2016 Postmortem

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

124. You keep calling them "Murdoch's numbers" but the numbers come from a liberal

Wed Sep 16, 2015, 07:50 AM

Sep 2015

pro-single-payer economist. I've already given you the link. I know it's easier to ignore the numbers and pretend that Rupert Murdoch made them up, but the numbers are the numbers.

And it's also very telling that people can't actually defend the numbers without first waiting to hear how Bernie spins them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Discussing how much things cost is not a "right-wing talking point". [View all] DanTex Sep 2015 OP

I'm not asking the 1%, or anyone, to pay for my Single Payer Insurance. . . Journeyman Sep 2015 #1

Ask the Veterans how they are enjoying single payer. [nt] Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #2

They aren't because Congress refuses to fund it. Fawke Em Sep 2015 #7

But it's working better because of Bernie! Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #12

Are you asking me? Ron Green Sep 2015 #16

Makes two of us.... daleanime Sep 2015 #59

Yep. I'd rather pay all my healthy years dollars in to a system that will be around when I ... Hassin Bin Sober Sep 2015 #29

An actual fact: Health care costs half and gets better results in other countries! Human101948 Sep 2015 #120

I've always thought federal taxes could be raised and Federal subsities removed from any Sunlei Sep 2015 #3

failed in Vermont handmade34 Sep 2015 #4

Do you really want to talk about what things cost? Fumesucker Sep 2015 #5

Well, yes, gun violence for example. DanTex Sep 2015 #51

You're making a huge mistake in your figuring Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #6

+1 n/t Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #13

Yes, but that money isn't collected in taxes. $15 trillion over 10 years is the estimated DanTex Sep 2015 #35

You've done a nice job summarizing the case Bernie will have to make. pa28 Sep 2015 #85

If Rupert Murdoch is your source on how much things cost you are using right-wing talking points Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #8

Plus One Brazillion. bullwinkle428 Sep 2015 #19

Like I said, the $1.5T number comes from a pro-single-payer economist. DanTex Sep 2015 #33

Right now we are spending $3 trillion so $1.5 sounds pretty damn good Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #34

$1.5T is the additional cost in taxes that is required to fund single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #37

We pay 1.5 trillion and eliminate health insurance premiums, I will take it Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #42

Sorry, the $18 trillion is not a lie, it's actually an optimistic estimate of the additional DanTex Sep 2015 #48

So you are going to keep spreading Rupert Murdoch lies Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #56

I'm not ignoring any savings. Again, the numbers already include health care cost savings in them, DanTex Sep 2015 #57

You sure as hell are ignoring savings Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #61

No I'm not. These are not Rupert Murdoch's numbers, they come from a liberal economist DanTex Sep 2015 #64

You pretend as if health insurance premiums disappearing are not savings Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #68

They are not savings to the government. Do you agree? DanTex Sep 2015 #72

Dan you keep repeating Rupert Murdoch propaganda Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #77

Weird that you keep trying to slander me instead of talking about the actual issues. DanTex Sep 2015 #79

You posted a thread tonight pushing Murdoch's $18 trillion number Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #82

$18 trillion is a low estimate, do you disagree? DanTex Sep 2015 #88

So you did not read the Murdoch published article... Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #95

I read the Friedman study, a pro-single-payer economist, and took $15 trillion, DanTex Sep 2015 #97

Bernie has already said he will give a detailed response to Murdoch's numbers Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #110

$15T of it comes from Friedman, single payer is the bulk of it. DanTex Sep 2015 #113

I have been defending it Dan, what I won't do is make numbers up Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #123

You keep calling them "Murdoch's numbers" but the numbers come from a liberal DanTex Sep 2015 #124

The $18 trillion number is Murdoch's number, Friedman has rejected the number you cite Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #126

Friedman did not reject the number, he called it "correct". DanTex Sep 2015 #127

Nice selective quoting, you missed the part where he talks about the cost savings they ignored Bjorn Against Sep 2015 #130

Yes, there are cost savings, but that doesn't change the fact that there is also $1.5T in new taxes. DanTex Sep 2015 #133

