TEhe Cost of ‘Medicare-for-All’ It is interesting that the M4A proponents claim this will cost less yet that claim is based on a lot of unsupportable assumptions. Of course Bernie has to tack on 'The Koch Brothers' for the uninformed to shut down debate. Estimated at 32 trillion over 10 years, the study that it came from believes that is just a conservative estimate.
And the same study says that we will pay in taxes, 34 trillion for the poor and elderly, during that same time with out Medicare for all. In addition to it costing 2 T more, everyone else not enrolled , will be paying for private insurance. Maybe they underestimated the savings too..... How did you miss that ??? They also found it would boost wages. We would no longer have employer based healthcare, freeing billions for wage increases. But, keep using this survey....it supports Medicare for all financially.
Solving for simple poverty and raising the minimum wage to fifteen an hour will help solve for our healthcare dilemma.
You obviously skipped math class ! You’re not paying attention. I’ll type this slowly. The benefits of Medicare for all are far greater then the difference of 2 Trillion. When medicare for all costs 32 T EVERYONE is covered. When we continue like we are and pay 34T into the programs we have, EVERYONE in the middle class is not covered, and only the elderly and poor are . The middle class STILL HAS TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE. They pay higher taxes plus buy private insurance. How are you missing this....deliberately ? This is the Koch survey ! They also concluded , it stimulated wage increases. This is why today, our economy pays twice as much into our system as countries with universal healthcare with everyone covered. This like debating over climate change. Only I’ll informed, non math conservatives don’t get it. Or, they pretend they can’t read.... This is YOUR reference supporting Medicare for all.
From private health insurance to no gun regs to denial of climate change to authoring recessions to tax hikes for the middle class, republicans priorities all stimulate more dead Americans.
Except the phony anti Roe vs Wade dogwhistle allows them to KNEEJERK into believing wrongly that that policy would kill more than it helped. Buys the Greedy Old Prick party a **** ton of votes from gullible fools doesn't it? You have to be VERY naive to believe most GOP members care a whit about actually overturning Roe v Wade, Then they could lose votes. It's a situation of forever promising with zero intention of delivery. IDK whackjobs like Pence may "truly believe" but I guarantee a MINIMUM of 80-90% of GOP politicians, in truth would see Roe v Wade overturning as DISASTROUS. The also have a NEED to lie that all Democrats want Open borders and to take their guns! No such thing is remotely true, but without those dog whistles the GOP would have gone tha way of the Whigs. The like things just as they are just fine, buying votes over issues that largely are completely irrelavant to the majority of Americans daily lives, is the GOPs game Don't get me wrong, DNC has **** all over it too, does simpilar tactics, but with the GOP< they do it in lockstep, because etcics are irrelevant to the ENTIRE GOP and it shows. It's only the vast amjority of the DNC that sucks, nearly as badly. Look how well gun sales did during the 8 years of Muslim oppression when all the wingers guns were taken, freedom was suspended and Obummer locked them all in the FEMA camps and gave their kinds "gay frog drugs"? Worked very well, cuz you don't have to look far AT ALL to find many of them that GENUININELY believe we had been on the LITERAL brink of that for 8 years straight and only heroic Repugnantcunts "saved" us. Trump's minions live in a completely alternate reality, with completely alternate "facts".
Currently our healthcare is already at 35 trillion (if extended over 10 years) and is projected to rise to almost 60 trillion by 2027. Other developed nations are able to implement universal healthcare at less than we pay for Medicare and Medicaid alone. It is also unlikely that the Medicare-for-all that is passed will be exactly like what this study is looking at, or that it won't come with cost-cutting measures that other developed nations have, and this study ignored. I tend to believe real life over theoretical models in studies, especially studies by people with a major bias, so the fact that universal healthcare is much cheaper in other developed nations trumps this study.
It seems the obvious isn’t obvious to those blinded by racial fear. A big reason for not supporting universal HC by Trumpsters is, they’ll have to share a waiting room with a legal immigrant or minority.
The poverty rate in New Mexico is over 20%. It doesn’t seem to be working. The single best first step in alleviating poverty, is providing universal healthcare to everyone, including the poor. You can’t work your way out of poverty if you can’t pay for healthcare that every one needs at some point. Waiting for Medicaid is way too expensive now. It’s paid for in taxes by people who also have to pay their own insurance premiums.
Hostess claimed Labor merely need to take a pay cut. We can blame lousy management, now. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic and we could have solved simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, yesterday; the social horror of it, though, is that the Poor may benefit.
We haven solved healthcare yet. Poverty comes after that. There’s no money left for anything else in the middle class to help solve the poverty and infrastructure without affordable healthcare for everyone.
35 trillion more than we are spending now. Not sure if you understood that. The cost-cutting measures other nations have mean importing more doctors from India like the UK does or defunding or not fully funding hospitals and limiting services.
Only the right wing, never gets it. What healthcare problem would we have in our market economy, by solving for simple poverty?
The 35 trillion means the government pays more for healthcare, but that also means we also pay a lot less in healthcare premiums and out of pocket. Does the study point out ways that Medicare for all will make healthcare more expensive than the status quo where healthcare costs rise to 60 trillion? Its also interesting that you brought up the UK, which is very unique among universal healthcare systems, because it is almost completely government-run. Other developed nations have found great ways of all being far more affordable with the US without a completely government-run system.
I don't think we should have a healthcare system like Canada or the UK. Germany would be my preference, but honestly copying any other healthcare system would be a major improvement and save us trillions of dollars and result in people getting care faster.
Wrong... The only way to do that, is shift wealth from the rich more to the poor and middle class. It’s easier just to have UHC .
no, it isn't. it does nothing for our market based economy. by solving for simple poverty markets can be more efficient.
