Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ismnotwasm

(41,916 posts)
49. You are saying the report has bias because of source funding?
Fri Sep 15, 2017, 06:43 PM
Sep 2017

That the authors have an agenda? Am I correct?

The Urban Institute is a creditable organization. They did much of the work establishing Medicare's Hoyt Sep 2017 #1
This is a topic I have some knowledge of. ehrnst Sep 2017 #2
why does it have to be cheap? Richest nation in he world. nt JCanete Sep 2017 #65
Not saying it does. Strawman. ehrnst Sep 2017 #66
what? fuck that. You say some shit as if ..."it can't be all these 3 things" and you say that for JCanete Sep 2017 #67
It can't. This is an axiom of project management. A big & complicated project cannot be all three. stevenleser Sep 2017 #76
I did not see where the poster indicated that the bill was going for fast and cheap, only that it JCanete Sep 2017 #78
Again...Sanders is implying that it is cheaper that experts say it is. ehrnst Sep 2017 #79
So insurance as it stands, which is gouging the fuck out of people, and granted, often has massive JCanete Sep 2017 #96
What does this have to do with the Sanders plan lowballing the costs? ehrnst Sep 2017 #99
I am not going to read the whole thing, does it relieve employers buying health insurance Eliot Rosewater Sep 2017 #4
There is a payroll tax on employers that would be limited to 6.2% ehrnst Sep 2017 #6
Taxes being much higher than anticipated were part of why VT single payer failed.(n) ehrnst Sep 2017 #8
That was the problem with the California proposal, and the Democratic Speaker.... George II Sep 2017 #22
I agree Gothmog Sep 2017 #102
We are facing a provider as well as a nursing shortage ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #3
This is why incremental change is neccesary - way longer than 9 years. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #7
Yes. ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #10
Sanders rejects any analysis of his plan that doesn't agree with his numbers. ehrnst Sep 2017 #13
This is a political exercise by Sanders. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #5
Yep. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #11
another "political exercise" heaven05 Sep 2017 #74
Interesting study Gothmog Sep 2017 #9
Only 1 Recce...Come Now Me. Sep 2017 #12
Then there's this: ehrnst Sep 2017 #14
Some INteresting Bits Replying To Sanders Team Critiicisms Me. Sep 2017 #16
$3.2 Trillion per year? That's less per year than we spend now. TCJ70 Sep 2017 #21
Wasn't The Amount Cited 32 trillion Not 3.2 Me. Sep 2017 #23
"The increases in federal spending that we estimated ($32 trillion between 2017 and 2026)" TCJ70 Sep 2017 #24
Yes, You Are Correct As To The 3.2 Trillion Me. Sep 2017 #27
From page 20 ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #28
Ah, Thank You So Much Me. Sep 2017 #29
I'm basing that on the fact that we currently spend around $3.8 Trillion annually... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #30
Well, universal healthcare is a goal we all share ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #43
It seems to me that the cart is before the horse. brer cat Sep 2017 #52
UHC doesn't have to be Single Payer, they're not the same. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #59
yep Go Vols Sep 2017 #118
the OP link states clu Sep 2017 #26
Sanders plan is a great start, but there is a need to flesh out the details. andym Sep 2017 #15
That would require having other people crunch the numbers... ehrnst Sep 2017 #38
Don't worry Sanders is only the sponsor/visionary-he did his part in moving the needle andym Sep 2017 #46
And it will take 20 years to implement without huge disruption to health care ehrnst Sep 2017 #55
MFA would radically change things, could happen quickly and would be disruptive in a good way andym Sep 2017 #62
Disruption means disruption of delivery of care ehrnst Sep 2017 #89
Delivery of care will not be disrupted if universal healthcare is engineered carefully andym Sep 2017 #94
Which as the UI analysis said, the Sanders plan would do far more than an ehrnst Sep 2017 #103
Sanders isn't good on details NastyRiffraff Sep 2017 #71
But everyone is supposed to jump on board without knowing them. ehrnst Sep 2017 #90
We are jumping on board based on the principle of achieving universal health care andym Sep 2017 #95
First off, Universal Health Care is not interchangeable with Single Payer ehrnst Sep 2017 #97
Agreed that Single payer is but one way to achieve Universal Health Care andym Sep 2017 #98
You wrote: ehrnst Sep 2017 #100
Post 94 is in this thread-- and makes my meaning clear andym Sep 2017 #117
There are other sponsors. Orsino Sep 2017 #87
Do you see any of them dissenting with him on his bill in any way? ehrnst Sep 2017 #104
What Sanders will "tolerate" is irrelevant. Orsino Sep 2017 #105
Sanders is the author of the bill, and what he "tolerates" in terms ehrnst Sep 2017 #108
Not clearer. Orsino Sep 2017 #110
It didn't claim to know any of that. I think you are the one who isn't clear. ehrnst Sep 2017 #111
I have failed to understand you. Orsino Sep 2017 #112
One can discuss the personality traits of a lifelong politician ehrnst Sep 2017 #113
Thank you for this information, ehrnst. sheshe2 Sep 2017 #17
Kicked and rec'd JHan Sep 2017 #18
michael moore stated as much in sicko clu Sep 2017 #19
Are you on the right thread? ehrnst Sep 2017 #58
