Sanders Applauds New Medicare for All Study: Will Save Americans $450 Billion and Prevent

[Uncle Joe]

68,000 Unnecessary Deaths Every Year

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday applauded a new study published today by a team of epidemiologists in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet, which found that Medicare for All will save Americans $450 billion and prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths each and every year.

“This study confirms that Medicare for All will save the American people $450 billion on health care costs and will prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths – each and every year,” Sanders said. “In other words, guaranteeing health care as a human right by creating a Medicare for All system will cost substantially less than our current dysfunctional health care system. It will save working class families thousands of dollars and it will prevent tens of thousands of Americans from dying each year. While the CEOs in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry may not like it, we will end their greed and enact Medicare for All when I am president.”

Link to tweet

(snip)

The study also debunks several attacks on Medicare for All from the private health care industry that made well over $100 billion in profits last year. Doctors and hospitals would see large savings in cost and time from streamlining our bloated and inefficient administrative and billing system, allowing doctors to spend more time with patients, the study found.

(snip)

Last month, another medical journal found that 19 out of 22 studies done over the past 30 years concluded that moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system would cost less than our current health care system in the first year, and all of the studies showed that it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/sanders-applauds-new-medicare-all-study-will-save-americans-450-billion-and-prevent

[Hoyt]

1. Warren's November 2019 projections are much higher. Somebody better reconcile

the differences.

[calguy]

2. Will Sanders ever disclose how much it will cost and how he pays for it?

Or, for that matter, how plans to get it passed thru Congress? Is it free? Like his college plan?

[MoonlitKnight]

3. It costs less

That alone shows you would logically pay less for it, not more.

How could you afford your cable bill if it cost less? My oh my what would you do?

[Uncle Joe]

6. It's amazing how many people don't understand what "costs less" means.

[DanieRains]

35. Gee Like Every Other Advanced Nation Covers Every Citizen

And finds a way to pay for better care than average care here.

It's not rocket science.

Profit before life. USA USA USA!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. YOU SAID IT UNCLE JOE!!!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Prosper]

83. 50 years of right wing propaganda have distorted perception

of freedom.

[calguy]

21. But you totally miss the point

Do you actually think the majority if voters are going be aware of, much less beLIEVE that little study you have there? Maybe some would save, but would I? Bernie continually dodges the question when he is asked about actual details like cost. When asked about details and actual cost associate with MFA, his own campaign leader, Nina Turner said on tv "We're not going to go there".
Don't hide behind some study that may or may not be accurate, give me some numbers, numbers coming straight from Bernie's mouth. Is that too much to ask?

[questionseverything]

25. from the article

Last month, another medical journal found that 19 out of 22 studies done over the past 30 years concluded that moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system would cost less than our current health care system in the first year, and all of the studies showed that it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/sanders-applauds-new-medicare-all-study-will-save-americans-450-billion-and-prevent


its 19 out of 22 studies say it will cost less and save many lives


the budget the govt is operating on this year out of our democratic house has a trillion dollar deficit, are you equally worried about paying for that?

[MoonlitKnight]

44. Study after study...decade after decade

link:https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013|

[link:https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/15/analysis-30-years-single-payer-research-shows-medicare-all-would-absolutely-save-us|

[link:https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/download/805_42f6acc20a83c79049e68b270e30ee43|

[link:https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.11.2.41|

[lunasun]

79. +1

[greymattermom]

53. It's in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed journal

So, the reviewers, who are experts in the field, have evaluated the data. All Bernie has to do is read the article.

[Recursion]

43. But it doesn't cost *everyone* less

It will involve a payroll tax, so it will cost people who get free insurance more than they pay now. It will cost people with premiums lower than the tax more than they pay now.

This is the iceberg that MFA crashes into

[MoonlitKnight]

45. Yes, people who make a lot of money pay a little bit more

And people who make a ton of money pay some more.

