The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) on Monday released a paper providing its preliminary estimates for various ways to finance “Medicare for All,” as the issue of how to pay for such a health plan has taken center stage in the Democratic presidential primary.
“Policymakers have a number of options available to finance the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All, but each option would come with its own set of trade-offs,” the budget watchdog group wrote.
The issue of how to pay for Medicare for All — single-payer health care that eliminates premiums and deductibles — has become a key discussion topic in the Democratic presidential race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the top tier 2020 hopefuls, recently said that she would release a financing plan for her Medicare for All proposal after being criticized by some of her rivals in the primary race for refusing to give a direct answer about whether she’d raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the massive health care overhaul.
CRFB said most estimates find that implementing Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over 10 years.
“How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications,” the group wrote.
CRFB provided several options that each could raise the revenue needed to pay for Medicare for All. These included a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent surtax on income above the standard-deduction amount, a 42 percent value-added tax, mandatory premiums averaging $7,500 per capita, and more than doubling all individual and corporate tax rates.
The group estimated that Medicare for All could not be fully financed just by raising taxes on the wealthy.
CRFB also estimated that Medicare for All could be financed by cutting all nonhealth spending by 80 percent, or by more than doubling the national debt, so that it increased to 205 percent of gross domestic product.
The group said that the financing options it listed could be combined, or that policymakers could reduce the cost of Medicare for All by making it less generous.
“Adopting smaller versions of several policies may prove more viable than adopting any one policy in full,” CRFB wrote.
CRFB said that most of the financing options it listed would on average be more progressive than current law, but most of the financing options would also shrink the economy.