abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Exactly my fear, all they seem able to respond with is that we're just righties who oppose universal coverage.
That's why Bernie is the primary liability to the very policies he ostensibly supports.
New study: single payer would cost 34 trillion for first decade
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
That's why Bernie is the primary liability to the very policies he ostensibly supports.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Can you believe this shit? Its bad enough to have Trump doing the thing where he takes a story that is clearly negative to him and then concentrates on CNN having reported it (along with everybody else) and then attacks CNN.nope
I ignored his juvenile jab because he often accuses others of being as ignorant as he is. My sources on the 150 million people:
Most Americans Still Rate Their Healthcare Quite Positively
Majorities of Americans rate the coverage (69%) and quality (80%) of the healthcare they personally receive as "excellent" or "good," but Americans are much less positive about healthcare in the U.S. in general.news.gallup.com
From this, about 85% of everybody insured through private coverage rate their coverage as very good or excellent.
Health insurance coverage in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
From this, as of 2019, 160 million receive private coverage
How did I arrive at 150 million people like their coverage? 135 million say "excellent or very good" so I rounded up to 150 million say they like their coverage. Whatever it is, it's a whopping large number of pissed off people if they are told they must drop it. Especially on the vague promise that Bernie has given us in the form of his healthcare bill.
I don't give a shit what the Heritage Foundation says. Facts are neither right or left, they are simply true. If the Heritage Foundation wants to cite facts, well, that's a surprise but OK by me. Apparently, only propaganda from Sanders-approved sites are acceptable to his cult.
Whatever the exact number is, a hundred million or more people who like their private healthcare plan is a whopping large number of pissed off people if they are told they must drop it. Especially on the vague promise that Bernie has given us in the form of his healthcare bill. I think it's enough all by itself to hand Trump the election in the fall.
We have had enough of this and anybody with a brain can see the parallels between Trump and Sanders. Bernie's supporters are the Trumpists of the left.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're the only one here citing The Heritage Foundation. I cited the Urban Institute. If you have some other source, since Bernie's braindead bill is apparently incomplete, I'd love to see it. I'd probably find some pretty deep faults with it though, knowing you.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You're using the exact same arguments and rhetoric against medicare for all that the Heritage Foundation uses, essentially word for word
iirc, if anyone else cites a right wing think tank as a source for their information, you label them a racist Trump supporter. But if you or your friend use arguments promoted by a right wing think tank against universal healthcare, down to the same wording, it's just a coincidence and 'a broken clock is right twice a day'..
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't care what The Heritage Foundation says. Besides, Fogdog was the one who pointed out how many people would lose their private insurance.You're using the exact same arguments and rhetoric against medicare for all that the Heritage Foundation uses, essentially word for word
iirc, if anyone else cites a right wing think tank as a source for their information, you label them a racist Trump supporter. But if you or your friend use arguments promoted by a right wing think tank against universal healthcare, down to the same wording, it's just a coincidence and 'a broken clock is right twice a day'..
Are you saying that Bernie would not in fact abolish private insurance? It should be pretty straightforward to figure out how many people would lose their insurance plans under Bernie's braindead plan. Please be coherent. It seems like you're saying that Bernie would let us keep our private plans. I have said repeatedly that I am absolutely for universal healthcare. In fact, I would even support single-payer, eventually, once costs are down.
Just because you're failing to defend the merits of Bernie's braindead plan, doesn't mean that everyone who disagree's with it is quoting The Heritage Foundation.
Face reality, Padaraper.
BurtMaklin
Well-Known Member
No, there isn't. Healthcare is funded through taxes (part of the provincial budget, subsidized by federal transfer payments), not through premiums. Whether you decide to use it up to you, making it "optional" I guess, but there is no "opt out". Present your HC card, get services, leave.
Our system isn't perfect, and I advocate for better, voting that way. I vote NDP because they advocate for a national pharmacare program and universal dental care, eliminating the need for supplemental benefits, which, IMO, are bullshit BECAUSE they are subject to approval by the carrier and not everyone can afford it. Collectively, we can do better for less.