Nobody gets free insurance. Except Maybe Congress. Your wages are depressed by whatever the benefits are. And what value is there in being tied to a job because you risk your health if you want or need to leave it? There is lost opportunity cost to consider.

link:https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013|

[link:https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/15/analysis-30-years-single-payer-research-shows-medicare-all-would-absolutely-save-us|

[link:https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/download/805_42f6acc20a83c79049e68b270e30ee43|

[link:https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.11.2.41|

[Recursion]

46. Lots of people get free insurance

For example, most people on Medicaid. But also a lot of the nonprofit sector (all my nonprofit jobs have offered a basic PPO for free).

[Uncle Joe]

5. Did this paragraph mean anything to you?

“This study confirms that Medicare for All will save the American people $450 billion on health care costs and will prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths – each and every year,” Sanders said. “In other words, guaranteeing health care as a human right by creating a Medicare for All system will cost substantially less than our current dysfunctional health care system. It will save working class families thousands of dollars and it will prevent tens of thousands of Americans from dying each year. While the CEOs in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry may not like it, we will end their greed and enact Medicare for All when I am president.”


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/sanders-applauds-new-medicare-all-study-will-save-americans-450-billion-and-prevent

The war with Vietnam lasted for about 20 years and 58,220 American soldiers had been killed, 58,220 divided by 20 comes to 2,911 on average Americans killed annually.

Our current profit over health care system kills on average 68,000 Americans every single year that's deadlier to America by about 2,300% than the war with Vietnam, what do you believe the cost of that is insofar as loss of U.S. GDP is concerned not to mention orphaned puppies?

Of course that doesn't take into account hundreds of thousand of medical related bankruptcies either.

The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War,[55] and in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ ) or simply the American War, was a conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.[10] It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union, China,[14] and other communist allies; South Vietnam was supported by the United States, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies.[56][57] The war, considered a Cold War-era proxy war by some,[58] lasted 19 years, with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973, and included the Laotian Civil War and the Cambodian Civil War, which ended with all three countries becoming communist in 1975.

(snip)

Cost of the war

Between 1953 and 1975, the United States was estimated to have spent $168 billion on the war ($1.02 trillion in FY2015 dollars).[315] This resulted in a large federal budget deficit. Other figures point to $138.9 billion from 1965 to 1974 (not inflation-adjusted), ten times the amount of support for all education spending in the US and 50 times more than housing and community development spending within that time period.[316] General record-keeping was reported to have been sloppy for government spending during the war.[316] It was stated that war-spending could have paid off every mortgage in the US at that time, with money leftover.[316]

More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, some 1.5 million of whom actually saw combat in Vietnam.[317] James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops."[318] Conscription in the United States had been controlled by the president since World War II, but ended in 1973.

As of 2013, the U.S. government is paying Vietnam veterans and their families or survivors more than $22 billion a year in war-related claims.[319][320]

Impact on the U.S. military

By the war's end, 58,220 American soldiers had been killed,[A 3] more than 150,000 had been wounded, and at least 21,000 had been permanently disabled.[321] The average age of the U.S. troops killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years.[322] According to Dale Kueter, "Of those killed in combat, 86.3 percent were white, 12.5 percent were black and the remainder from other races."[43] Approximately 830,000 Vietnam veterans suffered some degree of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[321] Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD in unprecedented numbers, as many as 15.2% of Vietnam veterans, because the U.S. military had routinely provided heavy psychoactive drugs, including amphetamines, to American servicemen, which left them unable to process adequately their traumas at the time.[323] An estimated 125,000 Americans left for Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft,[324] and approximately 50,000 American servicemen deserted.[325] In 1977, United States president Jimmy Carter granted a full and unconditional pardon to all Vietnam-era draft dodgers.[326]

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[sheshe2]

9. Which paragraph?

You posted nine.

[Uncle Joe]

11. The only one

I posted from the OP

[calguy]

23. Well at least I'm better informed about how many brothers from my generation died in Viet Nam

But absolutely nothing about true cost of MFA.

[totodeinhere]

27. We already spend more than any other developed country on health care yet

we are the only ones without universal coverage. If those other countries can provide it for less than we are paying now for non universal coverage then so should we be able to.

