What a super strange coincidence right? The only candidates against M4A have taken money from the insurance and/or pharmaceutical industries, the only candidate that supports it hasn't.. But sure, if we nominate one of the candidates that has accepted legal bribes, they'll do something about it when they get into office..That's the reason why all the corporate donors don't like Bernie. That's why the attack adds on Bernie. Warren and Bernie are coming for that fat cat money cake lol.
The only candidate who supports it has never accomplished anything in politics, ever, aside from fracturing the DNC and handing the entire government to the GOP in 2016.What a super strange coincidence right? The only candidates against M4A have taken money from the insurance and/or pharmaceutical industries, the only candidate that supports it hasn't.. But sure, if we nominate one of the candidates that has accepted legal bribes, they'll do something about it when they get into office..
LOL, "Apparently, many Americans". Bernie only garners 25% of Democrats and can't even muster enough delegates to beat a nobody mayor from nowhere. Apparently, not enough Americans believe what Sanders is vaguely promising.Why did you need to lie about union workers losing their healthcare if M4A is enacted? Two union reps in the previous comment are in a much stronger position to speak about it, being members/leaders of actual unions
Providing millions of people with healthcare, increasing VA benefits, raising millions of blue collar workers wages, voting against the Iraq war, are all significant achievements. You're trying to push a false narrative about Sanders record of accomplishments because you don't like the guy and his supporters hurt your feelings on the internet
Apparently many Americans believe what Sanders is doing is a good way to beat Trump, and many of his competitors in the Democratic primary do too, seeing as he's leading by a significant margin in national polls, has already won two out of two contests, and is likely to win Nevada and potentially South Carolina, and has successfully steered the narrative within the Democratic party in a more progressive direction
If Sanders wins a plurality of delegates, we will finally get to answer a question you and I have been debating about for years; Would the Democratic party rather win with Sanders or will the super delegates nominate someone else and lose to Trump?
Personally, I'm looking forward to that, because it looks like Sanders is going to win a plurality of delegates and it'll be a contested convention
From the author of the study you're citingYou have to register for the Lancet to see the entire study but I will point out pertinent things about it and let someone else verify.
The study from the lancet calculates the cost to the federal government at 3 trillion dollars per year year.
It highlights a 450 billion dollar savings and a savings in 68,000 lives over the current system.
It confirms that doctors take a significant pay cut.
For the sake of argument, I will accept the numbers proposed in the study. 3 trillion per year or 30 trillion dollars for the first decade as prescribed in such a bill.
I'm sure we have 30 trillion dollars lying around somewhere...
Medicare for all would only work as the natural progression forward from “Medicare for anyone who wants it”, and only after it’s success is proven over many yearsFrom the author of the study you're citing
So, not only are you completely wrong about Medicare for All, you don't know how to read or understand scientific journals. When you pretend like you do, you end up embarrassing yourself like you have here
According to who?Medicare for all would only work as the natural progression forward from “Medicare for anyone who wants it”, and only after it’s success is proven over many years
medicare for all is getting 60% dem support in primary exit pollsAccording to who?
According to the consensus, Medicare for All is cheaper and covers everybody
M4A garners 86% support from Democrats, 52% from Republicansmedicare for all is getting 60% dem support in primary exit polls
It’s a guaranteed loser
“I will take your healthcare away” is the absolute wrong campaign message.
How many republican votes did Nancy need to become speaker?
lmao 'consensus'. The only consensus on M4A is that nobody has a real clue on how much it will cost or how it will all work out if ever implemented.According to who?
According to the consensus, Medicare for All is cheaper and covers everybody
Technically everyone has access to healthcare today, emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people that need care. But foreign trolls don't care about nuance unless it somehow benefits their candidate of choice. Which Russia's is currently Bernie and Trump.M4A garners 86% support from Democrats, 52% from Republicans
It doesn't take healthcare away from anybody, it replaces existing insurance plans and decreases the cost to taxpayers
LOLM4A garners 86% support from Democrats, 52% from Republicans
It doesn't take healthcare away from anybody, it replaces existing insurance plans and decreases the cost to taxpayers
That's "savings" which is derived from comparing what the gov't would pay to what the peaople currently do pay. I'm not in support of the current system. The actual cost is in the study. It's 3 trillion annually for the first decade at least that would be added to the federal budget.From the author of the study you're citing
So, not only are you completely wrong about Medicare for All, you don't know how to read or understand scientific journals. When you pretend like you do, you end up embarrassing yourself like you have here
2 positions that i don't want to take pay cuts:It confirms that doctors take a significant pay cut.
so basically 7 trillion for an annual budget that we'll pay 3 trillion towards.That's "savings" which is derived from comparing what the gov't would pay to what the peaople currently do pay. I'm not in support of the current system. The actual cost is in the study. It's 3 trillion annually for the first decade at least that would be added to the federal budget.
I'm sure there's 30 trillion lying around somewhere...
5th pageThe bottom line of Medicare for All
Through the mechanisms detailed previously, we predict that a single-payer health-care system would require $3·034 trillion annually
Yeah, "technically" that's true, however it doesn't magically make it free. They will bill you later, and potentially ruin your credit for years. Let's add some context..Technically everyone has access to healthcare today, emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people that need care. But foreign trolls don't care about nuance unless it somehow benefits their candidate of choice. Which Russia's is currently Bernie and Trump.
Wrong again, that's addressed in the study you cited but didn't understandThat's "savings" which is derived from comparing what the gov't would pay to what the peaople currently do pay. I'm not in support of the current system. The actual cost is in the study. It's 3 trillion annually for the first decade at least that would be added to the federal budget.
I'm sure there's 30 trillion lying around somewhere...