You are doing the Lords work my friend! MoveIt Sep 2015 #136

That economist just blasted the WSJ for Fawke Em Sep 2015 #137

Parroting Murdoch misinformation is a RW talking point. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #9

No, that does not ignore cost savings. That is a lie. The number comes from a liberal DanTex Sep 2015 #50

Because only right wingers believe it costs too much money to spend less whether TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #10

It is when you use bullshit RW "math" and framing. Own it. morningfog Sep 2015 #11

when your sources are wsj and fox news, restorefreedom Sep 2015 #14

My source is a pro-single-payer liberal economist. DanTex Sep 2015 #47

i will wait to see bernie's response restorefreedom Sep 2015 #55

Well, he is the messiah after all, so I understand that. DanTex Sep 2015 #58

if you say so. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #119

Damn it DanTex! Stop making sense! redstateblues Sep 2015 #15

Have you not read this thread? Ron Green Sep 2015 #18

Let me know when you're ready to have a mature conversation about what's been posted here. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #21

Unfortunate that your support for Hillary has you carrying water for the 1% whatchamacallit Sep 2015 #17

Sorry- Bernie is unelectable in the GE. redstateblues Sep 2015 #23

You're welcome to your opinion whatchamacallit Sep 2015 #25

yeah, right. padfun Sep 2015 #94

since when did Obama call himself a socialist dsc Sep 2015 #134

When it come from the WSJ and its a lie, it certainly is a right wing talking point. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #20

No, it came from a liberal economist who is a proponent of single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #38

'Fer cripe's sake. cheapdate Sep 2015 #83

Great post, as always DanTex. You are a gem. greatlaurel Sep 2015 #22

Thank you. As far as where the numbers come from (probably should have posted it in the OP), DanTex Sep 2015 #60

Thanks for the link and the information. Really interesting information. greatlaurel Sep 2015 #80

The numbers you were working from were a hit peice from Hillary's super Pac passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #24

The numbers came from a liberal economist who advocates for single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #39

you didn't read the link I provided, did you passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #54

Looking at the rest of the information provided here shows me that you're wrong. Again. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #26

Actually, there is no additional information here. The numbers I cited came from a liberal economist DanTex Sep 2015 #41

I would suggest you look at the information provided by other posters in this thread Scootaloo Sep 2015 #44

They don't provide information. That's the problem. DanTex Sep 2015 #46

They provide plenty of information. You choose to ignore it. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #49

No they don't. I'm the only one linking to an actual study of the costs of single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #52

how you can link to a study that shows how we can pay for single payer passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #63

The study proposes a whole bunch of new taxes. Does Bernie support those same taxes? DanTex Sep 2015 #65

How much did the Iraq war cost? Always money for war. Never for people. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #27

It is a right-wing talking point when you don't include the savings when talking about cost. jeff47 Sep 2015 #28

Always the nasty little personal jab after the point is made. Nice redstateblues Sep 2015 #30

Because there are zero jabs in the OP. jeff47 Sep 2015 #32

The $1.5 trillion is in additional government spending. It's not $1.5 trillion total for single DanTex Sep 2015 #43

You are misusing Gerald Friedman's study. Ron Green Sep 2015 #109

I'm simply quoting it. $1.5T per year in additional taxes. It's right there. DanTex Sep 2015 #112

I'm a Bernie "fan," and I'll acknowledge it for you. Ron Green Sep 2015 #114

KICK. LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #122

ANother nice post. Notice that the folks on this thread claiming that the numbers you used Persondem Sep 2015 #31

Thanks. The numbers actually come from an economist that is pro-single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #45

Again, I try to get you to read the link I gave you above passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #67

I don't care about the WSJ, I've read the actual Friedman study. DanTex Sep 2015 #69

Plenty of numbers for those who read. GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #138

you mean like the drug war that Hillary still refuses to call a failure? Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #36

It is when you willfully ignore that it is ALREADY being paid for. nt Bonobo Sep 2015 #40

No, I don't. The government already pays for a lot of healthcare, but the $1.5 trillion is DanTex Sep 2015 #53

Are you not discounting what people are ALREADY paying for? nt Bonobo Sep 2015 #74

I'm saying taxes will go up by $1.5 trillion annually. Do you disagree? DanTex Sep 2015 #76

And I'm saying if people are not paying the hidden taxes of more than that, it is a wash. nt Bonobo Sep 2015 #78

That's a fair argument, although insurance premiums are not "hidden taxes" because they don't DanTex Sep 2015 #81

It is clear that single payer would cut health care expenditures. Bonobo Sep 2015 #87

Single payer and universal health care are not the same thing. DanTex Sep 2015 #89

Honestly, it's ALMOST like you must be joking. Bonobo Sep 2015 #90

Personal insults aside, no, single payer and universal healthcare are not the same thing. DanTex Sep 2015 #91

Personal insults like "I mean, let's be honest, you have to be a total moron to believe that. "? Bonobo Sep 2015 #96

Dodge number one. Do you agree that single payer and universal coverage are not the same? DanTex Sep 2015 #98

You didn't answer my questions either. nt Bonobo Sep 2015 #99

This is what I'm saying. When it comes to policy, Bernie fans bob and weave. DanTex Sep 2015 #100

No dodging is necessary. Use your common sense. Bonobo Sep 2015 #101

But somehow you can't come out and say Bernie wants $1.5T more per year in taxes. DanTex Sep 2015 #103

Dude, are you being INTENTIONALLY obtuse? Bonobo Sep 2015 #104

Is that a "yes, Bernie does want to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion per year". DanTex Sep 2015 #105

You have lost spectacularly and are trying to save some small measure of face. Bonobo Sep 2015 #108

Obviously, you can't answer the question. DanTex Sep 2015 #111

What a sad sub-thread that was for you. Bonobo Sep 2015 #115

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2015 #116

So what? If health care premiums to private insurers disappear, that is a ne savings n/t eridani Sep 2015 #128

Exactly. Why this is hard for people to admit is beyond me. DanTex Sep 2015 #129

When you look at only one part of the issue.... daleanime Sep 2015 #62

You mean like when people look at the benefit of single payer and ignore the costs? DanTex Sep 2015 #66

Are you honestly trying to imply passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #70

No. When did I say that? I'm simply saying that single payer will require, optimistically, DanTex Sep 2015 #73

You are implying that there will be no write off...no balance of savings to offset new costs passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #84

And savings? daleanime Sep 2015 #71

We are already paying for universal health care eridani Sep 2015 #131

Gee, wasnt it right wing talking points DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #75

Yes she did. Fighting the GOP is not a 100% proposition. DanTex Sep 2015 #93

fighting the gop not a "100% proposition DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #139

Facts are not right wing talking points Gothmog Sep 2015 #86

I don't get it... bobbobbins01 Sep 2015 #92

"Conclusion: Single payer covers more, costs less than current system for 95% of Americans... slipslidingaway Sep 2015 #102

Gerald Friedman, the economist who wrote the study you cite has something to say ... slipslidingaway Sep 2015 #106

In which he reaffirms that single payer will require $1.5T per year in additional taxes. DanTex Sep 2015 #107

Single payer would be far cheaper than what we have now AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #117

I just want universal urgent care ellisonz Sep 2015 #118

You are going to pull something stretching like that without warming up first Fumesucker Sep 2015 #121

Wrong. Giving projected costs over a period of time mmonk Sep 2015 #125

Its paid for the same way health insurance is paid for now. WDIM Sep 2015 #132

If.. cannabis_flower Sep 2015 #135

Anyone who is so damned stupid as to prefer an $800/month "premium" to a eridani Sep 2015 #140

For those who's goal it is to topple the economic system.... NCTraveler Sep 2015 #141

Discussion of cost isn't inappropriate. Vinca Sep 2015 #142

How about just a public option? SonderWoman Sep 2015 #143