editors’ Note: With the recent resurgence of interest in controlling health care costs, we thought a review of some of the state and national fiscal studies performed on single payer over the years might be useful. The entries are listed chronologically, oldest to newest.

National Studies

June, 1991 General Accounting Office

“If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage” (“Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States,” 90 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-90. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf).


December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office

“If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved.” (“Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicare’s Payment Rates”) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7652/91-CBO-039.pdf


April, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.

The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”

“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan.” (“Single-Payer and All-Payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare’s Payment Rates” ref : CBO memorandum, 60 pages)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6442/93doc171.pdf


July, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

“Enactment of H.R. 1300 [Russo’s single payer bill] would raise national health expenditures at first, but reduce spending about 9 percent in 2000. As the program was phased in, the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care serv-ices. Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline. The bill contains many of the elements that would make its limit on expenditures reasonably likely to succeed, including a single payment mechanism, uniform reporting by all providers, and global prospective budgets for hospitals and nursing homes.” (“Estimates of Health Care Proposals from the 102nd Congress” ref: CBO paper, July 1993, 57pages)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6432/93doc159.pdf


December, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

S491 (Senator Paul Wellstone’s single payer bill) would raise national health expenditures above baseline by 4.8 percent in the first year after implementation. However, in subsequent years, improved cost containment and the slower growth in spending associated with the new system would reduce the gap between expenditures in the new system and the baseline. By year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline. (“S.491, American Health Security Act of 1993”)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/79xx/doc7946/93doc07b.pdf


June, 1998 Economic Policy Institute

“In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program.”

Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. “For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not.

“Even more important, greater efficiency and improved cost containment would become possible, leading to sizable savings in the future. The impediment to fundamental reform in health care financing is not economic, but political. Political will, not economic expertise, is what will bring about this important change.”

“Universal Coverage: How Do We Pay For It?” — Edie Rasell, M.D. PhD).

http://www.epi.org/files/page/-/old/technicalpapers/tp234_1998.pdf)


August, 2005 The National Coalition on Health Care

Impacts of Health Care Reform: Projections of Costs and Savings
By Kenneth E. Thorpe, Ph.D.

This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over $1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans. The other scenarios would be improvements over the status quo, but would not reduce costs as dramatically or provide the same high-quality coverage to all.

Summary of the Coalition’s Specifications:

1. Health Care Coverage for All
2. Cost Management
3. Improvement of Health Care Quality and Safety
4. Equitable Financing
5. Simplified Administration

Reform Models studied:

Scenario 1: employer mandates (supplemented with individual mandates as necessary)
Scenario 2: expansion of existing public programs that cover subsets of the uninsured
Scenario 3: creation of new programs targeted at subsets of the uninsured (FEHBP model)
Scenario 4: establishment of a universal publicly financed program (single payer)

http://www.pnhp.org/slideshow/Thorpe_2005A.pdf

http://www.pnhp.org/slideshow/Thorpe_2005B.pdf


July, 2013: Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

“Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“Specifically, the savings from a single-payer plan would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to the health system such as expanded coverage, improved benefits, enhanced reimbursement of providers serving indigent patients, and the elimination of co-payments and deductibles in 2014.

“Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676, 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

“HR 676 would also establish a system for future cost control using proven-effective methods such as negotiated fees, global budgets, and capital planning. Over time, reduced health cost inflation over the next decade (“bending the cost curve”) would save $1.8 trillion, making comprehensive health benefits sustainable for future generations.”

Excerpted from “Funding HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, How we can afford a national single-payer health plan,” July 30, 2013.

 


State Studies

November 1994: New Mexico

Single Payer could save $151.8 million and cover all the uninsured

The Lewin consulting group was hired to perform a fiscal study of alternative reform plans for the state of New Mexico. The study looked at single payer, managed competition, and an individual and employer-mandate.