[YOHABLO]

29. And military spending.

[ramen]

30. You may want to cruise through the study referenced in the OP.

It is pretty clear that Medicare for All would represent a cost savings, not a cost increase. Let alone all the other benefits, like increasing quality of human life, or not having medical bankruptcies be so common.

[at140]

55. My wife spent a lifetime in medical billing

and the stories I have heard about constant fights with private insurance are frightening.
Visit your friendly doctor's office and see how many people are working on billing.
Then visit your friendly hospital near by and how many people are working there in NON-MEDICAL jobs.

Then add up the cost of ripping the patient off prescription drug prices.
Then add the high cost of mal-practice insurance added to your medical bills.

I could go on and on all day. All these categories of current medical costs will shrink drastically with MFA.

[Squinch]

4. Gosh. He applauded a study? Wow.

[sheshe2]

15. Oh and read this...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287523015#post14

[BlueIdaho]

7. The Lancet is a very good source

Too bad the article is behind a pay wall.

[Uncle Joe]

8. I'm sure other publications or sources will be reporting on aspects of this study as well,

I will be looking for them.

[BlueIdaho]

10. I want to read the study

Not abstracts or summaries- but thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

12. Well the only way around that is to pay them.

I would trust that pro and con Medicare for All publications or sources will present more of the actual report.

[Progressive dog]

13. Just curious why a medical journal

publishes economic studies. The summary sounds more like an opinion piece or editorial than a study and the numbers sound pulled out of the air.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-06/54134-presentation.pdf
The Congressional budget office has spent a lot of money studying health care but didn't have the time or money to even guess at what the costs would be for m4all. To put it simply, there is no chance that Bernie's health care plan will be seriously considered by the government during the next few decades. There is no evidence that m4all will cost less, at least without substantially cutting reimbursements to hospitals and doctors. Maybe that is the real plan.

[JudyM]

38. They have about 90 citations to a wide range of supportive research and other documentation.

The Lancet is gold standard... and health economics research is completely appropriate for publication in Lancet. It would not have gotten published without rigorous peer review by experts in the field.

[Progressive dog]

68. Thye article is an opinion piece with

a neat tool for making your own guesses as to how much we can cut reimbursements to health care providers to make med4all save money.

The following parameters are adjustable within our user-friendly tool, SHIFT. We provide a rationale for the default values, which correspond to our base case (default) analysis and the lower (minimum parameter value) and upper (maximum parameter value) bounds. Further details on input parameters and assumptions are provided in the appendix pp 1–13.

It's a neat toy but a study it is not.

[DanieRains]

39. Because Corporate Profit Is More Important Than Human Life

Welcome to America!

Sick?

Go bankrupt, then die!

USA USA USA

[Progressive dog]

67. That is a well reasoned argument

if we don't account for the fact that physicians and people who work for corporations are humans. Money is only a medium of exchange. The earning of money is done by humans and those humans are biologically separate.

[Nanjeanne]

56. It's a study by the Yale school of Public Health. It combines healthcare with many disciplines

Including economics.

The School of Public Health at Yale University provides leadership to protect and improve the health of the public. Through innovative research, policy analysis, and education that draws upon multidisciplinary scholarship from across the graduate and professional programs at Yale, the school serves local, national, and international communities with its knowledge and expertise.

[Progressive dog]

66. No it is a paper with simplistic options

for inputting parameters in a range. Those parameters include the 17.4% decrease in physician reimbursement (the number selected by the authors) and the 40% decrease in drug costs. It also gives a list of options for paying for the m4all. This is a short excerpt from the article.

The following parameters are adjustable within our user-friendly tool, SHIFT. We provide a rationale for the default values, which correspond to our base case (default) analysis and the lower (minimum parameter value) and upper (maximum parameter value) bounds. Further details on input parameters and assumptions are provided in the appendix pp 1–13.

So "the study" actually studies nothing, but has rationales for it's conclusions. Those rationales include the decreases in prices shown above.

