RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Koch Bros. find: Medicare For All will save $2T
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/02/18 2:10 pm    ::: Koch Bros. find: Medicare For All will save $2T Reply Reply with quote

Oh dear god, say it ain't so.

https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/02/18 2:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I mean... if we're going to use the nation as a "legitimate" source then let me counter with Breitbart while we're at it Laughing

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/22/single-payer-health-care-cost-400-billion-california/
Quote:
A new legislative analysis released on Monday found that a single-payer “socialized” health care system would cost the state of California $400 billion per year — three times the current annual budget of the state.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/02/18 3:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Carry On! (love is coming) Laughing



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/02/18 6:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
I mean... if we're going to use the nation as a "legitimate" source then let me counter with Breitbart while we're at it Laughing

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/22/single-payer-health-care-cost-400-billion-california/
Quote:
A new legislative analysis released on Monday found that a single-payer “socialized” health care system would cost the state of California $400 billion per year — three times the current annual budget of the state.

Of course this wasn't The Nation making this claim, but rather a study paid for by the Koch brothers....

The costs for single payer are high, but that is because there is one single payer. If we add up all the money paid out by all the insurance companies, the number would be immense. Yet these companies make money because people pay premiums. So all these premiums, instead of going to insurance companies with tons of overhead and limited bargaining power, now go to the government. So these new costs are offset by an increase in revenue.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/18 6:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
I mean... if we're going to use the nation as a "legitimate" source then let me counter with Breitbart while we're at it Laughing

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/22/single-payer-health-care-cost-400-billion-california/
Quote:
A new legislative analysis released on Monday found that a single-payer “socialized” health care system would cost the state of California $400 billion per year — three times the current annual budget of the state.

Of course this wasn't The Nation making this claim, but rather a study paid for by the Koch brothers....

The costs for single payer are high, but that is because there is one single payer. If we add up all the money paid out by all the insurance companies, the number would be immense. Yet these companies make money because people pay premiums. So all these premiums, instead of going to insurance companies with tons of overhead and limited bargaining power, now go to the government. So these new costs are offset by an increase in revenue.



It's literally like trying to use logic with a person with dementia. It's pointless, but we try anyway.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/18 8:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No, I'm laughing at your article which cherry picks the details it wants to project to their gullible readers (like you guys).

A conservative estimate of $32.6 trillion over 10 years based on current spending would save us $2 trillion according to the text. But if you read the actual report, that doesn't account for out-of pocket costs which are estimated around $4-6 trillion. So there would be NO savings. There would be a loss of $2-4 trillion over 10 years.

Now factor in that they would have to lower the payment rates which would crush hospitals and doctors will unsustainably small reimbursement rates and a lot of hospitals would close.

So where would this $32.6 trillion come from? Of course this $32.6 trillion is a conservative number and the costs would be trillions higher, but how would we pay for this? The answer - we'd have to impose a federal tax hike of roughly 10% of GDP, which would mean increasing payroll taxes by 10% (I'm sure that's no problem for some of you who don't work, of course), instituting a 20% VAT, AND raising income tax rates (again not a problem for the leechers).

Which means you would see massive job cuts due to the inevitable corporate tax hikes, and a negative GDP growth, all so we can have a system that would ration healthcare and force over 150 million people to lose their existing coverage. Not to mention we would have no way to pay for it.

So by all means, keep telling yourselves that "these costs are offset by an increase in revenue" because you read that somewhere. OR, alternatively you can get out there and seek gainful employment so you don't have to depend on those who do to pay for your healthcare. Last time I went for an MRI, they asked me if I was participating in the exchanges. I said "no" and they said, "good because we do not accept that here." And that was in New Haven which is one of the most liberal cities in the country. But go ahead, keep believing what the nation is spoon-feeding you... fake economics.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/03/18 11:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Razzle-Dazzle, Mumbo-Jumbo. Rolling Eyes

It's real simple, folks.

In 2017, the top Health Insurers in America netted (not grossed, netted) about 30 BILLION.

In 2017, the top Pharmaceutical companies netted 55 BILLION.

And THEY weren't even the most expensive part of Health Care: Hmmm.....

Now, why-oh-WHY might the American Health Care overlords NOT want to convert to a single-payer system?? Shocked What devious intentions might those Kochs be up to?