The study concluded that a single-payer system with modest cost-sharing was the only plan that would cover all the uninsured and save over $150 million per year (estimates given for 1998). Such a plan could be financed with a payroll tax of 7.92 percent (employer 80 percent/employee 20 percent) and a 2 percent tax on family income. If patient cost sharing was eliminated, the single payer program would cover all the uninsured for a net increase in costs of $9.1 million.

The group’s estimates of administrative savings were very conservative, about half of what other estimates have found. Thus, it is likely that a single payer program in the state of New Mexico could provide coverage for all the uninsured with no increase in current health resources.
Source :(“The Financial Impact of Alternative Health Reform plans in New Mexico” by Lewin-VHI, Inc. November 14, 1994.)


April 1995: Delaware

Single Payer would save money in Delaware

A fiscal study of single payer in Delaware by Solutions for Progress found that Delaware could save $229 million in the first year (1995). In ten years, the cumulative savings would exceed $6 billion, over $8,000 for every person in Delaware. “The benefit package for the single-payer system modeled in the report will cover all medically necessary health services” with “virtually no co-payments nor any out-of-pocket health expenditures for any covered benefit.”

The study’s authors’ note that they used a low estimate for administrative savings while using a high estimate for increased costs for utilization in order to assure a high margin for error and adequate funding.

Source: (“Single-payer financing for Universal Health Care in Delaware: Costs and Savings” prepared for the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, April 1995 is 11 pages. Solutions for Progress, 215-972-5558. Two companion papers are also available: “Health Expenditures in Delaware Under Single-Payer Financing” and “Notes for Delaware Health Care Costs and Estimates for the Impact of Single Payer Financing.”)


February 1995: Minnesota

Single Payer to save Minnesota over $718 million in health costs each year

A March 1995 study conducted by Lewin-VHI for the Minnesota legislature found that single-payer with modest co-pays would insure all Minnesotans and save Minnesota over $718 million health costs each year. The projected savings are conservative since Lewin-VHI global budgets or fee schedules to control costs.

Source: Program Evaluation Divison, Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota pg 68. “Health Care Administrative Costs” February 1995.


December 1998: Massachusetts

Two fiscal studies of single payer for the Massachusetts Medical Society show savings & benefits:

Lewin Group Solutions for Progress/Boston University School of Public Health (SFP/BUSPH)
“In early 1997, the Massachusetts Medical Society retained the services of two consulting teams to independently analyze the relative costs of a Canadian style single-payer system, and the current multi-payer health care system in Massachusetts.”

“While Lewin and SFP/BUSPH reports differed in their orientations and methodologies, they reached similar conclusions. First, a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1.8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system. Secondly, these savings are of such a magnitude that the available funds would be sufficient to insure universal coverage in the state and provide comprehensive benefits including outpatient medications and long-term care and eliminate all out-of-pocket payments (co-payments, deductibles).”

“The major difference in the studies findings had to do with the timing of achieving the cost savings. SFP/BUSPH estimated that the savings could be in the first year of implementation of the system. Lewin felt the savings would begin in year six.”

Source: (Massachusetts Medical Society House of Delegates Report 207, A-99 (B).
Full text of the studies are available online at: http://www.massmed.org/pages/lewin.asp)


December, 2002: Massachusetts

Single Payer only plan to cover all and save money in Massachusetts

In the summer of 2001, the legislature allocated $250,000 to develop a plan for “universal health care with consolidated financing” for Massachusetts. The pro-HMO consulting firm LECG studied three options; only the single-payer option met the study criteria. Despite their industry bias LECG reported 40 percent of every health care dollar spent in the state of Massachusetts goes to administrative costs.

The initial LECG report had two major flaws: It did not include the costs of taking care of the uninsured in the non-single-payer plans, and it did not take into consideration the huge administrative savings possible under single-payer. If these factors are taken into account, single payer is the only plan to cover everyone and save money.
Source: (To get the full report e-mail: UHCEF@aol.com)


June, 2000: Maryland

Single Payer Would Save Money in Maryland

A single-payer system in the state of Maryland could provide health care for all residents and save $345 million on total health care spending in the first year, according to a study by the D.C. based consulting firm Lewin, Inc. The study also found that a highly regulated “pay or play” system (in which employers either provide their workers with coverage or pay into a state insurance pool) would increase costs by $207 million.

