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

Video & Multimedia

phazed0

(745 posts)

8. Hard to do in keeping with facts.

Reply to Dragonfli (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:34 AM

Mar 2016

I think it is because the numbers given are more-or-less "fact" as where we would have to speculate at the additional savings.. While it is fairly easy to see how much of the pie Cenk talked about can be affected... it's another to quantify down to the microcosm of each medical office, admin costs, decisions on staff, etc. other than to say "more savings here!".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Single-Payer Universal Health Care Explained - TYT [View all] phazed0 Mar 2016 OP

As always, Cenk tells the truth. R&K nt longship Mar 2016 #1

I needed to hear that this amount was over a 10 year period at the beginning of the video instead of DhhD Mar 2016 #14

That doesn't even explain how much Doctors, healthcare facilities and hospitals Dragonfli Mar 2016 #2

Yeah, I too was surprised a lot of this wasn't even mentioned. passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #6

Hard to do in keeping with facts. phazed0 Mar 2016 #8

Excellent point, and it's a saving we could go for immediately D Gary Grady Mar 2016 #12

The best choice is to eliminate the role of private insurance to the greatest extent possible. Enthusiast Mar 2016 #22

The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By: sansatman Mar 2016 #3

I think they should add a "self-responsibility health" tax too. ErikJ Mar 2016 #4

I can appreciate that, but is it not a big overreach? phazed0 Mar 2016 #7

Sin taxes on cigs and alcohol go to ErikJ Mar 2016 #9

Yup.. phazed0 Mar 2016 #10

Early onset Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes is very expensive when it starts in childhood. A school DhhD Mar 2016 #15

We should quit subsidizing sugar before we start taxing people for drinking it. n/t jtuck004 Mar 2016 #11

Yes! We could drug test for nicotine, THC, excess sodium and sugar! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #23

His top tax bracket should start at $5 million not $10m. ErikJ Mar 2016 #5

Beginning with the 1963 tax year 1939 Mar 2016 #13

Reporting the costs over 10 years is always so annoying. rickford66 Mar 2016 #16

I imagine the first 1 to 3 years of implementation would be much higher than the average. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #17

The 10 year span isn't emphasized as much. rickford66 Mar 2016 #18

You're right and it is confusing, but I'm sure the Pentagon does also have a 10 year plan. A Simple Game Mar 2016 #19

My quick GOOGLE search showed a yearly defense budget. rickford66 Mar 2016 #21

Kicked and recommended a bazillion times! Because fuck this status quo shit! Enthusiast Mar 2016 #20