(By the way, Stony....I love that avatar: I didn't realize you bore such a strong resemblance to Hilary! Cool )



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/04/18 9:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Razzle-Dazzle, Mumbo-Jumbo. Rolling Eyes

It's real simple, folks.

In 2017, the top Health Insurers in America netted (not grossed, netted) about 30 BILLION.

In 2017, the top Pharmaceutical companies netted 55 BILLION.

And THEY weren't even the most expensive part of Health Care: Hmmm.....

Now, why-oh-WHY might the American Health Care overlords NOT want to convert to a single-payer system?? Shocked What devious intentions might those Kochs be up to?

(By the way, Stony....I love that avatar: I didn't realize you bore such a strong resemblance to Hilary! Cool )



It's literally like trying to use logic with a person with dementia. It's pointless, but we try anyway. Wink



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 540



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/06/18 2:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bezos Buffett and JPMorgan made their big announcement back in June.
The Kochs either had to respond to that, or already had this in the pipeline.

It's in the neighborhood of a Trillion $ battle.
Very interesting the Koch's would Not use their normal political gasbagging tactics (not that other people aren't , ha).


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/08/18 12:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Razzle-Dazzle, Mumbo-Jumbo. Rolling Eyes

It's real simple, folks.

In 2017, the top Health Insurers in America netted (not grossed, netted) about 30 BILLION.

In 2017, the top Pharmaceutical companies netted 55 BILLION.

And THEY weren't even the most expensive part of Health Care: Hmmm.....

Now, why-oh-WHY might the American Health Care overlords NOT want to convert to a single-payer system?? Shocked What devious intentions might those Kochs be up to?

(By the way, Stony....I love that avatar: I didn't realize you bore such a strong resemblance to Hilary! Cool )

So your argument for government-run healthcare is that you hate the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies for turning a profit, and that you feel that the government would do a better job doing so...


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/08/18 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:
Razzle-Dazzle, Mumbo-Jumbo. Rolling Eyes

It's real simple, folks.

In 2017, the top Health Insurers in America netted (not grossed, netted) about 30 BILLION.

In 2017, the top Pharmaceutical companies netted 55 BILLION.

And THEY weren't even the most expensive part of Health Care: Hmmm.....

Now, why-oh-WHY might the American Health Care overlords NOT want to convert to a single-payer system?? Shocked What devious intentions might those Kochs be up to?

(By the way, Stony....I love that avatar: I didn't realize you bore such a strong resemblance to Hilary! Cool )

So your argument for government-run healthcare is that you hate the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies for turning a profit, and that you feel that the government would do a better job doing so...


Who said "hate"? The only hate-able thing about them is their stranglehold on Congress, and their motive is profit, not for luxury items, but for what should be a basic right in a civilized country.

"The government" is capable of running this business WITHOUT profit as a motive. There are 2 basic models: A. The Government pays health care professional salaries, owns the hospitals, etc. England, Sweden and Spain have this model. B. A mixed system of private and public institutions. In this case, the government takes the role of coordinator and mediator between several parties involved in healthcare:i.e. public and private hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry (private), the doctors' union, teaching hospitals, etc. The prices for drugs, hospitalization, and doctors' fees are fixed. Belgium, France, Germany and Japan follow this model.

Again, it's very simple: the billions I quoted as profit margins don't appear by magic: it is money skimmed, scraped and gouged from the blood of The Worker Bees. Yet, it's the *dupable* Worker Bees that get their knickers in a twist about raised taxes for health care. Duping by Big (Med) Corporations of the public, and their stranglehold over legislators via lobbyists with clout, is deserving of "hate".



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/08/18 6:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I cannot understand the Nation article linked by Cth in the OP, as to why Sanders' plan somehow saves money. The article linked by Howee is very interesting, pointing out the many layers of profit-taking middlemen in the current US hodgepodge system.

While Medicare works well for me, and Medicare-for-all sounds like a good idea, it's far from free for the consumer. I calculated my out-of-pocket Medicare cost in some other thread long ago, which I'm too lazy to look up, but I suspect it's at least $3,500 per year in premiums and deductibles for Parts A, B, D and my AARP supplementary insurance.

