Retract Worst-Ever Single-Payer Study

Reasons for signing

See why other supporters are signing, why this petition is important to them, and share your reason for signing (this will mean a lot to the starter of the petition).

Thanks for adding your voice.

Joseph M. Firestone
4 years ago
The fatalities and other social costs of lack of insurance are ruining and often ending the lives of many thousands annually. This is the butcher's bill due to our failure to pass HR 676. It has already cost lives in the hundreds of thousands. See: http://www.josephmfirestone.com/2017/04/10/how-many-americans-will-die-needlessly-before-congress-finally-passes-national-improved-medicare-for-all-nima/

Thanks for adding your voice.

Elizabeth Wytiaz
5 years ago
Access to affordable Healthcare for ALL!
Heathcare is not a privilege, it's a right for ALL!!

Thanks for adding your voice.

Michael Soper
5 years ago
We can't afford to have one flawed study be used to distort the true economic impact of single payer health care

Thanks for adding your voice.

Eric Naumburg
5 years ago
THIS IS NOT A SINGLE PAYER STUDY; IT'S A MULTI-PAYER STUDY.

Thanks for adding your voice.

Michael Huntington
5 years ago
This study grossly underestimates the savings to society from simplifying administration to a single funnel payment system.

Thanks for adding your voice.

Sheila McNeill
5 years ago
I'm signing because I want Single-Payer and HATE shenanigans like Urban Institute's bogus "Study".

Thanks for adding your voice.

Patrick Herndon
5 years ago
I was previously a follower of Urban Inst policy analysis, but this analysis of a public national medical service with universal access by Urban Inst is pure political crap; has Urban Inst hooked up with Heritage Foundation & Cato?

Thanks for adding your voice.

Corrin Collin
5 years ago
single payer is the only way every one has health care. Every other way someone is left out

Thanks for adding your voice.

Sharea Moan-Renaud
5 years ago
This issue is crucial to the future of our nation, this article-this study is misleading and readers deserve better journalism, better research!

Thanks for adding your voice.

james mcgee
5 years ago
I worked for a prestigious actuarial firm (not as an actuary). The actuarial review process includes what is unofficially called the "sniff test". Does the result make sense in light of what we know about other external factors? If not, the number crunchers are asked to go back to review their assumptions, their inputs, and their formulas.
This study fails the sniff test!
When the Institute of Medicine argues that upwards of 30% of US health care spending is wasted, and they list six categories of waste; and when it attributes much of that waste to the fragmented payment and delivery system; how can the Urban Institute assert that it will cost $17 billion.
It flunks the sniff test.
I cold go on.
But we should not expect the Urban Institute to renounce their study or to bite the hand that feeds it.
Rather it should be overwhelmed with critical and credible studies that detail its flaws and counter its conclusions.