LOL, it's true because a UK newspaper says so. Not because the legislation says it (which it does not).
Anti-semite!
Obvious racism
Absolutely. The two unions I belong to will make sure of it.
That is great, but it is never going to get through the Senate unless there are 60+ Democrats unafraid to lose their seats to Republicans, and they have the House. As soon as you bring that up in the general election you guarantee Republicans keep Mitch in control of shutting everything down that is not his agenda of keeping power in the hands of the Wealthy White Heterosexual Male agenda.
This is a false dichotomy. Cutting costs is not exactly the opposite of raising taxes and they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe the Guardian should hire better propagandists. Furthermore, single-payer would not cut costs for all. The average family of four costs 20k to insure. Their costs might go down (might not, those morons Sanders and Warren don't fucking know the cost or how to pay for it) but for quite a few of us, the extra taxes are significantly higher than the current costs.
Bullshit. Cheap healthcare does exist, it's called high copays and deductibles. It's also called taking care of yourself. I don't fucking want Medicare and I sure as fuck don't want to pay an extra 10k per year (low estimate) in taxes for it. This entire "article" is a series of logical fallacies. You could take every fucking dollar except for the first 250k that every fucking American makes and it still wouldn't be enough to pay the pricetag for giving everyone in the country, including immigrants, full comprehensive coverage with no deductibles. This notion that each worker pays for his own coverage just because, ostensibly, the costs would have been their wages otherwise, and then taking that number as if it negated the HUGE FUCKING MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKES which are absolutely necessary to pay for the dumpster fire. Yeah, asinine.
Did you read the thread title before you clicked post? They do in fact admit that taxes would indeed have to increase. That last paragraph just doesn't follow. First off, most of us support universal healthcare and want everyone covered. So you might want to choose your words better. Also, the very workers who would have their pay cut by M4A are doctors and care providers.
What about the majority of workers who don't belong to unions?
As a quick reality check, my employer pays $30k a year to insure my family of four. That's for the least expensive HMO option (Blue Shield). I could pay an extra $6k a year to opt in to the better insurance.
Unions set the standard for them. If you can't negotiate for yourself, I suggest to consider collective bargaining.
The way I look at it, medicare for all works because it's FOR ALL, and that includes all the politicians. Don't you think if Moscow Mitch and Tronald Dump were forced to have the same health plan as you and me, they would make sure it was a decent plan?
That deductible is more than you actually save lol
You're smoking crack if you think politicians are going to have M4A lol
Frankly that doesn't sound that good to me. I don't pay anything for mine, and it has a lower deductible than yours. I'd gladly trade it for Bernie's plan.
It's not Medicare-for-all-except-politicians. Also you wouldn't need to go to a public health center to use it.
Sure you would, LOL
Yep, absolutely. This is how much my employer pays a month for each employee, depending on how big the family. This is times hundreds of workers. I'd love to see them save that money, and have my union negotiate higher wages..
