I didn't see the meme .... I'm just lookin at the bottom line. I think if enough people understood the math - that we're talking the equivalent of $93,187.66 per working individual in America to reach $14.5T in revenue , Bernie's support would dry up.
Yes, I don't have any problems attacking Bernie's spending. I agree to some degree. I was only chiming in because addressing his actual spending is sufficient. There isn't a need to post debunked inaccurate memes about it. I'm not really concerned about it, because Bernie's proposals won't pass as they are. I think they are fine for a jumping-off point that leaves a lot of room for compromise. I also think that along with the areas of spending there will be additional cuts and other taxes that won't fall evenly on every person in this nation. They will fall mostly on people that can afford it without it hurting them or causing much discomfort. These discussions are fine theoretical debates but they won't be part of anything we really have to deal with because of the make-up of Congress and how legislation works.
These are all legitimate questions. What I want to know is why a multitude of countries ALL OVER the world can accomplish this. But during a time of extreme disparity of what billionaires and CEO's make to their companies average salary and we can not? I want to know why.
It's the greatest mystery in the history of the world how other countries can have free health care and free college but we have a trillion dollars in student debt and pay twice as much for health care with tens of millions uninsured or underinsured. MAGA indeed.
Because none of them just implemented it on a whim. They built their health care systems over time, managed to control costs early, etc. They have lower education/training requirements. Lower doctor pay. Their people are used to having longer wait times and limits on top-tier services. On and on. The difference in their systems and ours are not just about single payer vs having insurers - it's about every step of the way and every process they have in place. Just going to single payer and saying "hey, doctors & hospitals, you'll now getting $0.50 on every $1.00 you used to get in reimbursement rates. good luck!" doesn't work. It doesn't address any of the actual problems with our health care system.
Good post. Thank you. I would say to that let's start the process then. Because what the US has right now seems like a powder keg.
We can and we should. BUT …. We have to do it in the most cost effective manner. We cant let this become another instance of corporations making out like bandits and the people on the hook for the bill. The middle class should see a reduction in our costs with no change to the quality of care. I'm not at all certain that our government can accomplish this - they are bought and sold , the bastards would sell out their brother and try to buy him back if it would make them a buck (Congress / Senate no matter what letter is in front of their name). We spent from $3.5 trillion in 2018 and $3.6 trillion in 2019 …. Yet Bernie's plan comes in at $40 trillion over a decade. $3.6T equates to over $23,000 in contribution for each person in the US workforce. That's an insane sum when countries like Canada do it for half that. Where's the damn savings at !
I'd argue Obamacare was a start - it expanded Medicaid and got 30 million more people covered. It eliminated pre-existing conditions and put maximum out of pocket costs on all plans. Next step is a public option to help create downward cost pressures and again expand coverage. Then you expand Medicare age limits and/or the Obamacare subsidies. And on and on. That slowly lets hospitals/doctors adapt; lets us slowly incorporate new government costs without massive tax hikes; lets us see what works and doesn't work. But you have to do it in stages or you'll break the whole system in the process.
You can bet Team Trump knows about them and that’s part of the reason they’re so giddy at the prospect of Bernie winning the nomination.
Why would they openly be giddy about wanting Bernie which they have been really obvious about when we are in the middle of primary season and Trump and his administration knows that the average DNC primary voter HATES Trump? Wouldn't openly desiring Bernie now nite them in the foot if that is their goal? I'm just trying to make sense of the narrative here.
A multitude of countries are not accomplishing this on this scale and those countries are not replacing something that is very important to people. This talking point is getting very tired and does not hold up when scrutinized.
It helps to get his base out and vote for Bernie, just look at posters on this bbs as examples. They will do anything that Trump want them to do.
The proportion of GOP voters in DNC primary representation is miniscule to the registered Democrat voters. Ya you motivate a small percentage to go out and vote but then you give the 90+ percent of the representation of the DNC electorate more reason to not vote for Bernie because he knows DNC voters hate Trump.
I expect the red scare offensive we've seen since the Nevada debate is going to be somewhat effective at reducing Sanders votes in SC and Super Tuesday. But the benefits are probably spread out among the other candidates. Maybe that increases the chance of a brokered convention, but it'd still leave Sanders with an advantage with so many candidates still in.
In EuRoPe CoLlEgE Is FrEe In Europe, college is free/modestly priced but that comes at a different cost. That cost is limited access to higher education. To qualify/be admitted to these "free" colleges/programs you must go through a rigorous series of tests and meet very high academic standards at a young age (14-17). It's not, "Oh, hey, I'm European let me walk up to my local university and study whatever I want for free" - It's "Oh, hey, if you're in the top 25% of your class and do well on rigorous qualifying national exams you can attend university and study what you have pre-qualified for when you were 16, if not, you are effectively barred from every being a member of the professional class/university educated person" I think free college advocates in the United States think of Europe as some sort of free college utopia where you can just go to the local university/CC, whoever you are, and sign up for whatever you want. This is not the case. As Claire Lundberg at Slate has described it: The problem here [from the student's perspective] isn’t with the cost of the education, but with the huge amount of tracking, testing, and winnowing that is used to help keep the system free. In America, virtually anyone can get a college education so long as they have the money to pay for it. In France, you can get an excellent, free or nearly-free education but often only if you follow a prescribed set of rules and pass a series of grueling tests that often start early in high school. French teenagers go through their first major career sorting at around age 15, when they decide on an academic or vocational course of study. This choice determines what kind of high-school graduation exam, or baccalauréat, the student will sit for, and to some extent what kind of higher education is open to them. The choice of track is also not entirely up to the students; the head of their lycée, or high school, has the final say. There’s some ability to change tracks, but it’s not particularly easy. https://mises.org/wire/countries-free-tuition-often-have-fewer-college-graduates You might not like your French system "free college." I'd like to see lots of reform around college education in the United States but Europe isn't some higher educational utopia some flippantly make it out to be.
well put. A public option makes sense on multiple levels - provides insurance for those who need it, exerts downward pressure costs, allows the bulky healthcare system to adapt, minimizes huge cash outlays by the government, and has broad public support!
Because they don't? Not to the extend Sanders is calling for at least. Sanders proposals would mean taking 72% of the GDP (and growing) while the most progressive Scandinavian nation (Finland) takes 59% and countries like Norway are at 50%. Now, that doesn't mean that we cannot have a single payer system soon, that would greatly increase our budget/GDP close to those in Western Europe though, including the Scandinavian models. @ThatBoyNick said he believes that Sanders is backing off some of his proposals (the jobs bill) and that would probably cut down on some of the cost analysis. I think he needs to GREATLY cut his proposed Climate Change bill (but realize that is hard because that is part of his voting block). If he wins the nomination he will likely need to push to the center on some issues....... my issues with Sanders are based on the financial costs not being even remotely possible for what he wants....... the size of the government would increase 2.5 times.....