Editors’ Note: The pro-business Lewin group probably underestimated the administrative savings from single payer and overestimated the administrative savings (and hence understated the costs) of their “pay or play” model. Data from hospitals in Hawaii, where there are only a few major insurers, suggest that if you have more than one payer, there are few administrative savings. However single-payer systems in Canada, the U.K., Sweden and other countries have garnered administrative savings substantially larger than assumed by Lewin. Hence the estimate by Lewin that single-payer universal coverage would cost $550 million less to implement in the first year than “pay or play” is high.

Source: (“Full text of the study available online at: http://www.healthcareforall.com”)


August 2001: Vermont

Universal Health Care Makes “Business Sense”

Single-payer universal health coverage could save Vermonters more than $118 million a year over current medical insurance costs and cover every Vermonter in the process, according to a study paid for by a federal grant and prepared for the Office of Vermont Health Access by the Lewin Group. “Our analysis indicates that the single payer model would cover all Vermont residents, including the estimated 51,390 uninsured persons in the state, while actually reducing total health spending in Vermont by about $118.1 million in 2001 (i.e., five percent). These savings are attributed primarily to the lower cost of administering coverage through a single government program with uniform coverage and payment rules”

Source: (“Analysis of the Costs and Impact of a Universal Health Care Coverage Under a Single Payer Model for the State of Vermont”, The Lewin Group, Inc. Full text of the study is available on-line at: http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/1440.pdf)


April 2002: California

State Health Care Options Project

A study of nine options for covering California’s seven million uninsured by the conservative D.C.– based consulting firm of Lewin, Inc found that a single payer system in California would reduce health spending while covering everyone and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.

Three of the nine options analyzed by Lewin for their fiscal implications included single payer financing.

1.) A proposal by James Kahn, UCSF, Kevin Grumbach, UCSF, Krista Farley, MD, Don McCanne, MD, PNHP, and Thomas Bodenheimer, UCSF, would cover nearly all health care services including prescription drugs, vision and dental for every Californian through a government-financed system while saving $7.6 billion annually from the estimated $151.8 billion now spent on health care.

2.) A second proposal by Ellen Shaffer, UCSF– national health service- Would reform both financing of and the delivery system so that every Californian has a “medical home”, that is, a primary care physician with an ongoing relationship with that patient. Like the Kahn et al proposal, it saves about $7.5 billion through various efficiencies.

3.) The third by Judy Spelman, RN, and Health care for All, covers care for every Californian in a manner similar to the Kahn et al proposal but eliminates all out-of-pocket costs. Its cost savings are estimated at $3.7 billion.

All three proposals stabilize the health care system, reduce paperwork, and protect the doctor-patient relationship by eliminating the role of for-profit HMOs and insurers. The Kahn et al proposal envisions that the not-profit Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest integrated health system, would continue.

Report: Cost and Coverage Analysis of Nine Proposals to expand Health Insurance Coverage in California

Click here for Lewin Uniform Methodology

Source: (Contact Sandra (916)654-3454 to get a copy of the full report)

(See also February 2005 report)


December 2002: Maine

Single Payer an economically feasible option for Maine

The June 2001 Maine legislature created a nineteen member Health Security Board to develop a single payer system for Maine. In July, the Board contracted with the consulting firm Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, (MPA) firm to study the feasibility of single payer in the state. The firm found that single payer would cost about the same amount as the current system, while covering all 150,000 uninsured residents. Depending on the benefits provided by the system, single payer would cost the same as current state health spending, or increase health spending by 5 percent. (Note, the consultants were very conservative when estimating administrative savings, which could more than offset the 5 percent increase).

