2016 Postmortem

SonderWoman

(1,169 posts)

9. Corporations are off the hook. Congrats Bernie.

Reply to Admiral Loinpresser (Original post)

Fri Sep 18, 2015, 02:24 PM

Sep 2015

More money in their pockets, less in ours.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie needs a better answer about the $15T Swift Boats! [View all] Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 OP

The problem is that the government will actually have to spend $15T more over ten years with SP. DanTex Sep 2015 #1

You are still spouting the RW lie. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #3

No, I'm not. The author of the study didn't deny that it would cost $15T, he just pointed out that DanTex Sep 2015 #5

And out of pocket costs will be greater than any additional taxes. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #6

But the government still ends up spending (a lot) more. And taxes go up. DanTex Sep 2015 #8

Not necessarily. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #11

Yes, necessarily. Paying for the healthcare of everyone who currently has private care DanTex Sep 2015 #12

It has saved lots of money in every country that has adopted it. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #14

It hasn't saved the government money (obviously). DanTex Sep 2015 #15

Who cares if the govt administrated it? HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #16

Not me. The question is whether the electorate will care. DanTex Sep 2015 #21

I was wrong! Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #18

Yes, $5T in societal savings. That's what he should be emphasizing, and I believe he is doing that. DanTex Sep 2015 #20

I'm glad we have areas of agreement, but Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #24

Bingo. $5T less will be spent on healthcare Recursion Sep 2015 #31

Not a net $15T. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #32

Personally I think every scoring drastically understates usage increase Recursion Sep 2015 #34

It's in his tables, Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #38

The old TV commercial HassleCat Sep 2015 #2

This is succint: "If something cost 15T and saves 20T, it's not an honest headline... Schema Thing Sep 2015 #4

If he was honest, it would be a first. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #7

Corporations are off the hook. Congrats Bernie. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #9

What you are describing is the system we have now AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #10

Sorry, but I enjoy only paying $20 when me or my kids need to see a doctor. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #17

So you pay no premiums AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #19

I don't think the poster understands how the current system works and how it is paid for. Warren Stupidity Sep 2015 #25

Do you even know what the subject is about? Scootaloo Sep 2015 #26

He wrote a direct response to the WSJ piece Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #13

Thanks. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #22

Also this response from Robert Reich: WSJ's claim of $18T price tag "entirely bogus" Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #23

I agree, they are unfairly portraying the cost of the legislation. But, even Vermont could not Hoyt Sep 2015 #27

I read Vermont got screwed up by ACA Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #28

I think it is over for foreseeable future in Vermont. People just don't understand. Hoyt Sep 2015 #29

Yeah, state-level SP Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #36

It's what Canada does Recursion Sep 2015 #39

No it isn't. Canada has five provinces not fifty states plus territories it isn't anything like an TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #41

Canada does its Medicare by province, not nationally Recursion Sep 2015 #42

How is it actually closer? We don't have anything strictly regulated and nonprofit that TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #45

Most private insurers in the US are not-for-profit Recursion Sep 2015 #46

Of course provider costs are high and in our society build there is no way to get TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #47

That may be true, but problem is people are too stupid to understand a seemingly high tax hike Hoyt Sep 2015 #48

Except it will actually increase government spending by that much Recursion Sep 2015 #30

False, not a NET $15T will be invested federally. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #33

And see my response: millions of people are going without care right now Recursion Sep 2015 #35

That's accounted for in the Friedman analysis. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #37

We can't afford to save FIVE trillion dollars. It is just too expensive! TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #40

It should become part of his stump speech! in_cog_ni_to Sep 2015 #43

They ought to examine Canada's universal health care system. delrem Sep 2015 #44