Medicare for all!!!
 

32.6 trillion dollars over a 10yr time span to make this happen.The only way to raise that kind of money would be the largest tax increase in US history.

Who pays for this?Certainly not the "rich".The "rich" make up less than .01% of the general population.

Working class taxpaying folks will bear 100% of this burden.For the first time in US history if you have a job and pay taxes you WILL be giving up more than half of your earned income to the US government.Never mind what you give up in state and local,especially in RI.

All of the above is 100% fact.

Sanders/Cortez 2020!!!!!The dream team for today's progressive liberal.

Scary sh!t to say the least.

I think you're reading that study wrong. I believe the funding would include money currently going into health care and was shown to represent a 2 trillion dollar *savings* when you look at the net.

Now I'm not ready to advocate for single payer health care just yet, but the amount of money that goes into our system relative to the quality of care is pathetic compared to other industrialized nations.

Nope.Read it 100% correct.

As far as your second statement you are partially correct.In the US we put the most money into the system,the problem is most of those receiving the care don't pay a dime into that system and hence the quality goes down for all.

Affordable Care Act my ass.I pay more now than I ever have and receiving MUCH less.

You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"According to an analysis that excludes pensions and social security, the richest 1% of the American population in 2007 owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%"


80/20 rule never fails.....applies to everything

interesting list

Here's the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to the Allianz report.

U.S.A. — 80.56.
Sweden — 79.90.
U.K. — 75.72.
Indonesia — 73.61.
Austria — 73.59.
Germany — 73.34.
Colombia — 73.18.
Chile — 73.17.

Just more proof that trickle down economics is a scam to make the rich even richer....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We already spend the money
Total estimated US spending on healthcare in 2016 was 3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person
Between 20 and 30% of that is administrative costs, etc.
Feel free to look up the percent of GDP that other countries spend on healthcare, We win, as long as the highest is winning
If we had a healthcare system that provided primary care alone it would reduce our total healthcare costs by reducing Emergency room usage and providing treatment at earlier stages of disease.
Never mind the drug costs in this country compared to others.

I never mentioned healthcare...those were wealth inequality numbers

Since the title of this thread is Medicare for all!!!
I assumed that your comment was in reference to that
What was it in reference to?

it's right there...just read

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
You do realize that something like 10% ofthw people in the US own 90% of the wealth, right??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just wanted to make sure you understood that we have that level of wealth inequality and find it impossible to fund some type of universal healthcare

There is no concrete correlation between wealth inequality and government's possibility to fund anything. It would be "possible" for the US government to fund universal healthcare. It would be possible for it to fund WWIII. It would be possible to fund all manner of destructive things. It already does.

What it seems to me to happen is we can not consider things because they are looked at as the worst possible or destructive. I think we currently have a system with significant problems. I don't think the solution is to have no system or controls. Nor do I think the progressive "free" attitude is correct, but I do think that just like Transportation, Education, Military we as a society need to help one another.

I think what i posted the other day from The Grumpy Economist is the sort of direction that could work, so I'll repost it here:Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

really bad choice of colors :cool:

WTF?

I should not have made it that color, I realize in hindsight that conservatives don’t like anything green
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

HUH? :huh:

Sitting in the low chair again?

Like money?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald Trump is now trying to break the health-care system all by himself, . On Thursday, Trump launched an assault Via executive order

New Rules, Cheaper 'Short-Term' Health Care Plans Now Last Up To 3 Years

Some promises Trump has made about health care


‘INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’ but not the same as everybody unless you can pay


‘NO ONE WILL LOSE COVERAGE’ If they can pay for it


‘NOBODY WILL BE WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY’ as long as you can afford good coverage and dont get sick

‘EVERYBODY’S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF’ Sure they are

I think it is just that they prefer orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe I already replied to that Grumpy Economist article by saying that it is quite similar to what "conservatives" proposed before Obamacare was passed. That was rejected by "liberals" in favor of Obamacare which your Grumpy economist characterizes as a mess. Progressive opposition to Grumpy's idea of "single payer" would make it impossible to achieve. Even more so if "conservatives" or Republicans propose such a thing.

Perhaps the problem of achieving what you seem to believe is a "sort of direction that could work", is because of what you previously referred to as the friction between what you believe in and what is impossible. Or maybe Grumpy's idea is unlikely, if not impossible, since you can apply to it what you said about my idea of freedom and the free market (which sounded rational and commonsensical to you)--it can be derailed because it is "innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity."