2016 Postmortem

dsc

(53,426 posts)

134. since when did Obama call himself a socialist

Reply to padfun (Reply #94)

Wed Sep 16, 2015, 08:40 AM

Sep 2015

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