Majority Backs ‘Medicare for All’ Replacing Private Plans, if Preferred Providers Stay

[Fogdog]

We already know what it will cost to implement based on the dozen or so other modern nations that have already implemented it. We know we spend twice as much and still fail to cover 30 million Americans while other countries spend half as much and cover everyone, at better results

Bernie's plan does not provide enough detail to give a firm cost estimate. You have no basis for your claim. "Because other countries". LOL what a shit stupid and baseless argument.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

This guy has all the knowledge about comparative politics that one would expect from a janitor.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Bernie's plan does not provide enough detail to give a firm cost estimate. You have no basis for your claim. "Because other countries". LOL what a shit stupid and baseless argument.

The reality is there is no cost estimate you would accept because universal healthcare hasn't been implemented in the US. Any number, any estimate, regardless of the analysis you will reject as wholly theoretical. The fact however is that over a dozen other countries provide healthcare to all of their citizens at half the cost we do.

Over 80% of the Democratic party supports Medicare for All. Shouldn't the Democratic leadership reflect what the overwhelming majority of the party supports?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

The reality is there is no cost estimate you would accept because universal healthcare hasn't been implemented in the US. Any number, any estimate, regardless of the analysis you will reject as wholly theoretical. The fact however is that over a dozen other countries provide healthcare to all of their citizens at half the cost we do.

Over 80% of the Democratic party supports Medicare for All. Shouldn't the Democratic leadership reflect what the overwhelming majority of the party supports?

Will repeating the same untrue things over and over be an official Progressive tactic?

 

[Padawanbater2]

As I said before, you're using the exact same arguments conservatives used against Social Security when it was first implemented after the great depression

Republicans do not give a fuck about how they will pay for wars or tax breaks for corporations and the rich. They will blow a gaping hole in the deficit to get their donors what they want. Meanwhile, weak neoliberal democrats cry about every single nickel and dime that'll actually go towards an investment in the country.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

As I said before, you're using the exact same arguments conservatives used against Social Security when it was first implemented after the great depression

Republicans do not give a fuck about how they will pay for wars or tax breaks for corporations and the rich. They will blow a gaping hole in the deficit to get their donors what they want. Meanwhile, weak neoliberal democrats cry about every single nickel and dime that'll actually go towards an investment in the country.

So let me get this straight...

Your logic is that if there is legitimate criticism of whether this plan can be immediately implemented at this time in this country that somehow the Republicans would not bring it up? Or is it that them bringing it up makes it without merit. Or does the fact that the Republicans bring it up mean that only the Republicans can bring it up? I'm confused by what you are saying because your logic is unclear and flawed.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it is still bullshit.

Will intellectual dishonesty be an official Progressive tactic?

 

[Fogdog]

The reality is there is no cost estimate you would accept because universal healthcare hasn't been implemented in the US. Any number, any estimate, regardless of the analysis you will reject as wholly theoretical. The fact however is that over a dozen other countries provide healthcare to all of their citizens at half the cost we do.

Over 80% of the Democratic party supports Medicare for All. Shouldn't the Democratic leadership reflect what the overwhelming majority of the party supports?

Nobody can make a cost estimate because Bernie left out details that would enable them. This enables you to make fantastic claims. My skepticism is justified by the Congressional OMB's own report.

It is true that I don't accept Britain's costs as an estimate for what Bernie's plan would cost. Your claims that somehow I'm wrong because I question the facts behind your belief are just another example of why Bernie and his followers are just another cult.

The public option does not require a leap of faith in either cost or method of payment. Bernie's plan

 

[Padawanbater2]

It is true that I don't accept [modern healthcare] costs as an estimate for what Bernie's plan would cost.

You don't accept it because it defeats your argument. You have no legitimate justification for rejecting modern day healthcare costs in other countries that implement universal healthcare. We spend twice as much here and get half the results. Every other modern country spends half as much and has much better results.

 

[hanimmal]

You don't accept it because it defeats your argument. You have no legitimate justification for rejecting modern day healthcare costs in other countries that implement universal healthcare. We spend twice as much here and get half the results. Every other modern country spends half as much and has much better results.

What do you mean by 1/2 the results?

 

[Padawanbater2]

What do you mean by 1/2 the results?

We spend twice as much as other modern countries per capita on healthcare and maintain a steady 30 million person population who remains without adequate access to affordable healthcare. Nearly half the cost goes to overhead, administration, and middlemen, all of which become obsolete under a universal program

 

[Fogdog]

You don't accept it because it defeats your argument. You have no legitimate justification for rejecting modern day healthcare costs in other countries that implement universal healthcare. We spend twice as much here and get half the results. Every other modern country spends half as much and has much better results.

Would you give a blank check to purchase a car of unknown value or age without any price agreement? The car isn't even on the lot for your inspection. There are no details about this car, how old it is or its condition. You don't know what the dealer will charge and the dealer isn't telling you what other costs might be included. Would it matter to you what other people paid for their cars? Would you give that dealer a blank check?

Bernie should include enough detail in his healthcare bill so that the OMB can provide a cost estimate. Also specify the means of payment for the plan. His is not a campaign promise but an actual bill before Congress. What a ridiculous thing.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

We spend twice as much as other modern countries per capita on healthcare and maintain a steady 30 million person population who remains without adequate access to affordable healthcare. Nearly half the cost goes to overhead, administration, and middlemen, all of which become obsolete under a universal program

Overhead and administration become obsolete?

Lol.

So hospitals will operate in Walmart parking lots and be managed by what, consensus, the I ching, Magic 8 balls?

Damn, you make me laugh sometimes. Your grasp of this issue is very poor. Please keep lecturing, it makes the day go quicker and I am bored.

 

[hanimmal]

We spend twice as much as other modern countries per capita on healthcare and maintain a steady 30 million person population who remains without adequate access to affordable healthcare. Nearly half the cost goes to overhead, administration, and middlemen, all of which become obsolete under a universal program

again with the nearly half, where do you find that number of what its spent on? Also I would suggest you consider in innovation which the United States subsidizes for the rest of the world. Without that spending healthcare everywhere would not be where it is at today.

 

[Padawanbater2]

again with the nearly half, where do you find that number of what its spent on? Also I would suggest you consider in innovation which the United States subsidizes for the rest of the world. Without that spending healthcare everywhere would not be where it is at today.

Why do we spend twice as much and receive half the results?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You wouldn't need to market insurance if it were free at service to every American, eliminating the advertising fee that's only legal in America

 

[hanimmal]

Why do we spend twice as much and receive half the results?

We spend more because like I pointed out with that chart, we are the country that is doing the most research and that inflates the price that we pay into our healthcare system.

And 'getting half the results' still has not been explained by you. What do you mean/how did you get to 1/2? It seems like a nonsensical number pulled out of some hole. Do we live half the lifespan? if not, then what are you talking about with 1/2?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Half the result is extrapolated from the cost per capita. We spend roughly twice as much as other modern countries on healthcare per capita. Yet those countries can provide adequate healthcare for all of their citizens.

We spend twice as much because of the insurance middleman

It doesn't go to care, procedures, policy, equipment, etc. It goes from your pocket to an insurance executives pocket. It's a personal tax.

 

[hanimmal]

so you are saying, we spend double for basically the same results.

 

[cannabineer]

Every single American will receive a very significant benefit package that is both extensive and generous.

My package is already significant, extensive and generous.