Nope. MrsCoffee Sep 2017 #75
America is the only industrialized nation in the world incapable of implementing universal coverage. Orsino Sep 2017 #20
No other nation went to single payer from the system that we have now. ehrnst Sep 2017 #25
Thank you so much for this history. sheshe2 Sep 2017 #45
No other nation ever had what we have now. Orsino Sep 2017 #53
It's going to take way longer than two years ehrnst Sep 2017 #54
We already have single-payer. More than one such system. Orsino Sep 2017 #81
That's what HRC proposed - incrementalism. ehrnst Sep 2017 #82
The bill ain't done yet. Orsino Sep 2017 #83
Like I said ehrnst Sep 2017 #84
There's no need to fixate on Sanders... Orsino Sep 2017 #86
He is the one who introduced the bill, and is talking most about it. ehrnst Sep 2017 #91
That's not a good reason to oppose the bill. Orsino Sep 2017 #93
Strawman. I never said it was. ehrnst Sep 2017 #101
Then why is it we should care about how he takes criticism? Orsino Sep 2017 #106
That wasn't my point. Another strawman. ehrnst Sep 2017 #107
Sanders has a say in what goes into the bill, but no more than any other co-sponsor. Orsino Sep 2017 #109
I think you don't understand what co-sponsors do. ehrnst Sep 2017 #114
News stories calling it "his" bill... Orsino Sep 2017 #115
Your source for "it's being fiddled with in private?" ehrnst Sep 2017 #116
Getting hung up on a name bandied about in the news isn't analysis. Orsino Sep 2017 #119
So you have no source for "it's being fiddled with in private" at all. ehrnst Sep 2017 #120
We all know how laws are made. Orsino Sep 2017 #121
Bernie is not known for drumming up support among his colleagues to write a bill. ehrnst Sep 2017 #122
That's a strange assertion. Orsino Sep 2017 #123
Your statement that he is tweaking it with other Senators has the burden of proof ehrnst Sep 2017 #124
Every bill on this planet is getting tweaked. n/t Orsino Sep 2017 #125
Not having started as being co-written, like you are claiming. ehrnst Sep 2017 #127
Wait, what? Orsino Sep 2017 #131
"But anyone who believes that a bill in its early life ehrnst Sep 2017 #132
That's a truly weird postulate. Orsino Sep 2017 #134
So now you say who wrote and edits the bill isn't important but it DEFINITELY isn't just Bernie... ehrnst Sep 2017 #135
So this is your contention? Orsino Sep 2017 #136
Here's the Urban Institute's Sourcewatch page. QC Sep 2017 #31
a girlfriend's son clu Sep 2017 #32
The last VHS rental/tanning salon combo in my town just became a charter $chool. QC Sep 2017 #34
Well, that settles it then. Urban Institute can't be trusted!!!! ehrnst Sep 2017 #41
They would have been more trustworthy had they revealed their conflict of interest in the analysis Major Nikon Sep 2017 #48
So tell us - just how much of their budget is from those sources ehrnst Sep 2017 #60
I don't know what it is, nor do I really care Major Nikon Sep 2017 #68
Of course you "don't care." Facts will just burst your confirmation bias. ehrnst Sep 2017 #69
People have been saying that on DU over and over again - anyone know if they REALLY.... George II Sep 2017 #70
You think that Sourcewatch is trustworthy? ehrnst Sep 2017 #85
They are a very reputable source in health care policy, so ehrnst Sep 2017 #35
You're right. CIGNA and Pfizer just want what's good for America, QC Sep 2017 #39
Yeah, they dissed on Bernie's legislation - total corporate shills. ehrnst Sep 2017 #40
As shocking as this might seem, QC Sep 2017 #47
You are saying the report has bias because of source funding? ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #49
So why don't you tell us what the source funding of this report is? ehrnst Sep 2017 #57
Do you also tell your students that a source that presents a barely edited Wikipedia copy/paste ehrnst Sep 2017 #80
OMG you are totes right! Just look at this research that COMPLETELY ehrnst Sep 2017 #42
You keep bringing up Sourcewatch and their inaccurate comment about Cigna and Pfizer. Why? George II Sep 2017 #51
Because it means they don't have to read or learn something they don't wanna. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #56
Well, I guess that makes Al Franken a shill ehrnst Sep 2017 #37
According to the Urban League's annual report only 1.4% of their funding comes from.... George II Sep 2017 #50
But that's NO FAIR!!!! ehrnst Sep 2017 #61
They have four or five annual reports and also audited financial statements on their site.... George II Sep 2017 #63
Evident to those not suffering Dunning-Kruger Effect. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author melman Sep 2017 #88
Sounds like it is something worth doing Not Ruth Sep 2017 #33
Even though there are options that are much less expensive and disruptive ehrnst Sep 2017 #36
K&R murielm99 Sep 2017 #44
Thanks for posting this NastyRiffraff Sep 2017 #72
puts EVERYTHING heaven05 Sep 2017 #73
More evidence why I think we should be working to architect a two-tier or dual-tier system from the stevenleser Sep 2017 #77
Because that's not 'hopeful' and it's not what Bernie has been ehrnst Sep 2017 #92
Racking my brain here GaryCnf Sep 2017 #126
This may help: ehrnst Sep 2017 #128
Here's something even clearer GaryCnf Sep 2017 #129
Check the date on the OP. ehrnst Sep 2017 #130
This is the closest I've seen to an anlysis comparable to the UI analysis of the 2016 bill ehrnst Sep 2017 #133
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Urban Institute analysis ...»Reply #49