“Estimates from the model indicate that, under current policy, health care spending in Maine will continue on a path of steady increase—rising by 37 percent between 2001-04 and by 31 percent between 2004-08. The model projects that a single-payer health system would produce a net increase in total health care spending under most benefit designs that MPAestimated, but this increase in spending would decline over time as the system realizes savings through global budgeting, reductions in administrative costs, and enhanced access to primary and preventive care.”

“By reducing administrative spending and increasing overall demand for health care, a single payer system would generate some change in employment in Maine… However a single payer plan would improve health sector productivity by redistributing jobs from administrative to clinical positions.”

“In summary, a single payer system appears to be economically feasible for Maine.”
Source: (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, “Feasibility of a Single-Payer Health Plan Model for the State of Maine” Final report 12/24/03/, MPR Ref No: 8889-300, 80 pages. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/mainefeasibility.pdf)


November 2002: Rhode Island

Single Payer would save $270 million in Rhode Island

A study of single-payer in Rhode Island by analysts with Boston University School of Public Health and the consulting firm Solutions for Progress found that current health spending in Rhode Island is 21.5 percent above the national average and that incremental reforms cannot solve the state’s health problems.

Solutions for Progress studied two models of single payer reform one with consolidated financing alone, and one with consolidated financing combined with “professionalism within a budget.” They found that without health care reform, Rhode Island’s costs would continue to rise, while both models of single-payer could provide universal coverage while saving an estimated $270 million in the first year.

At first, the administrative and bulk purchasing savings have the largest impact. But over time, slowing the rate of inflation to 4 percent by making health professionals responsible for using resources prudently, (“professionalism within a budget”) has a larger impact. Over six years, they estimate that consolidated financing alone would save $4.4 billion, while single payer with “professionalism within a budget” delivery system reform would save over $6.6 billion. Again, both models of single payer would provide coverage for all the uninsured and improve coverage for all Rhode Islanders.

Source: (“Rhode Island Can Afford Health Care for All: A Report to the Rhode Island General Assembly” On-line at www.healthreformprogram.org. For copies of this report, please contact Alan Sager or Deborah Socolar or phone the Health Services Department at (617) 638-5042. )


October 2003: Missouri

Single Payer Would Save $1.3 billion in Missouri

Missouri Foundation for Health conducted a study on “health care expenditures and insurance in Missouri”.

A single payer health care plan in the state of Missouri would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. “Assuming the universal health care plan adopted a benefit package typically found in the state, spending among the uninsured and underinsured would rise by nearly $1.3 billion when fully implemented. On the other hand, the use of a streamlined single claims and billing form (electronically billed) would reduce overall spending by about $3 billion. As a result health care spending would decline by approximately $1.7 billion.”

“Even if the state would adopt a more generous benefit package-one more generous than 75 percent of all private insurance benefits in the state-overall spending would decline. Overall health care spending would likely decline by $ 1.3 billion under the streamlined administrative structure.”
Source: ( “A Universal Health Care Plan for Missouri”, the full report can viewed at www.pnhp.org/slideshow/Thorpe_Missouri_Study_ShowMe.pdf)


June 2004: Georgia

Single Payer in Georgia would reduce healthcare spending

A fiscal study by the Virginia-based Lewin Group found that Single Payer health would cover all Georgia residents and save $716 million annually.

The “SecureCare” program would offer residents a comprehensive benefits package that includes long-term care and prescription drug coverage. It would be financed by replacing health insurance premiums with a combination of payroll and income taxes as well as modest new tobacco, alcohol and sales taxes. ” Nearly all Georgia families would pay less for health care than they are today for much better coverage.

Source: (The Lewin Group, Inc. “The Georgia SecureCare Program: Estimated Cost and Coverage Impacts” Final report 10/21/03)
(Full text of the study available online at:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/lewinanalysis.pdf)


February 2005: California

California could save $344 billion over 10 years with single payer

A study by the Lewin Group, finds that singlepayer would save California $343.6 billion in health care costs over the next 10 years, mainly by cutting administration and using bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment.

The bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said the report “demonstrates that we can do it. We need the will to do it. It makes insurance affordable for everybody.”