There are people here that are forced into bankruptcy to pay for drugs to save their lives, while multinational corporations use our collective resources as their license to print money and loopholes to avoid paying their share of taxes. That is unacceptable, and you should want better for your country, not use our shortcomings as an excuse to do less for yourselves.
Last edited:
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
When several different organizations study things and come to the same conclusions, it usually means that it is because it is true, not that it is rigged.You're using the exact same arguments and rhetoric against medicare for all that the Heritage Foundation uses, essentially word for word
iirc, if anyone else cites a right wing think tank as a source for their information, you label them a racist Trump supporter. But if you or your friend use arguments promoted by a right wing think tank against universal healthcare, down to the same wording, it's just a coincidence and 'a broken clock is right twice a day'..
This is the same nonsense, if slightly different flavor, of the science deniers, anti-vaxxers, human caused climate change deniers, etc.
You are a useful idiot at best trying to cause people to hate Bernie supporters and actually hurt his chances at being elected if he does win the nomination.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There is a private healthcare industry in Canada that wealthy people prefer over the one everybody else is forced into.
Stop it with the ignorance. I'm not saying your system is worse than the US's, just saying that there is a line between success and failure when it comes to transitioning to single payer. You said that Warren's plan was a bad one because it hinged on a three year transition period. A quarter of our economy and hundreds of millions of people depend on getting it right. Yet you sit back and call people who want it done right "privileged". One can point at the inequity in your own system as proof that single payer is not exactly wonderful. If it were, there would be no opportunity to serve people with the means to leave it.
Bernie Sanders has done nothing in his life to show he's up to the task of managing the transition. Yet he's insisting it be done overnight and you nod your head while calling out skeptics of that boob.
I get that you will reject what I'm saying because underneath it all, I'm calling you an ignoramus whose opinion isn't worth spit.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there's 34 trillion lying around somewhere...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Anyway, there's no way the delegates will nominate Sanders, he's dying and not even in their party.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Bernie Sanders will be good for American economy, top economist says
Thomas Piketty says that history has many examples of extreme inequality fostering healthy social democracies
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah, huge deficits are so good for the economy...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually, the Mercatus study estimated the cost at 49 trillion. This is on the lower end but it's probably less than what Sander's plan would actually cost, since this estimate excludes immigrants.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there's 34 trillion dollars lying around somewhere...
HolyAngel
Well-Known Member
My thought is, that 34 trillion is a made up number. The only way you could arrive to that number is if you're still taking the insurance companies prices as they are today. Ya know, like $500 for two single pills of acetaminophen when I can go buy a whole bottle for less than $5 at the store. I've personally seen that bill from a hospital. If you abolish private insurance and give us sane prices like the other, actual, first world countries get, no way in hell it comes out to 34 trillion. Insurance companies in the USA are directly why our healthcare costs are so expensive compared to any other first world country.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
How in the hell could it possibly cost more if you're eliminating the middle guy profiting billions every year??
Oh wait...it wouldn't cost more.....
MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS
Oh wait...it wouldn't cost more.....
MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's actually one of the primary reasons why M4A as written in Sanders' bill is far cheaper than the system we have now. Anyone asking where we'll find the money to pay for it is either ignorant to what we pay now or dishonest.
"How will we pay for something that costs less than what we pay now and cover everybody?!"
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The federal budget for fiscal 2019 is as follows.
Revenue 3.4 trillion dollars
Expenditures 4.4 trillion dollars
Deficit nearly a trillion dollars. (higher now)
That savings is what the government would pay, vs what the people currently pay on the aggregate.
Nobody is proposing we leave the current system as it is. But abolishing private insurance comes with massive taxes. It's either that or a 2.4 trillion dollar deficit and that is if we get bernies taxes on the ultra wealthy which only pay for about half of the cost.
This new, like brand spanking new study in the lancet says that the cost is 3 trillion per year. I'm willing to accept that study and debate this issue based on that info. However, the author is certainly biased in bernie's favor and worked directly for his senate staff in the past.
I'm still absolutely opposed to adding 3 trillion dollars in annual federal expenditures. Those tax hikes would be enormous. I would certainly prefer deductibles and co-pays to save thousands of dollars per year.
Last edited: