Answer to the eternal question - How to fund Medicare For All (Wonky)

[Pressure]

Addition by subtraction



You "moderates" are Kyrie Irving status.

The team is better without you.

Kyrie got a ring. Bernie doesn't.

 

[Pressure]

If people making six figures are concerned about that small of a percentage, I don't really care what they think.

This is exactly why there's a massive divide in the Dem party.

If you want my money you need to do a better job than you won't be destitute.

 

[DEAD7]

Kyrie got a ring. Bernie doesn't.

 

[88m3]

If you want my money you need to do a better job than you won't be destitute.

they're basically advocating a race to the bottom income wise for the upper middle class and middle class and they don't care...

incredible

 

[the cac mamba]

Addition by subtraction



You "moderates" are Kyrie Irving status.

The team is better without you.

without said "moderates", your team is about a third of the country and would never win shyt

telling moderates to hit the bricks is awful policy

 

[DEAD7]

without said "moderates", your team is about a third of the country and would never win shyt

telling moderates to hit the bricks is awful policy

Let them cook

 

[jj23]

And you're the problem with the Democratic party. Go register as a Republican.

Addition by subtraction



You "moderates" are Kyrie Irving status.

The team is better without you.

Wow. So essentially you are saying you are happy to lose elections for the foreseeable future, cause you wont win without moderates.

I guess you have a plan to get Trump to pass M4A...

 

[chico25]

 

[Smoking With Cigarettes]

There is a certain amount of guesswork in estimating the cost of something as complicated as the health care system, and all of those estimates rely on a multitude of assumptions....
Its amusing watching these numbers thrown around by people who should know better.

I believe we will end up paying more, for less... but everyone will have coverage
Crappy but equal... textbook socialism.

The fukking irony

 

[storyteller]

 

[storyteller]

Summary from the Lancet piece cited: "Improving the Prognosis of Healthcare in the USA" (leading author is Alison Galvini).

The reason I feel this one stands out is that the Lancet is one of the biggest medical journals period. It's among the most cited journals in medicine with a citation rank in the top 3 for as long back as Web of Science shows (1997) for general and internal medicine. Basically, that means researchers look to and cite this journal more than just about anything and have done so for over 2 decades.

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

Here's their closing thoughts:

As public support for health-care reform mounts in the USA, legislators are poised to transform the health-care system and save thousands of lives every year. Single-payer universal health care has the potential to improve the quality, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility of medical services. Our projections indicate that implementing the Medicare for All Act specifically would generate net savings across a wide range of possible expenditure and financing options. Objections to the Medicare for All Act based on the expectation of rising costs are mistaken. Some Americans express concern about the federal government controlling this large sector of the economy, or about violating capitalist principles. However, the health-care sector is already highly regulated in many aspects, and deviates from capitalist ideals through opaque and often monopolistic pricing. Strong opposition should be expected from powerful vested interests, including the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Counterbalancing these concerns is the moral imperative to provide health care as a human right, not dependent on employment or affluence. The medical community should seize this opportunity to promote wellbeing, enhance prosperity, and establish a more equitable health-care system for all Americans.

 

[Copy Ninja]

4% of $100,000 is $4,000. By your math of $400-800/month, that person/family would be making well over $100K. Yeah, they'll definitely be hurting.

Yeah but they'll be taxing both income earners in a household 4% and only one of those income earners pay that premium.

8% extra tax for a household is a lot even if you remove the cost of paying premiums, co-pay etc.

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

without said "moderates", your team is about a third of the country and would never win shyt

telling moderates to hit the bricks is awful policy

You literally voted for Trump



And you in here trying to portray yourself as a moderate. That's why I put moderates in quotes. Because Democrat "moderates" seem to have an uncanny tendency to be republican defectors

You're just a republican who isn't a white nationalist.

 

[the cac mamba]

You literally voted for Trump



And you in here trying to portray yourself as a moderate. That's why I put moderates in quotes. Because Democrat "moderates" seem to have an uncanny tendency to be republican defectors

You're just a republican who isn't a white nationalist.

no, i didnt im a registered democrat who lives in a blue state, who voted for gary johnson. im not a fukking trump voter

and i dont think ive ever pretended to be a far left liberal i agree with republicans on some issues, i agree with democrats on more issues. im a just-inside left dem, according to that green chart test

and the fact is that what i said isn't wrong. republicans are 40 percent of america, then the spectrum of never trump republicans to moderate democrats is about the next 25 percent of america. 35 percent of america is far left. that's not gonna win you any national elections

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

no, i didnt im a registered democrat who lives in a blue state, who voted for gary johnson. im not a fukking trump voter

and i dont think ive ever pretended to be a far left liberal i agree with republicans on some issues, i agree with democrats on more issues. im a just-inside left dem, according to that green chart test

and the fact is that what i said isn't wrong. republicans are 40 percent of america, then the spectrum of never trump republicans to moderate democrats is about the next 25 percent of america. 35 percent of america is far left. that's not gonna win you any national elections

If you're so moderate, why don't you register as a republican then, and vote for moderate Republicans in primaries? I mean since you sympathize with them and all that

Why are you all so Interested in reeling in the left from the center left, but have zero interest in reeling in the right from the center right?

I mean if you moderates are the custodians of democracy that you seem to think you are, you should be in republican primaries, voting for moderates and telling the far right that they need moderates to win election.

But you moderates never seem to be interested in policing the right from the inside...