[sheshe2]

14. Cost less, not free....

Medicare for All, single-payer health care system would cost less than our current health care system in the first year, and all of the studies showed that it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

Key words.

it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

Within a decade. A decade. Decade.

it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

Decade.

[Uncle Joe]

16. You chopped off a key part of that paragraph.

Last month, another medical journal found that 19 out of 22 studies done over the past 30 years concluded that moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system would cost less than our current health care system in the first year, and all of the studies showed that it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/sanders-applauds-new-medicare-all-study-will-save-americans-450-billion-and-prevent

P.S. Nobody ever said it would be free but it will cost less than the current system and save 68,000 American lives every year.

[sheshe2]

17. First of all Bernie said it was free.

He didn't say it would cost less. He said free.

Also this medical journal and the team of epidemiologists, doubt they have economic degrees. It is an opinion piece, nothing more. It is like an economics scholar telling a heart surgeon how to preform surgery.

Sorry. Not buying it.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Where in the OP or anywhere else for that matter do you see Bernie saying it's free?

[sheshe2]

19. His stump speeches.

Create a Medicare for All, single-payer, national health insurance program to provide everyone in America with comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service.

No networks, no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills.

Medicare coverage will be expanded and improved to include: include dental, hearing, vision, and home- and community-based long-term care, in-patient and out-patient services, mental health and substance abuse treatment, reproductive and maternity care, prescription drugs, and more.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

He mentions free all the time and his supporters believe it is all free. He puts a false promise out there, his supporters zero in on that.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Free at the POINT OF SERVICE just means you don't pay to see a doctor or have surgery and

as written there will be no networks, no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills, that doesn't mean Medicare for All will be free to the United States government but it will still cost less than the current profit over health care system; which also kills 68,000 Americans every year.

I have never believed Medicare for All would be free but it would definitely be much more cost effective and humane.

[sheshe2]

26. Some do. nt

That is the problem.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. No country in the world has 100% free health care for everything.

Even the most generous programs have some costs to the consumer. Bernie likes to use the Nordic model as an example, but medical care isn't free in those countries either. For example:

Healthcare in Norway is not free. Residents must pay for all treatment and even a standard consultation with a GP. However, once a person reaches an annual limit of expenditure (currently just over 2,000kr), they receive an exemption card which entitles them to free treatment for the remainder of the year. This system ensures that everyone pays a little, but the sick are not burdened with the stress of huge medical bills. The exemptions to this system include children under sixteen and pregnant women, who receive free healthcare.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/healthcare/

[ramen]

31. That seems like a very sane system

Imagine..

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. It does. But...

Here's the catch: The Nordic countries have never had for-profit, privately-owned primary health care. They never had to transition to universal coverage from a for-profit system as we would have to do. In Norway, for example, the oldest hospital still in existence there was built in 1277 and was operated by the church; later on, other charities ran the hospitals. After WWII the government took over the entire health care system, with the actual provision of services being managed by local governments. In contrast, the United States has never had government-provided health care, with the exception of the VA. Even Medicare isn't really government health care because it is provided by privately-owned and in many cases for-profit providers, and we and our employers, not the government, paid for it (and you still pay premiums). So the transition to a government-managed single-payer system would require massive restructuring of virtually every aspect of it, and it would take years to implement - if it ever could get passed by Congress. Candidates flogging M4A aren't being honest if they're trying to convince voters that it's going to happen (or even start to happen) like flipping a switch as soon as there's a new administration.

[ramen]

49. I am totally comfortable with that health care plan not happening like a switch flipped.

The historical context you give is vital. Private health care is as old as anything else in the US, and it is entrenched and powerful. That means it's not going to just roll over and stop being the unethical and inefficient behemoth that it is, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a goal of ours.

Like civil rights or womens' rights or LGBTQ rights, it's going to take time and sacrifice. It's going to take stumbles, missteps, and, sadly, human lives. But it is still the right thing to do: that multi-tiered system of health administration and funding has got to go. I think Medicare for all is a step on that path, just like the ACA was a step on that path.

