Maybe you should depart from here for a few days, read, and then come back. Whining "but Canada did it!" is not a strategy, unless you're a 6 year old.
Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" would cost $32.6 Trillion Dollars
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Maybe you should depart from here for a few days, read, and then come back. Whining "but Canada did it!" is not a strategy, unless you're a 6 year old.
It doesnt matter. They overcharge payers to make up for nonpayers so the money is still the same. You could make the case for collections costs going away, but it will just be replaced with compliance anyway so at the very best its a zero sum game. In reality though, any medical professional will tell you that medicare compliance is far more expensive and time consuming that with private insurers so costs will likely increase.
If you think single payer is the way to go, why not advocate for Unitedhealth buying up all other insurance companies and we can all go through them instead of the government?
Because everyone knows that Corporations are evil and Governments are not. Anyone who would even doubt that is true is an ignorant racist red hatter MAGAt. The social science is settled.
Through redistribution of wealth and limiting quality of care.
Liberal policies have completely screwed up the medical industry over the last 75 years and youre asking to go even further. Just be honest and state that ypu believe everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of their knowledge, work ethic, and education.
It happens every day when people choose to stop buying their products or services. Terrible take
Did you read his suggestion or just my reply obviously I'm talking about a monopoly which is what he suggested. Terrible poster.
Says the guy who refuses to accept the near consensus that single payer is not feasible here
Have yet to hear why human medical needs can not be handled here but can be handled elsewhere.
Sure you have. Analysis after analysis tells you why. You’re just to set in your ideologue ways to accept what even left wing sites have accepted.
Why are you anti-data and anti-fact?
If I was working in GBR or CAN I could be medically covered out of my taxes but not here because reasons.
Humans get sick the same ways all across the world they get well the same ways all across the world. If other countries can take their sick and make them well we can do it the same way or better in America.
Then your insurance is already superior to anything you’d ever get off of single payer socialized medicine
One of my immediate family is on Medicare and the rest of us are on private insurance. I assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have 5 family members on Medicare. I assure you that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Some yes. Aided by the fact that I have excellent employer insurance and save money through private health care.
My favorite part of this incredibly embarrassing episode for 85 is he still hasn't figured out today his precious Koch study literally claimed that Sanders plan would save the US money.
When he finally catches up with the rest of us the meltdown will be even more epic than normal.
When he finally catches up with the rest of us the meltdown will be even more epic than normal.
Lulz for the day right here. Just saw this pop up.
Thehard right conservative site Washington Post addressed this ridiculous claim that MFA would "save $2T" and labeled it 3 Pinocchio's under Fact Check for basically being based on bullshit and lies. (But, that didn't stop Democrats from peddling this as fact).
The report does throw this number out, but then tears it apart with context and an understanding that the 40% cuts in payments cannot and will not happen in a vacuum, although that's how the numbers had to run for sake of the study. Like most sane people, it concludes that in no possible way would it save $2T, or anything at all.
Like I said above, the only people pushing this are people knowingly dealing in lies or concealment of data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.0c609f116dd5
The
The report does throw this number out, but then tears it apart with context and an understanding that the 40% cuts in payments cannot and will not happen in a vacuum, although that's how the numbers had to run for sake of the study. Like most sane people, it concludes that in no possible way would it save $2T, or anything at all.
Like I said above, the only people pushing this are people knowingly dealing in lies or concealment of data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.0c609f116dd5
Hmmm what to believe from a guy that just makes stuff up about people then lies about backing it up...
Can't do any of that without major tort reform. Good luck passing that in DC which festers with lawyers
