.......but not as expensive as the one we have now!!

Study: "Medicare for all" plan touted by Bernie Sanders would cost $32.6 trillion

Sure, it's done by a libertarian think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers, but it is a scholarly study. I don't doubt the program would cost somewhere in that range. Conservative sites are having a field day with this news, but they're missing a key detail....

The system we currently have is going to cost $33 trillion over 10 years!

I don't personally support single-payer. I don't think it's the best way to go in the US. BUT I have to say... two systems that cost about the same amount, but under one of them I wouldn't have to be afraid to call an ambulance because I can't afford it? Sounds enticing for sure.

I support single payer. Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.

(August 1, 2018 at 4:52 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I support single payer.  Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.

The problem is how much healthcare, and who determines when too much material cost to others is being incurred by the exercise of one person’s right?

Well now its being done by insurance company scumbags who get bonuses for denying coverage so it wouldn't bother me to have someone without a financial interest making the decisions.

(July 31, 2018 at 1:42 pm)Aegon Wrote: Sure, it's done by a libertarian think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers, but it is a scholarly study.

I think the fact that it was done by a libertarian think tank, funded partially by the right-wing Koch brothers, should actually be seen as a positive, seeing as both generally oppose single-payer.

(July 31, 2018 at 1:42 pm)Aegon Wrote: I don't personally support single-payer. I don't think it's the best way to go in the US.

Just out of interest, and since you have a "Healthcare is a Human Right" image in your signature, what do you support instead of single-payer?

(August 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Well now its being done by insurance company scumbags who get bonuses for denying coverage so it wouldn't bother me to have someone without a financial interest making the decisions.

True enough.

But even very bad and unfair allocation of scarce resources is preferable to a free for all where everyone thinks he has unlimited claim to the scarce resource.

Reverse the Republican tax cuts for billionaires and that'll pay for free healthcare and university education for all. Why do TV pundits not talk about the cost of tax cuts for the 1%? Why is it that we can afford tax cuts but not things which actually help the average person.

Quote:Why do TV pundits not talk about the cost of tax cuts for the 1%?

Because the 1% own the stations they work for.

(August 1, 2018 at 6:32 pm)ReptilianPeon Wrote: Reverse the Republican tax cuts for billionaires and that'll pay for free healthcare and university education for all. Why do TV pundits not talk about the cost of tax cuts for the 1%? Why is it that we can afford tax cuts but not things which actually help the average person.

Because Americans are so drunk with how great America is in fantasy, they would sooner be stripped like a chicken being plucked for the pot to protect the delusion that they are part of that imaginary greatness, than actually see how disgraceful it is becoming.

(August 1, 2018 at 5:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 31, 2018 at 1:42 pm)Aegon Wrote: Sure, it's done by a libertarian think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers, but it is a scholarly study.

I think the fact that it was done by a libertarian think tank, funded partially by the right-wing Koch brothers, should actually be seen as a positive, seeing as both generally oppose single-payer.

(July 31, 2018 at 1:42 pm)Aegon Wrote: I don't personally support single-payer. I don't think it's the best way to go in the US.

Just out of interest, and since you have a "Healthcare is a Human Right" image in your signature, what do you support instead of single-payer?

Too many Americans have and like their employer provided private insurance for single payer to gain widespread traction. From what I know, a two tier system where you can choose between public and private would be the best way to start universal healthcare. Single payer should be a goal, but it's unrealistic to think we can get there in less than 40-50 years, IMO.