Of course, at this late stage, climate change will possibly put us all down before we get there, but what ethical government approach is that not true of..

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. But it seems like many voters really think

that if Bernie is elected, that switch will be flipped immediately and we'll have FREE health care (and FREE college and FREE unicorns and as much pie as the sky can hold). The hard truth is that neither Sanders' nor Warren's M4A plan, or anything close, has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting through Congress - even if Dems controlled both houses (would Americans accept a sudden hike in their taxes to pay for it? Denmark's top individual tax rate is 60% and they have a VAT as well). What could happen is incremental improvements to ACA that could lead to a public option that could lead to an expanded Medicare program over a period of years. This, of course, is what all the other candidates are talking about. So we elect Bernie or Warren and we get Buttigieg's or Biden's or Klobuchar's health plan anyhow. I am not saying M4A is a bad thing; I'm saying it's dishonest to promise it when, as Senators, both of them must know very well that they are making promises they can't keep to naive voters who will be sorely disappointed when those promises are broken, as they inevitably will be.

[ramen]

60. If enough of the elctorate demands it with their votes and dollars,

then I think that reality can change. How we get that to happen, I candidly have no idea. I see your point, for sure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. The reality is that most Democrats are in the middle of the road somewhere poltically.

Bernie's voter revolution isn't going to happen.

[ramen]

65. I hope someone's does someday, if that is the case. nt

[dualboy24]

74. Free at point of service is free at point of service

It means your sick you go see a doctor, don't worry about your bill, or premiums, etc...

It of course be funded through the budget, and is paid for by government income/taxes as everyone expects, and as other countries do.

[denem]

20. Warren set out how she would pay for it.

People might disagree with the numbers, but that is the point - the details are there to be debated. It is called accountability.

More to the point, the revenue package would fully fund stage one - a comprehensive public option, fully subsidized for children and families earning less than 50K. The campaign says it could pass through budget reconciliation - it is a modification of the existing ACA after all. And it's a very good plan, more expensive, but more effective than those being proposed by Amy, Biden and Buttigieg, that gets help ASAP to those who need it most. The full subsidization of children's coverage would lower family private health insurance premiums for everyone.

If Elizabeth wins the nomination, she can go on the offensive with health.

One can ask why didn't she put it forward sooner? I would ask, why has no-one else been required to provide legislative level detail on their policies?

[ramen]

32. Warren's health plan is great by me.

I think the coverage and discussions around belittling it were asinine.

[denem]

33. When Warren was the front runner

the other campaigns (except Sanders) were falling over themselves to pull her down. The Biden campaign said the proposal was 'double talk' and 'she's making it up'. Joe likes to talk about unity, and positive campaigns, but does not walk the walk.

[progressoid]

22. My Medicare for All plan gives everyone good insurance & cuts their health care costs to nearly zero

That's what he said...oh, wait...never mind... that's what Elizabeth said about her plan.

Not sure why you are dissing his MFA plan. They are both quite similar. And it's likely neither will be implemented as they envision.


FWIW, I just gave 28 bucks to Warren.

[greymattermom]

54. The next step is for employers to pass on their savings in overhead

to employees. Raises haven't been happening because overhead costs are increasing every year. Want a raise? Vote BLUE

[MoonlitKnight]

36. It costs less

[link:https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013|

[link:https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/15/analysis-30-years-single-payer-research-shows-medicare-all-would-absolutely-save-us|

[link:https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/download/805_42f6acc20a83c79049e68b270e30ee43|

[link:https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.11.2.41|

I have included some old studies because this has been studied for decades and always comes out as the best overall option.

[Uncle Joe]

37. Thanks for the addition MoonlitKnight.

[MoonlitKnight]

42. Empirically the best option

It’s not like a lot of other issues. The data is clear. I have been looking at studies like these for decades. The conclusion does not change.

Climate change and single payer are settled science. Anything else is a lesser effort.