Lewin Group Report
The Health Care for All Californians Act: Cost and Economic Impacts Analysis
January 19, 2005

Fact Sheet
* The Lewin report, prepared by an independent firm with 18 years of experience in healthcare cost analysis, affirms that we can create a fiscally sound, reliable state insurance plan that covers all Californians and controls health cost inflation.
* The Lewin report shows that all California residents can have affordable health insurance; and that, on average, individuals, families, businesses and the state of California, all of whom are now burdened with rising insurance costs, will save money.
* In February, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-23) will introduce the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (CHIRA), based on these findings. CHIRA, based on the Lewin Report model will insure every Californian and allow everyone to choose his or her own doctor.

Savings Overall
The Lewin report model would achieve universal coverage while actually reducing total health spending for California by about $8 billion in the first year alone. Savings would be realized in two ways:

1. The Act would replace the current system of multiple public and private insurers with a single, reliable insurance plan. This saves about $20 billion in administrative costs.

2. California would buy prescription drugs and durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs) in bulk and save about $5.2 billion.

Savings for State and Local Governments
* In addition, state and local governments would save about $900 million, in
the first year, in spending for health benefits provided to state and local
government workers and retirees.
* Aggregate savings to state and local governments from 2006 to 2015 would
be about $43.8 billion.

Savings for Businesses
* Employers who currently offer health benefits would realize average savings of 16% compared to the current system.

Savings for families
* Average family spending for health care is estimated to decline to about $2,448 per family under the Act in 2006, which is an average savings of about $340 per family.
* Families with under $150,000 in annual income would, on average, see savings ranging between $600 and $3,000 per family under the program in 2006.

Cost Controls
* By 2015, health spending in California under the Act would be about $68.9
billion less than currently projected. Total savings over the 2006 through 2015 period would be $343.6 billion.
* Savings to state and local governments over this ten-year period would be
about $43.8 billion.

Comprehensive Benefits
* The Lewin Report assumes an insurance plan that covers medical, dental and
vision care; prescription drug; emergency room services, surgical and recuperative care; orthodontia; mental health care and drug rehabilitation;
immunizations; emergency and other necessary transportation; laboratory and
other diagnostic services; adult day care; all necessary translation and interpretation; chiropractic care, acupuncture, case management and skilled
nursing care.

Efficiencies
* The Lewin Report shows that efficiencies in the system make these superior
benefits available while generating savings.

Freedom to Choose
*The Lewin Report model assumes the consumer’s freedom to choose his or her
own care providers. This means that each Californian will be free to change jobs, start a family, start a business, continue education and or change residences, secure in the knowledge that his or her relationships with trusted caregivers will be secure.

The Health Care For All Californians Act: Cost and Economic Impacts Analysis


Colorado, August 2007

The Lewin Group

Technical Assessment of Health Care Reform Proposals (Proof Report)
August 20, 2007
Prepared for: The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform

The Lewin Group was engaged by the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Reform to assist in developing and analyzing alternative proposals to expand health insurance coverage and reform the Colorado
health care system.

Single Payer Results, Excerpt:

COLORADO HEALTH SERVICES SINGLE PAYER PROGRAM

The Colorado Health Services (CHS) Program is a single payer plan that would provide coverage to all residents of the state, including state and local workers, and residents currently covered under Medicare, Tricare, Veteran’s Health, Indian Health Services and Federal Health Benefits programs. The program would provide all people with comprehensive health care benefits that cover the same list of services now covered by the Colorado Medicaid benefits package. Consumers would have their choice of providers and hospitals within the state.

0 – number remaining uninsured

$1.4 billion – decline in health spending

All Other Plans, Results, excerpt:

BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR COLORADO

Better Health Care for Colorado provides a path to universal health care through a public program expansion and access to private insurance coverage with low-income subsidies through a Health Insurance Exchange. Individuals eligible for public programs would receive benefits under those programs, and individuals who purchase private coverage would have access to a limited core set of benefits, with premiums copays.

