WA Dem Socialist Runs in Mold of Ocasio-Cortez, Insists Medicare for All Can Be Paid For

Do you think she will be as successful? Or has the newness worn off? Can Medicare for all be paid for?

 

Maybe, WA district 9 is very far left, not quite as bad as seattle though.

Its not related to NYC and ocasio.

No, not even close.

 

Collectivist believe that as long as you make it to America somehow someway, the American people will pay for your health care and provide you with services.

 

The guy that ran against Cortez didn't even campaign, in fact he couldn't even be bothered to show up to debate her.

He blew off the election just like Hillary did.

She didn't win anything, her opponent lost it.

 

Wasn't voter turnout 5%?

A real mandate there

 

Well, all we have to do is some simple math.

How much of the current population is on medicare? About 15%

How much does that 15% cost? About 3.3 Trillion

How much do they want to put on medicare? 100%

How much do they say that will cost? About 3.6 Trillion

I don't think so.

 

Shhh. They'd like to ignore that.

 

Oh, PLEASE!!

Medicare covers the most expensive age group we've got.

Suggesting that's what everyone will cost is a abject, bald faced lie.

 

Yes and we can cover the other 85% of people with aids, diabetes, their dental and medical, for just $300 billion more!

Let's do some math!

So what you're saying is, we can put 100% of the people on there for $300 billion more per year.

Ok.

We have 320,000,000 people in this country.

Subtract 15% and we have 272,000,000 million not covered by medicare.

Divide $300 billion by $272 million and...

You're saying that we can pay for every person in the country to have free medical, dental and vision care for $1102 per person per year.

Are you kidding me?

 

Actually it doesn't. A substantial portion of elderly care is covered by Medicaid, particularly the most expensive stuff.

 

Democratic Socialists would like to ignore a lot of things, like how they're making it obvious that Democrats in general have completely failed working Americans

 

I didn't even bother with the more obvious stuff.

I always like to watch a leftist attempt math though.

He thought it was plausible to cover 272 million people on 1.1k each per year. Oh man.

 

NO. I did NOT say that.

Please do not misrepresent me.

Please cite your sources for the various figures you use.

 

Who said that???

I want to know who you think said that.

 

In 2014 America spent about $9K per capita.
In 2016 America spent about $10.4K per capita.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...lth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health

I don't know what it will be this year, as moves Trump has made are highly likely to cause insurance companies to increase their rates substantially to cover the fact that insurance is no longer required - so people can by insurance AFTER they crash the car!!

So, $10K, not $1k.

 

I assume he's referring to the ridiculous notion that Bernie Sanders pushes that believes Medicare can cover all health costs, of all Americans, for what the Federal government currently spends on health care.

 

So much wrong in so little of a space.

Medical insurance hasn't been required before Obama tried to increase our taxes.

The report that issued those findings said that doubling the corporate tax rate and doubling the personal tax rate still wouldn't cover the increase even IF hospitals would accept the 40% less that medicare pays.

Medical costs have been going up leaps and bounds WAY before Obama's stupid little incursion into "mandatory" health care, the majority of which were paying jack **** to begin with.

It's a great scheme for people who don't want to work and bottom feed. Not so much for the rest of us.

And yes, $1k per person. I did the math for you, did I go too fast the first time?

You guys really want your Venezuela though huh?

 

You did.

We spend 3.3 trillon now per year on 15%. The "super extra special plan" spends 3.6 trillion per year on 100%.

You're saying that the remaining 85% can have full medical coverage at a cost of 1.1k per person, per year.

It's called math.

 

Who said what about doubling what?

The increase in health care spending went up by 4.3% between 2014 and 2016.

You aren't identifying what your numbers mean. $1k per person for what period and for what? And, by whose account?

 

No, I didn't say that.

 

Ok.

If we pay just $10k per person per year for all medical care. Everyone get's their cancer, rare diseases, $5000 pills, abortions, dental, vision, and prescriptions covered for just $10k each per year, which is preposterous on it's face that comes to:

About 2.8 trillion dollars.

That puts medicare spending at 3.3 trillion (15%) + 2.8 trillion (85%) for a total of 6.1 Trillion dollars a year.

Explain to me how that's supposed to work.

 

Thanks!

I think that helps, as I can point to something that may be the difference.

I think the cites I posted are about total health care spending in the USA, not excluding Medicare, VA, Medicaid, federal dollars to ER hospitals, etc.

I think the total spending is $10.34k per capita - or $3.3T total, including payments by patients, insurance premiums, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and all.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statis.../nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html

The bullet points break out the growth and yearly total for the various components.

OK, so perhaps that needs verifying.

 

Free stuff is always compelling. Affordable Housing for people who could barely, if at all, afford to pay the mortgage was compelling also. When the bottom fell out of the scam, Democrats were nowhere to be found. Since we as a country have been rendered learning disabled by a media who consistently fails to report the failure of socialism we are destined to repeat these mistakes over and over.

 

Changing our healthcare system is not the same as your housing example.

First of all, we already pay for healthcare.

Second, we have working examples in EVERY industrialized nation. We have watched these systems work for a very long time now. The results have been that they ALL end up with lower total health care costs per capita than we pay today.

Republicans want to cut healthcare costs. So do Democrats.

The difference is that Democrats point to a direction that has been tested for decades, while Republicans have totally gone to the zoo in an effort to make things cheaper for the wealthy by ignoring the health of a significant fraction of America's citizens.

 

One of the things that surprised me was to find out that the US spends a greater percentage of its GDP on public healthcare than the UK (and given that the US per-capita GDP is so much higher in absolute terms the per person spend is even higher). For that the UK gets close to 100% coverage (there is private healthcare but it's a tiny fraction of overall spend) whereas the US spends as much again, and more, on private healthcare.

With the right model in place - and of course it presumes that the US could implement the "right" model, whatever that is - the US could cover everyone for less than it currently spends on public healthcare. Heck even a Koch-funded study demonstrated that single-payer, implemented in the US would be marginally cheaper than the current situation.