The thing that bugs the hell out of me is the failure of most to see the economic boom both will bring. We already see the growth in the green sector. Imagine the economic growth unleashed by companies freed of administration of health plans and employees free to make career decisions independent of healthcare considerations. We would unleash the biggest economic and entrepreneurial boom in the history of the world.

[Recursion]

47. Then why so so few countries use single payer?

It's ludicrous to say that's "settled". It's so unpopular globally because it's not a very good solution.

[JudyM]

40. K&R. Important to post these research results.

[floppyboo]

41. kick

[Prosper]

48. 68 ,000 lives saved a year is constantly overlooked

Or ignored.

[Blue_true]

72. Did the article say when that year starts? That matters. Until then we have

to pay for MFA in hopes of getting to the year that we start saving lives and money.

[Prosper]

80. 66000 people are dying earlier because of lack of healthcare.

Bernie addresses those lost lives.

[Blue_true]

81. You didn't answer my question, you did a diversion.

When does the year that we start SAVING 68,000 lives happen? Could we get there as fast or faster by simply expanding the ACA?

Bernie does not have a plan. A plan comes with details, he has offered nothing and is evasive when asked to provide details.

[Prosper]

82. Could we get there as fast or faster by simply expanding the ACA?

Has the 66,000 been brought up by any ACA candidate?

[brooklynite]

51. The people you need to convince are not the people here...

The voters aren’t supportive of MFA in comparison to a Public Option and “choice”.

[RazBerryBeret]

52. I have to admit

that for all the years that I've had coverage thru my employer (who pays a ton and a ton is deducted from my paycheck), I've only recently realized that it makes zero sense that my health insurance is owned by my employer. if I get sick, I can't work, if I can't work, I'm not covered.

[LonePirate]

57. Won't they please think of those who want to keep their expensive, inefficient private insurance?

As we all know, freedom of choice is more important than saving and improving lives.

[Recursion]

62. Unfortunately that's a lot of people, and they vote

I know you think it's a joke, but that is in fact the political problem here.

[LonePirate]

63. It is not a joke, it is a sad testament on life that some on the left are as ignorant as the right.

[Hoyt]

58. Hope Sanders and Warren get together to explain whey the are so far apart on projected costs.

Sanders claiming it's $3.5 Trillion per year, Warren is now saying it's $5.2 Trillion.


Here's a study published in Lancet in 2017 -- same journal as OP -- that says "Market-Driven Systems [like Switzerland and Netherlands] Are Superior at Averting Avoidable Deaths."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/05/28/lancet-study-proves-markets-work-in-medicine-when-will-progressives-accept-this-hard-truth/#1b3af4763a3c


I agree with what Sanders said a month or so ago -- "No one knows," and that's the problem. But, we need to get that ironed out at some point because the system does need big changes and we can't afford wasting years because we can't present a viable plan to citizens.

[ucrdem]

59. Highly dubious.

For one thing there would need to be massive acquisition and constructions costs in the first 10-25 years while the USG built or bought all the real estate needed to dispense this newly democratized health care. Once those costs are figured M4A is going to make the Pentagon budget look like penny candy.

[Blue_true]

73. I made that point in a less literate way.

The study talks about saving 68,000 lives a year and over $400 billion dollars, yet I didn't see when that year starts. Is that year 5 years from now, 10, 20, 30? What are the sinked in costs to get to that year.

[ucrdem]

78. Exactly. Sanders is a great pitchman but M4A is basically a faith-based initiative.

And Western Europe and the US have completely different health-service geographies. It doesn't take long to figure out that if lower US health costs are the goal there are plenty of available solutions and M4A is not one of them.

[robbedvoter]

64. But, but...his surrogates tell us it will never happen

Link to tweet

?s=21
and also

Link to tweet

are we trying to have it both ways? Unrealistic in Nevada, and the agenda for the other states?

[Uncle Joe]

70. Welcome to D.U. TangledUpInBlue

[Blue_true]

75. Well that person is....

No longer with us.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

77. We need this..

Cheap labor republicans and those who even embrace part of republican bullshit in moderation are not going to do jack shit to change anything.