We will find that out soon enough if he captures the democratic nomination. If the only thing he ever did in his entire life was get busted at protests and do donald, Doing Donald would be quite enough!
The wink was for the lobbyists!
If your statement were true...
It's not my problem if ya don't like human nature Rob, look within for the answers.
Be careful posting Rob, there aren't many Trumpers around lately and folks is ornery around these parts!
Except, I'm not looking for answers in the political realm.
I can't fake it when it comes to disbelief. I don't see any substance to Bernie's promises and I'm not going to lie about it. He's leagues better than Trump, who is more of a crime boss or a corrupt dictator than a politician. Trump has to go, so I'll vote for Bernie if that's my choice in the fall. I don't think Bernie is corrupt or wants to be a dictator. I simply disbelieve Bernie when he makes his grandiose promises.yeah that makes a lot of sense
I appreciate your sage advice. Although to allude to me as a "Trumper" almost makes me cry.
I won't lie for him, I will suck it up and vote if the DNC chooses him to lead the Democratic ticket.
That will be interpreted as a false equivalency with Trump, who has far more extensive Russian connections, I don't think Donald will be talking too much about Russians, he's too easy a target himself. No sensible candidate would mention that Vlad favors him or is acting without permission in his interest, only Trump would do that because his base are single issue and blind to all else.
mostly agree
The
Prophecy is risky business, we are seldom honored in our own land and often called fools in others! We are also seldom right!
Besides, you know what democrats are like, it's like herding cats for fuck sake! Only Nancy, the cat lady, can do it
Pada you have to keep it shortProjected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
Background
The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach.
Conclusions
In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.
What did the researchers do and find?
What do these findings mean?
- We found and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the US or individual states.
- Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
- The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
- Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.
- There is near-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all US residents.
- To achieve net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug price reductions, as well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
- Replacing private insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare cost
Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses
In a systematic review, Christopher Cai and colleagues investigate the projected cost impact associated with a single-payer approach to health insurance in the United States.journals.plos.org
22 studies agree: ‘Medicare for All’ saves money
Whether you call it single-payer or “Medicare for All,” it isn’t some socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient and effective way to guarantee excellent health insurance to every…thehill.com
"The evidence abounds: A Medicare for All single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.
Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it's the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.
Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration.
Administrative costs are so high because thousands of insurance companies individually negotiate benefit rules and rates with thousands of hospitals and doctors. On top of that, they rely on different billing procedures - and this puts a costly burden on providers.
Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid around the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare for All system would save still more with implementation of global health care spending budgets."
I'm OK with discussing Bernie's policy positions and fitness for office. What is happening, though is Bernie-bots turn to personal attacks rather than discuss the campaign. It is consistent with Bernie's propaganda-like appeal to emotion during his speeches.
Analysis of 22 more studies across the political spectrum are unanimous; single payer saves money by eliminating administration costs and lowering drug prices