Always do. You are the one who only pops in here and there to prove a point and ignore everything. So you keep that same energy my guy.
If I sat in the D&D like some of you guys do here, I would probably lose my mind and go on one of your frequent frantic quoting sprees too. So yep, I pop in and pop out, and pretty much lurk the D&D and only post in this thread. Posting my thoughts and opinions into the void here does not matter, man. I don't care about you guys, I don't know y'all, lol.
Just wanted to come back to this because it did end up becoming an interesting discussion. Firstly, I will apologize for being dismissive of your initial posts, the problem is I came into the discussion with the idea that M4All either saves money over the next 10 years or at worst costs the same as our projected national health expenditure (NHE). Most studies done on evaluating the cost of single-payer generally agree with that conclusion. A systematic review of about 22 studies found that most of them (20/22) yielded net savings after several years of implementation. The Urban Institute (UI) study that you reference is the highest total estimate of single payer's costs of the entire review. Now, the UI study is a long paper and I haven't had time to go through it just yet, but there is notable pushback from single-payer advocates on the study's methodology, including the fact that it used hospital reimbursement rates higher than what Sanders' M4All legislation proposes. But ultimately this leads to larger issue that is brought up in the systematic review: "First, the included economic studies varied in methodological rigor and quality of reporting, funding sources, political motivations, and amount of evidence cited to support claims. Although we tried to classify studies by major single-payer and analysis characteristics, uncaptured variations may have added noise in the comparison. Relatedly, the diversity of plans under study did not allow for a formal meta-analysis, which is designed to integrate empirical evaluations of standardized interventions, especially using measures of association such as odds ratios." Studies and plans vary greatly by methodology, estimated savings, benefits/features included and excluded, etc. And ultimately, we won't know exactly how much single-payer will cost until we actually take the plunge. But, considering that many other countries have succeeded with this system, the insanity and waste of our current system, and that most studies generally agree we will either have a net savings or break even, I still lean towards single-payer. A public option plan I fear will have so many holes in it by the time it passes Congress (much like the ACA) that I fear it won't actually significantly solve a lot of the problems we have. Will all providers take the public option? Will insurance companies find ways to dump their sickest patients on to the government plan? How much will premiums actually go down (last CBO report had it at about a 8% decrease, not much) and what will deductibles/copayments look like? People want to act like single-payer advocates have all the proving to do but there very legitimate questions as to what a public option will realistically accomplish.
Bernie's numbers and the real cost are totally different. There were 21.45T dollars generated in the US in 2019 - To fund all of Bernie's projections , it requires taxing that sum at 73% to reach break even. The idea that he's going to fund this stuff simply by taxing the rich is a mathematical lie.
Bloomberg playing HARDBALL here. Not sure how Bernie is gonna be able to live this down if it gets enough exposure though. Forty years ago or not, this is some crazy **** to say.... https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/25/...-p*rn-essay-bernie-sanders-toddlers-genitals/ Bloomberg Advisor On Bernie Sanders: He Said ‘Toddlers Should Run Around Naked And Touch Each Others’ Genitals’
“Bernie sanders said during the debate that he wants minimum wage to be $15 an hour $15 x 40 hr week= $600 $600 x 52 weeks per year= $31,200 Bernie sanders wants free health care for all and asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over 29,000 per year. 52% of $31,200= $16,224 in tax 31,200 - $16,224= $14,976 is your pay $14,976 / 52 weeks = $288 per week $288 / 40 hour week = $7.20 per hour” I’m not the author of this quote
I'm surprised we haven't seen more "Things Bernie has said Over the Years" type attacks yet. I gotta think he has probably said/written difficult to explain away things over his 50 years of public life. *Edit: Apparently Sanders has a string of bizarre essays?
What revenue generated ?! What new disposable income ? PEOPLE are still funding this thing - the very same people who are funding it now. They aren't going to magically have any significant amount available as disposable income all of the sudden. You could argue that actual expenditures go up as a result of people using it more than they do now since you like to say they are afraid to because of XY & Z currently.
This already has been debunked. Its out of context (surprise, surprise) and doesnt doesnt follow tax bracket rules.
Nothing is accurate about Bernie Sanders, he’s a nearly 80 year old socialist that spews garbage every time he speaks. Did you watch him live at the democratic debate? Yikes
Tax Brackets be damned. Lets put this in simple terms that everybody here can easily understand .... Just application of simple math and common sense. Last year the gubmint spent $4.45Trillion , That equated to 21% GDP. Bernie says he'll ADD another 9-10T on top of that. If you tax last years entire GDP (21.429T) at 50% .... that nets you $10.714T , that's what it requires to cover that additional spending.
Then let's not post memes with the wrong damned tax brackets. I don't mind criticizing Bernie's spending. But just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't make it alright to post inaccurate claims about him.
If every working person in America(155.76m) were taxed $16,224 (the figure from the above post) that only equates to $2.527T. I'm just giving this example to show the scope of the math here .... We are far far away from making Bernie's numbers workable. We can tackle the healthcare issue but nothing else.