467,200 – number remaining uninsured

$595 million – increase in health spending

SOLUTIONS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO

Solutions for a Healthy Colorado provides coverage to all Colorado residents under a Core Limited Benefit Plan in the private sector and expands coverage under Medicaid and Child Health Plus (CHP+). People who are low income but who would not be eligible for the government programs would receive a premium subsidy.

133,400 – number remaining uninsured

$271 million – increase in health spending

A PLAN FOR COVERING COLORADO

A Plan for Covering Coloradans provides coverage to Coloradans through a public program expansion and a mandatory private pool for all residents not eligible for the public program. It provides a minimum benefits package in a private pool and premium assistance based on income for those who cannot afford insurance. All plans would provide a comprehensive minimum benefits package, and differ mainly on cost-sharing amounts.

106,500 – number remaining uninsured

$1.3 billion – increase in health spending

Source:
Lewin’s Technical Assessment of Health Care Reform Proposals (230 page report):
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=BlueRibbon%2FRIBBLayout&cid=1178305890619&p=1178305890619&pagename=RIBBWrapper

Comment by Dr. Don McCanne, PNHP Senior Health Policy Fellow:

Once again, fiscal analysis shows that the models of reform that build on our highly flawed, fragmented system of financing health care actually increase health care spending while falling far short on the goals of reform. In contrast, the single payer model would provide truly comprehensive care for absolutely everyone while significantly reducing health care spending.


December, 2007: Kansas

Single Payer would save $869 million

The Kansas Health Policy Authority hired the consulting firm of Schramm-Raleigh to do a fiscal analysis of five options for expanding coverage. They found that single payer (“the Mountain plan”) would cover all the uninsured and reduce state health spending by $869 million annually. The other plans would cover a portion of the uninsured and would raise costs between $150 million to $500 million in the state.

A link to the Schramm-Raleigh Report “Kansas – Pricing the Roadmap to Reform” is located on the web site of the Kansas Health Policy Authority :

www.healthfund.org/reportspubs/11012007fdn_report_khpa.php


July, 2009: New York

The New York State Department of Health and Department of Insurance contracted with the Urban Institute to compare 4 options for health reform in the state, including single payer (“Public Health Insurance for All”). The results of the two-year study showed that single payer was the only plan that would cover everyone and was the most effective plan at controlling costs. The report found that the savings from single payer would substantially increase over time. By 2019, the Urban Institute analysis showed that single payer would save $20 billion annually compared to the present system. Single payer would cost $28 billion less annually than an individual mandate plan and $19 billion less annually by 2019 than an expansion of Family Health Plus.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/press/releases/2009/2009-07-17_report_compares_comprehensive_reform_proposals.htm

The press release with a link to the full study is here: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/advocates_call_on_go.php


Minnesota, 2012

A fiscal study by the Lewin Group found that single payer would cover all Minnesota residents and reduce total health spending by $4.1 billion, or 8.8 percent, in 2014, and would save $189.5 billion from 2014-2023 over what health care costs in Minnesota would be under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The plan would cover most medically necessary care with the exception of home care (outside of what is now covered by Medicare) and nursing home care, and would eliminate most cost-sharing, except for some small co-pays on specialty care and medications (medications for chronic conditions would be excluded from cost-sharing).  Lewin estimated that single payer would save employers currently offering coverage an average of $1,214 per worker, and save an average of $1,362 for families.  Employers not currently providing coverage would pay an additional $1,963 per worker annually.  Single payer could be financed with existing sources of taxpayer funding for health care (including subsidies from the ACA) combined with an average 7.2 percent effective payroll tax on employers, a 3 percent income tax on family adjusted gross income, and cigarette ($1.00/pack) and alcohol taxes (5 cents per drink).

Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of a Single-Payer Plan in Minnesota, March 27, 2012.


Summaries for studies for Vermont (William Hsiao, 2011) and five other states including Massachusetts, Maryland, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (2013, Friedman) are forthcoming.

Source: How Much Would Single Payer Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment