South Carolina Democrats: Better if Sanders 'got lost'

[the cac mamba]

Healthcare

I think they need to talk about the environment more

and what spending are they willing to cut to pay for healthcare? because it has to be something

i agree about the environment, but they can't be preachy about it. americans are stupid

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

and what spending are they willing to cut to pay for healthcare? because it has to be something

i agree about the environment, but they can't be preachy about it. americans are stupid

Should be the military obviously but..lol

I think they can be preachy about it honestly. They can push green energy as a burgeoning industry and continue to warn about climate change. A lot of dumb republicans don't believe it but rest assured a ton of independents do

 

[the cac mamba]

Should be the military obviously but

see i agree with you...but they wont even come out and SAY that, let alone believe it themselves. so what am i looking to them for?

 

[THE MACHINE]

Do everything in your power to keep losing brehs

 

[Pressure]

New check must have came in for nap.

 

[storyteller]

What's that definition of insanity quote again?

 

[Maschine_Man]

and what spending are they willing to cut to pay for healthcare? because it has to be something

i agree about the environment, but they can't be preachy about it. americans are stupid

it's actually been proven that introducing a single payer healthcare program would actually SAVE money. but these idiot politicians are too stupid to sell that too the people OR (more likely) they are all getting paid to shut the fukk up and keep it the status quo.

 

[the cac mamba]

it's actually been proven that introducing a single payer healthcare program would actually SAVE money. but these idiot politicians are too stupid to sell that too the people OR (more likely) they are all getting paid to shut the fukk up and keep it the status quo.

but doesn't that just mean less *money* would be spent overall, but the money that the government actually spends increases? like right now we have insurance companies and private citizens and the government paying X amount, as opposed to the government paying X amount, in which X would be lower but actual gov spending is higher

unless im wrong

 

[Maschine_Man]

but doesn't that just mean less *money* would be spent overall, but the money that the government actually spends increases? like right now we have insurance companies and private citizens and the government paying X amount, as opposed to the government paying X amount, in which X would be lower but actual gov spending is higher

unless im wrong

Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves Money and Cares for All of Us

The Koch brothers have invested billions of dollars in a decades-long campaign to turn public opinion against necessary reforms, such as the establishment of a single-payer health-care system in the United States.

But now a Koch brothers–supported project is making the case for the “Medicare for All” reform that has been championed by progressives such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

A working paper produced by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which examined the potential costs of the Medicare for All Act (M4A) that has been sponsored by Sanders, was released with much fanfare this week. It was immediately embraced by right-wing politicians who are close to the Kochs, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, who tweeted an article on the study with the message: “$32.6 trillion dollars. That’s how much Washington Democrats’ single-payer healthcare proposal would cost over 10 years. Even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes wouldn’t cover this cost. It is just absurd.”

Ryan is supposed to be the GOP’s “numbers guy.” But he missed the most important numbers in the study. While the speaker fixated on a prediction by the author of the working paper that the Sanders plan would raise federal health-care spending by roughly $32.6 trillion between 2022 and 2031, economists who actually read the report focused on a far more salient detail. On page 18 of the paper, in a section titled “Effects on National Health Expenditures and the Federal Budget,” came mention that under the Sanders plan “national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”

That’s right. A report that was supposed to discredit the single-payer solution found that, even after the benefits of a Medicare for All program are realized—”additional healthcare demand that arises from eliminating copayments, providing additional categories of benefits, and covering the currently uninsured”—the potential cost of the plan would still be less than “potential savings associated with cutting provider payments and achieving lower drug costs.”

What that translates to is what Medicare for All advocates have been saying all along: Under a single-payer system, Americans would get more quality care for more people at less cost.

“Health care costs, even for those who have health insurance, are endangering tens of millions of people every day in this country,” said National Nurses United union co-president Jean Ross, RN. “What even this corporate-funded study concedes is that we can actually guarantee health care for everyone in this country, without the devastating, rising costs of premiums, deductibles, and co-pays–at less than we spend as a nation today on health costs.”
Needless to say, Sanders was delighted to turn the tables on the billionaire class.

“Thank you, Koch brothers, for accidentally making the case for Medicare for All!” the senator declared on Tuesday.

