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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

7. So the fact that the analysis says that disruption to health care would be due to the short time

Reply to TCJ70 (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 07:00 AM

Sep 2017

of implementation, and that the taxes needed to pay for the plan are underestimated (which was one of the things that killed the Vermont single payer program) indicate "Cheaper, more efficient" system to you?

Why?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Urban Institute response to attacks on their analysis of the Sanders Single Payer plan [View all] ehrnst Sep 2017 OP

Hmmm...$3.2 Trillion per year? Less than we spend now and not everyone is covered... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #1

You are still smarting about this, aren't you? ehrnst Sep 2017 #2

Ummm...no. I didn't wade into the whole... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #6

So the fact that the analysis says that disruption to health care would be due to the short time ehrnst Sep 2017 #7

They should put their worst case numbers out there... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #8

TMYK ★ ... NurseJackie Sep 2017 #3

Confirmation bias.... it's a problem. ehrnst Sep 2017 #5

K&R ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #4