Canada doesn't provide dental care.
The Mason study clarifies their study by saying it is the best case scenario & unlikely to be achieved.
Canada doesn't provide dental care.
The Mason study clarifies their study by saying it is the best case scenario & unlikely to be achieved.
The reality is they started with the numbers that were most favorable to the conservative cause and even using those numbers they had to concede Medicare for all was the least expensive solution. It really is amazing to try and get the results they wanted they assumed absolutely zero out of pocket expenses for patients. Not even a $5 per-visit copay was assumed. That is what they mean by the best case. They best cased it for patients so they could drive the costs numbers up hoping to get the result where they wanted it.
The study said govt spending on health costs would increase what it is already spending by over $32 trillion & would require HUGE tax increases.
Yeah, let's not let the facts get into the way....." The study said govt spending on health costs would increase what it is already spending by over $32 trillion & would require HUGE tax increases."
Originally posted by: tom
The study said govt spending on health costs would increase what it is already spending by over $32 trillion & would require HUGE tax increases.
Over what period of time? And why would that be a bad thing if overall medical costs (for the nation, as a whole) dropped?
I guess that "HUGE" is huger than "huge," but there would also be HUGE decreases in living expenses for every person that now pays HUGE health insurance premiums as well as HUGE out-of-pocket costs that aren't covered.
That's why you Trumptards make me sick. Talk about the costs while never mentioning the benefits. That's a standard way to make a stupidly disingenuous argument.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Yeah, let's not let the facts get into the way....." The study said govt spending on health costs would increase what it is already spending by over $32 trillion & would require HUGE tax increases."
And would confer HUGE benefits, well in excess of that $32 trillion or $43 bazillion or $9,652 quintillion or whatever number you want to use.
That number is meaningless unless you say over what period of time and what total private citizens' healthcare expenditures would otherwise be over that same period. It's a certainty that whatever time period the study was referring to, that private insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses would be more than $32 trillion for the same time.
Did you know that Americans spend more than $3.5 trillion a year on health care? So if that $32 trillion was referring to government expenditures over a decade, that would be the government spending $32 trillion versus private citizens spending over $35 trillion in the same time frame.
It's dishonest to scream about costs when not considering benefits. Not switching to government health care because of the costs is like not buying $1 bills for 90 cents each because you don't like to spend money. The FACTS are that a single-payer system would be much more efficient than the existing thousands of providers system. For one thing, you'd all but eliminate the billing costs that now consume 1 out of every 5 dollars spend on health care.
The noble, prudent fiscal conservatives are the same ones who have no objection to Trump's $30 billion bigly dumbass useless wall or to his $8 million-a-pop golf weekends.
Some poor schmuck getting $159 a month to pay for food fills them with white-hot righteous indignation. A corporation already making billions every year getting a 50% off tax break--why, that's just swell!
Insofar as combining health care from thousands of entities and providers into a single provider and payer leading to much greater efficiency and lowered costs--well, let's just say that sophisticated concepts such as economy of scale are far, far, far beyond the intellectual capabilities of our Trumpers to understand.
And this is where Tom and David show their true deceitfulness. The Yale Study makes it absolutely clear where the money comes from. For example, a big corporation that has 10k employees and is currently paying 2k a month for each employee's health insurance is spending 20 million dollars per-month on healthcare. In addition, a plan that size would require several dedicated employees whose job it would be to administer the plan. Pass Medicare for all and instead of paying 20 million dollars a month to the insurance company the business pays a payroll tax in the amount of 20 million dollars. The company has the benefit of not having to pay for employees to administer the healthcare plan.
What David and Tom are doing is pissing their panties and screaming $32 trillion over ten years even though it is paid for and provides substantial net savings to all involved. The same study Tom is citing shows if we do nothing our current healthcare system will cost $34 trillion over the same ten years. Somehow David and Tom believe that $34 trillion is a smaller number than $32 trillion and that is using the conservative numbers.
The Yale study shows a savings of $4.5 trillion over that same 10 year period. Both studies show every American being covered.
Tom and David aren't fiscal conservatives. They are big spenders. They don't even understand math at a 2nd-grade level.
These estimates are usually 10 year estimates. I thought you bright guys would have known that.
As usual mark misquotes. The Mercatus study says M4A could cost the Fede an additional $32 trillion, NOT doing nothing.
The feds spend $1 trillion on health care. The estimate calls for $30 trillion above that.
As usual the 3 Stooges ignore that present Medicare has a $50 trillion unfunded deficit.
Medicare recipients have to pay $144 per month. They still have to pay copays, unless they get an Advantage program which is an additional premium. For an additional premium one can get a prescription plan. Dental & eyeglass aren't covered.
But somehow this will vanish under sanders.
The 3 Stooges live in an alternate world where facts don't apply - where only their idiotic and unfounded twisting of reality exists.
