WSJ: Bernie Sanders' Policies Would Cost $18 Trillion Over 10 Years

[Broke Wave]

If Canada spends 135 billion on 35m people then that would be 1.35 trillion on 350m people. Over 10 years thats 13.5 trillion. I don't think his numbers are that off base if we use Canada for our comparison.

But america spenda 2.5 trillion or more, as I posted

 

[Red Shield]

With China and Russia ramping up...I'm not entirely opposed to this.

Don't worry hyper sonic missiles will handle that

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

neither am i but like, we have 10 aricraft carriers. china has one

They JUST built one. You think they're gonna stop there?

They outright steal our designs for stealth shyt. C'mon son.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

In what world would the WSJ, the preeminent bourgeois periodical along with the Economist, say anything not designed to try to scuttle Sanders' chances at the nomination?

The Economist is for people who like MAKING money.

 

[the cac mamba]

They JUST built one. You think they're gonna stop there?

They outright steal our designs for stealth shyt. C'mon son.

they steal our designs for jordans too

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Something this dishonest infuriates me. The total cost of healthcare in canada per year is 135 billion for about 35 plus million canadians. The costs are inflated because the remote populations are very expensive to serviice. America already spends 2.5 trillion dollars of government money per year for 330 million people. If single payer is predicated on eliminating the previous programs, why is it projected to increase 1.5 trillion a year? Who made these projections? The heritage foundation? Total hit job.

Do you not understand how you answered your own question?

There are people who aren't even covered yet by the ACA and can't be covered. However with single payer there isn't even any insurance competition...so the government gets hit with EVERYTHING. So yeah, 1.5 trillion seems right. And you have to spend more in the US just to reform the fukking thing...I don't see why that number is so off to you.

 

[the cac mamba]

And fukk nikkas gettin mad cuz they know shyt make zero sense. This a$$hole is selling other a$$holes a dream. It is fukking embarrassing that this shythead is gaining serious traction in the race. Obama only tried to do some faggy socialist shyt, n Washington been gridlocked for 8 goddamn years. U retards act like we're gonna send these candidates thru some secret ritual of testing to acquire a magic dagger like on The Golden Child to become the chosen one.

Stupid nikka, his fukk ass plans gon be used as toilet paper and bird cage linings by the Senate the minute his faggy staff drafts them. Congress ain't g'in for this bullshyt, on no goddamn lvl. Shiiiet, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese didn't try n hack his campaign bus n make it crash into a fukking tree. Them nikkas' whole lives depend on us being capitalist scumbags, they ain't tryna hear that "Economic Cheat Code: Activated" bullshyt.

and your plan is what

how the fukk did we GET to that 18 trillion

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Issue being it doesn't lay out what the U.S. currently spends. Theres no context and its deliberately stated to mislead.

Regardless, 18 trillion is a huge number but if we're granting Sanders can pass all the things he wants, then there would considerably more revenue coming in than the current levels.

Wonder if the WSJ will run a comparable story on the costs of having a 500 ship navy. Or invading Iran/starting proxy wars with Russia.

Don't tell me you'd neglect geopolitical standing either

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

and your plan is what

how the fukk did we GET to that 18 trillion

I read the rebuttal...the numbers aren't THAT off to be honest. Defense and entitlements need reforms but the healthcare shyt seems kinda accurate.

 

[ill]

But america spenda 2.5 trillion or more, as I posted

I was just comparing the nations based on your numbers. Either way, an additional 1.5 trillion per year is staggering. Current budget is just under $4 trillion. The healthcare idea is about 40% our current yearly spending. If we tacked it on to our current bill, health care's effect on our budget would make it increase 27%.

 

[ill]

Issue being it doesn't lay out what the U.S. currently spends. Theres no context and its deliberately stated to mislead.

Regardless, 18 trillion is a huge number but if we're granting Sanders can pass all the things he wants, then there would considerably more revenue coming in than the current levels.

Wonder if the WSJ will run a comparable story on the costs of having a 500 ship navy. Or invading Iran/starting proxy wars with Russia.

