ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Here's where you get your 35T...
New study: single payer would cost 34 trillion for first decade
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
MCA just distributes the responsibility more amoung the rich due to the fact the system has been rigged in their favor for so long. So if we're already doing it, already forking out 18% of GDP then we can at least distribute the burden amongst those who are able and have benefitted so immensley under the system theyve rigged.
Amazon didn't pay a dime in Fed tax...
Economy is ~20T/yr...
There's plenty of money for MCA especially when were already paying the same amount. We already tax $1T/yr for Medicare & Medicaid, so corporations and the wealthy are going to have to cough up the other 2.5T.
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.
Amazon didn't pay a dime in Fed tax...
Economy is ~20T/yr...
There's plenty of money for MCA especially when were already paying the same amount. We already tax $1T/yr for Medicare & Medicaid, so corporations and the wealthy are going to have to cough up the other 2.5T.
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.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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..
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there's 30 trillion dollars lying around somewhere for Bernie's healthcare plan...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
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.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
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.
Bernie's healthcare plan does not contain enough details to enable the Congressional Office of Management and Budget to estimate cost. It is a vague promise by a do-nothing senator.
Just repeating his promises in a browbeating and angry manner, as Bernie does, pushes people who quite reasonably doubt him to oppose it. If Medicare delivers what he promised, people would naturally migrate to it. That's what should be promised, not an authoritarian and draconian repeal of the current system without a proven system ready for all 327 million people at reasonable cost. No need to brow beat or as you do, lie to people. Show them it works, at reasonable cost and less hassle with better outcomes. Do that first, then the private system will become nothing but an expensive alternative for the insane.
Instead, it strips people of healthcare they want without demonstrating better results. Bernie's plan would force 100 million people who say they like their healthcare from those plans. As the service workers union in Nevada says, they worked hard for that benefit and recommend against giving it up for a promise. In a close election against a vile, corrupt, dictatorial Republican administration, Bernie's plan would tip the election to him.
Beating Trump is the most important objective at this time. Do you not agree?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
According to who?
According to the consensus, Medicare for All is cheaper and covers everybody
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
medicare 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?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOL
People in red states keep voting against social programs including Medicaid and expansion of the ACA. Election polls are the only ones that matter.
But you say it's different this time!!! A wellspring of heretofore unknown non-voters will just rise up and sweep skeptical moderates on both sides of the political spectrum to the side.
Where is the evidence of that happening?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
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...
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
so basically 7 trillion for an annual budget that we'll pay 3 trillion towards.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
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..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Wrong again, that's addressed in the study you cited but didn't understand
As you can see, costs decrease across the board