Last month I was prescribed a new medication. Under my Humana-Walmart Medicare Part D drug plan, the medication in brand name costs $2,000 per month, and in generic form costs $420 a month . . . at Walmart. Costco's retail price with no drug plan whatsoever was $254 per month. This is all absurdly expensive.

I bought one month of pills at Costco for immediate use, and three months of pills at $45 per month from an internet "Canadian" pharmacy. I put that in quotes because the connection of these middlemen to Canada is tenuous; you actually talk to someone in the Philippines and my particular drug comes from India. It arrived in 11 days, making my Costco expenditure a waste of money.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/18 7:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The point of my last post was that even if "Medicare"-for-all were implemented, it would be still be more expensive for the consumer than the health systems of some other countries seem to be.

I'm apparently not the only person who can't understand the Nation's report that Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan would save 2T dollars per a "Koch Brothers" study. The author of the study says the Democrats cherry picked one sentence out of his study and misinterpreted the whole thing, and further that the Koch Brothers had nothing to do with his research. The Washington Post fact checker -- mostly a left wing propaganda tool, but which perhaps has some validity when checking left wing claims -- gives the Democrat 2T savings claim three Pinocchios.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.dd31b4c1acb3
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/18 4:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'll gladly pay a little more in taxes so everyone can be covered. Yes, taxes would need to be a little higher to get medicare for all....but at the same time, costs will come down as there wouldn't be the plethora of forms to deal with as it would all be medicare...by the way, the waste percentage is something like three to 5 percent as opposed to current insurance programs where I've seen reports of anything fro 10-20%.

Also, and here's where the big savings come in----NO INSURANCE PREMIUMS. Zero, zilch, nada....that's what the increase in taxes that everyone pays will cover. Can there be other marketplace options? Of course. If you so choose, go pay for the added on stuff. Everyone will still pay into one pool---almost 300 million participants. Costs go down. Taxpayers save in the end.

Basic economics.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/18 4:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
Also, and here's where the big savings come in----NO INSURANCE PREMIUMS.


You're certainly not talking about Medicare for all. Medicare has premiums.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/18 7:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:

here's where the big savings come in----NO INSURANCE PREMIUMS. Zero, zilch, nada....

Basic economics.


I'm afraid you have no understanding of the basic economics of Medicare. There are premiums for Medicare Parts B, C and D as well as large deductibles and various gaps in Medicare coverage. Therefore, many or most Medicare recipients purchase private Medigap insurance policies, which vary from state to state and from plan to plan but which are quite expensive. In my post, I estimated my annual Medicare annual out-of-pocket cost for premiums and deductibles to be at least $3500 per year.

On top of that, I gave an actual example of how inadequate Medicare Part D drug plans can be for anything other than old, widespread, generic drugs. I won't even bother explaining the basic economics of the Part D "donut hole".

The fact is that the study linked in the OP estimates the Sanders plan to cost at least 32 trillion federal budget dollars over the first 10 years, which is completely unaffordable from national tax income. Every state that has looked at a state version of Medicare-for-all, including the Peoples Republics of Vermont and California, has dropped the plans as completely unaffordable.These are the basic economic facts of most relevance.
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Another basic economic tenet of Medicare is that in many cases, they do not reimburse hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers for the full cost of providing care. Other payors and hospital endowments have been making up the shortfalls for decades. Moving to a Medicare-for-all system means Medicare has to pull its own weight for reimbursements, which isn't going to happen because that report says the plan is to cut reimbursements further, or that less care is provided. It's naive to think that care can be provided much more cheaply...do you think nurses are going to accept pay cuts, or the manufacturers of bandages, sutures, catheters, and vacuum cleaners are going to cut all their prices to facilities? Or that any insurance company is ever going to decrease malpractice premiums for hospitals and physicians? Or should we put a moratorium on any additional research or technological developments because those are expensive as well?