It comes down to this: If his programs are implemented, will they have an eventual net positive for our economy and society. Thats why I'm on the fence. I like his ideas about education and infrastructure. I think both will yield tremendously down the road. I'm not so sure about healthcare. ObamaCare/RomneyCare is a joke. The whole point was so that overall HC costs went down, and its actually been the opposite. If its an all encompassing system that actually does the job of lowering costs, then the expense will be worth it. I just don't think people will want to spend that kind of money after the recent HC debacle.

Also, where is he going to get all the extra money from? If he cuts the military completely off, that only covers 600b out of the 1.5t. Theres still a 1t shortfall every year.

 

[Tate]

It comes down to this: If his programs are implemented, will they have an eventual net positive for our economy and society. Thats why I'm on the fence. I like his ideas about education and infrastructure. I think both will yield tremendously down the road. I'm not so sure about healthcare. ObamaCare/RomneyCare is a joke. The whole point was so that overall HC costs went down, and its actually been the opposite. If its an all encompassing system that actually does the job of lowering costs, then the expense will be worth it. I just don't think people will want to spend that kind of money after the recent HC debacle.

Also, where is he going to get all the extra money from? If he cuts the military completely off, that only covers 600b out of the 1.5t. Theres still a 1t shortfall every year.

We spend more more per capita than other developed nations and we're one of the only nations that lacks a public option. Obviously the U.S. has unique challenges in size and population, but it certainly seems like it's worth a try.

He proposes large increases in taxation on the wealthy. Whether that will bring in the money he thinks or more offshoring will take place is the actual question. And the general thought is that we can simply take the money we collectively spend on healthcare now and put it towards a universal plan.

Where are you getting that costs for healthcare have risen due to Obamacare? I might be misinterpreting the information but I was under the impression that costs have slowed dramatically since its implementation. Although I suppose slowing cost rises still implies they're taking place.

 

[ill]

We spend more more per capita than other developed nations and we're one of the only nations that lacks a public option. Obviously the U.S. has unique challenges in size and population, but it certainly seems like it's worth a try.

He proposes large increases in taxation on the wealthy. Whether that will bring in the money he thinks or more offshoring will take place is the actual question. And the general thought is that we can simply take the money we collectively spend on healthcare now and put it towards a universal plan.

Where are you getting that costs for healthcare have risen due to Obamacare? I might be misinterpreting the information but I was under the impression that costs have slowed dramatically since its implementation. Although I suppose slowing cost rises still implies they're taking place.

http://altarum.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-related-files/CSHS-Spending-Brief_July_2015.pdf

https://www.cms.gov/research-statis...onalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

National healthcare spending has risen year over year since at least 2013. (I quickly googled)

 

[Broke Wave]

Do you not understand how you answered your own question?

There are people who aren't even covered yet by the ACA and can't be covered. However with single payer there isn't even any insurance competition...so the government gets hit with EVERYTHING. So yeah, 1.5 trillion seems right. And you have to spend more in the US just to reform the fukking thing...I don't see why that number is so off to you.

I just explained... Canada spends 130 bil a year for 35 million... America spends 2.8 tril for 350 mil... One is single payer the other is whatever the fukk. The private insurance system costs a whole lot more. Single payer saves trillions.

I was just comparing the nations based on your numbers. Either way, an additional 1.5 trillion per year is staggering. Current budget is just under $4 trillion. The healthcare idea is about 40% our current yearly spending. If we tacked it on to our current bill, health care's effect on our budget would make it increase 27%.

Once again, its not an addition 1.5... its healthcare reform... Critical thinking

 

[ill]

I just explained... Canada spends 130 bil a year for 35 million... America spends 2.8 tril for 350 mil... One is single payer the other is whatever the fukk. The private insurance system costs a whole lot more. Single payer saves trillions.


Once again, its not an addition 1.5... its healthcare reform... Critical thinking

Ok so then what do you envision the numbers to be? If its 2.8t now, how much of that is going to be applied towards the new 1.5t plan (in a complete overhaul) and will the remaining balance from the 2.8t be eliminated to give us net savings?