But he did not stop there. Sanders recorded a video in which he said, “Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that ‘Medicare for All’ would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

The long-time advocate for a single-payer system was not exactly singing the praises of the Mercatus study, which he dismissed as a “grossly misleading and biased” attempt by the Koch brothers to counter “growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for All’ program.”

Also

That study going around on Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan comes with a big catch — the US would actually be saving money overall on healthcare

- The Washington Post

 

[the cac mamba]

Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves Money and Cares for All of Us

The Koch brothers have invested billions of dollars in a decades-long campaign to turn public opinion against necessary reforms, such as the establishment of a single-payer health-care system in the United States.

But now a Koch brothers–supported project is making the case for the “Medicare for All” reform that has been championed by progressives such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

A working paper produced by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which examined the potential costs of the Medicare for All Act (M4A) that has been sponsored by Sanders, was released with much fanfare this week. It was immediately embraced by right-wing politicians who are close to the Kochs, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, who tweeted an article on the study with the message: “$32.6 trillion dollars. That’s how much Washington Democrats’ single-payer healthcare proposal would cost over 10 years. Even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes wouldn’t cover this cost. It is just absurd.”

Ryan is supposed to be the GOP’s “numbers guy.” But he missed the most important numbers in the study. While the speaker fixated on a prediction by the author of the working paper that the Sanders plan would raise federal health-care spending by roughly $32.6 trillion between 2022 and 2031, economists who actually read the report focused on a far more salient detail. On page 18 of the paper, in a section titled “Effects on National Health Expenditures and the Federal Budget,” came mention that under the Sanders plan “national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”

That’s right. A report that was supposed to discredit the single-payer solution found that, even after the benefits of a Medicare for All program are realized—”additional healthcare demand that arises from eliminating copayments, providing additional categories of benefits, and covering the currently uninsured”—the potential cost of the plan would still be less than “potential savings associated with cutting provider payments and achieving lower drug costs.”

What that translates to is what Medicare for All advocates have been saying all along: Under a single-payer system, Americans would get more quality care for more people at less cost.

“Health care costs, even for those who have health insurance, are endangering tens of millions of people every day in this country,” said National Nurses United union co-president Jean Ross, RN. “What even this corporate-funded study concedes is that we can actually guarantee health care for everyone in this country, without the devastating, rising costs of premiums, deductibles, and co-pays–at less than we spend as a nation today on health costs.”
Needless to say, Sanders was delighted to turn the tables on the billionaire class.

“Thank you, Koch brothers, for accidentally making the case for Medicare for All!” the senator declared on Tuesday.

But he did not stop there. Sanders recorded a video in which he said, “Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that ‘Medicare for All’ would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

The long-time advocate for a single-payer system was not exactly singing the praises of the Mercatus study, which he dismissed as a “grossly misleading and biased” attempt by the Koch brothers to counter “growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for All’ program.”

Also

That study going around on Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan comes with a big catch — the US would actually be saving money overall on healthcare

- The Washington Post

but thats what im saying

the OVERALL cost is less, but the government is paying more money towards it. is that statement wrong?

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

I skimmed the article and saw "crossover appeal." Crossover to what, racism? Still going after those Republicans and Independents they'll never get. Sad.

 

[King Sun]

These types of posts is how Trump got elected in the first place. OP is a paid rantt shill.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Posted about it several times before, but I'd love to have a more progressive candidate here in my southern state and I know plenty of other democrats who would too. But we're not even given the choice so voter turnout seems to suffers..

 

[Pressure]

Posted about it several times before, but I'd love to have a more progressive candidate here in my southern state and I know plenty of other democrats who would too. But we're not even given the choice so voter turnout seems to suffers..

Y'all should run.

 

[storyteller]

but doesn't that just mean less *money* would be spent overall, but the money that the government actually spends increases? like right now we have insurance companies and private citizens and the government paying X amount, as opposed to the government paying X amount, in which X would be lower but actual gov spending is higher

unless im wrong

Put it this way
You pay X to an insurance company right now. Under this model, X goes to the government instead. But the actual cost of X decreases in this system as opposed to the present model, so for the majority of us X is cheaper while we all get coverage just by shifting which entity takes your money. So when you ask what they would have to cut in order to enact this, the answer is nothing. But yes the govt. spend rises to replace the private insurance expenditures.