This proposed system will either need a massive influx of taxpayer dollars to support it or for the states to prop up facilities that can no longer provide care with inadequate Medicare reimbursements. It's also going to result in a widely separated two-tier system where patients who can pay for their own care elect to receive it at well-staffed and well-supplied facilities with the physicians who fled from the Medicare-reimbursed places.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
Another basic economic tenet of Medicare is that in many cases, they do not reimburse hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers for the full cost of providing care. Other payors and hospital endowments have been making up the shortfalls for decades. Moving to a Medicare-for-all system means Medicare has to pull its own weight for reimbursements, which isn't going to happen because that report says the plan is to cut reimbursements further, or that less care is provided. It's naive to think that care can be provided much more cheaply...do you think nurses are going to accept pay cuts, or the manufacturers of bandages, sutures, catheters, and vacuum cleaners are going to cut all their prices to facilities? Or that any insurance company is ever going to decrease malpractice premiums for hospitals and physicians? Or should we put a moratorium on any additional research or technological developments because those are expensive as well?

This proposed system will either need a massive influx of taxpayer dollars to support it or for the states to prop up facilities that can no longer provide care with inadequate Medicare reimbursements. It's also going to result in a widely separated two-tier system where patients who can pay for their own care elect to receive it at well-staffed and well-supplied facilities with the physicians who fled from the Medicare-reimbursed places.


These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 3:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20

Okay, now let's see what all these other countries get for their taxes while we pay 37% for the "privilege" of having a big ass military with fancy toys.

Or better yet, how about the fact that for many people once they pay their heath insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and all their other out of pocket costs they end up paying more than the people of those other countries anyways. It's just that there they call it "tax" rather than health expenses.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 6:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20


Not entirely clear on what your point here is about; if it's that the countries with single payer health care systems pay higher tax rates, that's a given. Note, also, the USA is up there near the top at #12 (still above Canada, interestingly enough, whose health care system is superior in most regards).

I will GLADLY pay higher taxes FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. You can't overlook the fact that, while our tax rates would become a bit higher, MOST Americans are paying significant amounts of money outside of their taxes to meet large deductibles/co-pays in pharmaceuticals, hospital stays, doctor visits, etc., that all add up to at least as much, if not more than, the once-and-done taxes that Japanese folks pay.

As I stated earlier, the billions and billions of net profit made by Medical Corporations don't just drop out of the sky: they get their share of government money AND milk the people of money outside of taxes, too.

justintyme wrote:
Okay, now let's see what all these other countries get for their taxes while we pay 37% for the "privilege" of having a big ass military with fancy toys.


Bingo. American priorities. The military industrial complex must be fed, first and foremost, right? Fuck the sick and needy.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 08/11/18 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 6:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20

Okay, now let's see what all these other countries get for their taxes while we pay 37% for the "privilege" of having a big ass military with fancy toys.


We pay for military so they don't have to



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 6:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20

Okay, now let's see what all these other countries get for their taxes while we pay 37% for the "privilege" of having a big ass military with fancy toys.


We pay for military so they don't have to



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/18 6:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
Howee wrote:
These points may be (currently) true, but it ignores the huge question: What is The Big Difference between the USA, and places like Germany, Canada, Japan, France, etc.? How can these industrialized, capitalistic, Top-Tier economies provide universal health care for their citizens, but the USA cannot? Hmmm....

Medicare as we know it is clearly is not adequate, but there is tangible proof that Better Models exist. WHO is keeping us from attaining that, and WHY?


Seriously?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=g20

Okay, now let's see what all these other countries get for their taxes while we pay 37% for the "privilege" of having a big ass military with fancy toys.


We pay for military so they don't have to

There is no need for what we pay regardless of what other countries do. We pay for our military so we can fight stupid wars with no end, which we do because we have such a large military that we never stop to think of the costs. If we didn't have such a huge budget, we wouldn't use it like we do, which would make such a huge budget unnecessary.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/18 9:18 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bernie Sanders misunderstood study he used to tout ‘Medicare for All,’ author says

Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and progressive Democrats have defended their push for "Medicare for All" in recent days with an unlikely aid: A study from a free-market think tank that concludes, in their reading, that the reform would save $2 trillion in healthcare costs.

But the study’s author said that the advocates are glossing over key details in the findings: namely that it doesn’t say that.

“Some are people under the misimpression that the study found that healthcare spending nationally would go down or rise more slowly if we enacted Medicare for All,” Charles Blahous, the author of the study published last month by the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told the Washington Examiner. “The study absolutely did not say that. It says the opposite.”
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin