Either that or we should send them a link to this thread proving their point.
I find it jaw dropping that here, of all places, where someone is seeking an answer and is given the answer (and in a simple and easily understood way) is utterly immune to it and continues to embrace their bullshit dogma they entered with.
Yes and private spending goes down to offset it.
Lots of us have no problem with paying taxes if it means lower private spending. I’ve never felt like paying $500 to see a doctor out of my bank account made me free, but paying $500 in medicare taxes so I can see a doctor when I’m retired made me a slave.
You have to understand virtually nobody under 40 was alive and aware when communism existed. We haven’t been told that public = bad, private = good. We just want whatever is best.
If there were consistent evidence that a privately run health care system was cheaper and better than a public system, I’d support it. I’m sure a lot of other leftists would too. But virtually every piece of evidence I’ve seen shows that a public health system is (vastly) superior to a private health system. Cheaper and better outcomes. So we support that instead.
When Vermont studied their single payer plan, they predicted savings of 25%.
The right wing think tank plan seems to only predict savings of 7% or so. The person who designed Vermont’s system, William Hsiao, is a well respected international health care economist who has helped design several nation’s health care systems, so his numbers aren’t just pulled out of his ass either. A system where health care costs drop by 25% in a decade would be very impressive.
Sadly Vermont abandoned their single payer plan because the taxes were too high. But that isn’t a criticism of single payer it is a criticism of our bloated health care system. It has gotten so expensive that the taxes needed to fund it could hurt business.
However his study did find a strong public option would provide 2/3 of the cost savings of single payer.
Sadly the time to implement single payer was probably in the 40s, 50s or 60s when health care costs were still low.
All the right-wing parrots who post here better check their feeds for a new set of talking points. Turns out that real-world conservatives - meaning Fox & Friends viewers - actually want healthcare and don’t care about the pricetag.
I’m pretty sure that Trump will tweet tomorrow about how Medicare for All was his idea all along and that the Democrats need to stop obstructing it.
I suspect 73% of Fox viewers are on Medicare.
They’re dropping fast though.The 73% will hold but other number containing it will get smaller and smaller.
Bernie Sanders accomplished nothing except his own ego trip. AOC won in a fluke, in a heavily Democratic district with a large Latino population. I’m quite eager to see all her candidates lose in the upcoming primaries and perhaps she’ll understand that she’s not a Progressive Goddess anointed by Archangels from the Democratic Socialists.
Messianic complex. Postmillenialism in secular garb.
No matter how often you tell yourself this, it will still be false. Lots of Democrats and progressives liked and still like his message, and this could be greatly beneficial to the party. The party should, and in general does, welcome progressives that support Sanders and his policies, as well as Steve Bullock and Mark Warner, and everyone in between.
Dunno about free college, but I recall having seen some plans to work towards Medicare for All that start with a public option. And a public option would be an easy sell if the Dems retake Congress.
Also, my impression is that support for Medicare for All is increasing across the board, including among Dems in Congress, because of how vulnerable to sabotage the ACA has turned out to be. People want universal health care.
I’m not seeing more evidence of that than people taking strong stands in campaigns. That’s what candidates should do: run on what they really want to accomplish.
Now if they retake Congress and refuse to vote for the most liberal option that can get 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, then you’ll be proven right.
No, and not everyone sees the number one problem being working class kids of all races who feel they can’t afford even the state schools. But it is a real problem.
He didn’t move anything. He promised free benefits at no cost to the vast majority of taxpayers. No country does that, because the math doesn’t work out. Responsible Demcorats used to not promise such things not because they didn’t want to deliver them, but because they knew they couldn’t deliver the necessary tax increases. Bernie’s solution: just don’t talk about tax increases on the middle class.
That’s like saying a Republican is moving the Overton Window right if he promises that no one under $200K in income will ever pay taxes again. I’m sure tons of people would support that. But it doesn’t mean anything, because it means losing their Social Security and Medicare and you can’t sell that.
What’s new about the Democratic Party trying to go back to the days of William Jennings Bryan?
You all said the same optimistic things about single payer in Vermont, and then they scored the thing and reality took over. Because you didn’t address any real problems: how do you pay for it, how do you manage the very powerful losers(doctors, union workers, government workers), and how do you get Manchin to support it? Or if you can’t, how do you get several red states to elect ultra progressive Senators?
Anyone who thinks this is a fresh idea must have missed oh, Clinton/Obama/Edwards’ UHC plans, the plan Democrats passed that they SAID was universal health care when they were selling it, or the fact that this idea is older than anyone alive today. What’s next, a politician suggesting mercantilism and everyone thinks it’s an amazing new idea? How about feudalism? Fresh and exciting!
This is blatantly untrue; the new movement of hard-left candidates is proof enough of that.
Well that’s also blatantly untrue; Sanders made it clear that no small part of his plan would be paid for by tax hikes on the middle-class.
:rolleyes:
Sure, man, whatever you say.
Well, if a large portion of the population expects their tax bill to go towards zero, and a large movement springs up to support nobody under $200k paying taxes, and the only reason we don’t know whether that movement will be successful or not is because we’re currently in the middle of it, then yeah, that republican absolutely moved the overton window!
I’m with you. Just wanted to point out that the new income tax rates needed to pay for Medicare for All will cancel out some of the tax cuts Trumpy gave the rich so it wouldn’t be $4.3 trillion. The fatcats are still getting off easy.
So, Bernie Sanders will raise taxes on the middle class. I haven’t heard him say that, but at least now it’s fair for me to use that as an attack.
BTW, all actual Democrats running on Medicare for All and other various big programs refuse to even hint at how they’ll pay for it, and when they do they cite mainstream Democratic policies on taxes. Moving the Overton Window on spending but not on taxes does nothing.
Does nothing? If “Medicare for All” becomes a popular slogan and wins the Democrats control of Congress and the WH, then it will probably become policy. And maybe deficits will soar (or perhaps just stay at the sky-high standard Republican deficit sizes), or maybe they’ll try and pay for it, but moving the Overton window could very well make the policy happen.
You can’t fund an expensive entitlement by borrowing. It’s never been done.
Look, the CBO will score it, everyone will go “holy shit!” and then it fails, just like it has in the states. The idea that the federal government can make it work where the states can’t assumes many things which are not necessarily true, such as the federal government’s ability to cut the incomes of doctors or find savings in better medical practices. Both have already been tried and failed in previous health care reform efforts. Savings may come, but it won’t happen in the first few years, which means you have to figure out how to pay for it in the meantime. Unions and government employees won’t be willing to give up their gold-plated plans for Medicaid. Affluent but not rich worrkers in blue states won’t be willing to pay more than they do now, which will be necessary under any progressive financing scheme.
And then you have to get Jon Manchin’s vote, at minimum.
Finally, Medicare for All is a slogan. What Sanders and others are proposing bears no resemblance to Medicare.
It’s entirely possible “real-world conservatives” are of that opinion, but a twitter poll is not good evidence of it.
a) Fox&Friends twitter followers are at best a skewed subset of Fox & Friends viewers.
and
b) Fox&Friends twitter poll takers are unlikely to be representative even Fox&Friends viewers, especially on a topic likely to be retweeted multiple times by non-conservatives eager to embarrass Fox News.
Not to mention a lot of people seem to be assuming they’ll pay less. That promise is always the first to be broken. That’s why we have a CBO now, to curtail that crap.
I’ll file this cite-free prediction with all of your others.