|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 6, 2020 12:23:44 GMT
Ayup. They're distracted by the shiny and don't look at the real numbers of the situation.
Again.
Can't anyone see the comedy of this situation?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 6, 2020 14:55:29 GMT
Ayup. They're distracted by the shiny and don't look at the real numbers of the situation.
Again.
Can't anyone see the comedy of this situation?!
Yes, I an aware of the irony of you agreeing with Maxipad. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Mar 6, 2020 17:34:51 GMT
Ayup. They're distracted by the shiny and don't look at the real numbers of the situation. Again. Can't anyone see the comedy of this situation?!
Nope, I'm actually looking at the numbers from both Bernie's site, and your link. CNN is using the same numbers, and completely skipping the amount that the government pays for medical insurance right now. They're completely skipping the $30 trillion that the federal, state, and local governments are currently paying for medical expenses. In other words, money that is already going to be spent by the government whichever way it goes. From Bernie's website: So, they're using his numbers for everything else, except that starting point. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 7, 2020 1:18:11 GMT
That's using Sander's very generous estimate. Some project it to be 60 trillion or over through a ten year period.
There's no way it'd work. Not without raising taxes on everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 7, 2020 2:36:05 GMT
Ayup. They're distracted by the shiny and don't look at the real numbers of the situation.
Again.
Can't anyone see the comedy of this situation?!
Yes, I an aware of the irony of you agreeing with Maxipad. Aww, how cute! Minibrain tried to insult me. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 7, 2020 2:38:37 GMT
Ayup. They're distracted by the shiny and don't look at the real numbers of the situation. Again. Can't anyone see the comedy of this situation?!
Nope, I'm actually looking at the numbers from both Bernie's site, and your link. CNN is using the same numbers, and completely skipping the amount that the government pays for medical insurance right now. They're completely skipping the $30 trillion that the federal, state, and local governments are currently paying for medical expenses. In other words, money that is already going to be spent by the government whichever way it goes. From Bernie's website: So, they're using his numbers for everything else, except that starting point. That Yale study is fatally flawed. There are two fatal flaws, but I can't remember the second one. The first one, though, is a doozy. They account for people who have no insurance going to the doctor more often, but completely failed to account for the fact that millions and millions of people who don't go or don't go often, will go a lot more often once the copay disappears. The entirety of what the Yale study expects to save evaporates and we are back to a huge deficit. Then you get to add in whatever that second fatal flaw was. I'm too lazy to go look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Mar 7, 2020 12:40:29 GMT
Nope, I'm actually looking at the numbers from both Bernie's site, and your link. CNN is using the same numbers, and completely skipping the amount that the government pays for medical insurance right now. They're completely skipping the $30 trillion that the federal, state, and local governments are currently paying for medical expenses. In other words, money that is already going to be spent by the government whichever way it goes. From Bernie's website: So, they're using his numbers for everything else, except that starting point. That Yale study is fatally flawed. There are two fatal flaws, but I can't remember the second one. The first one, though, is a doozy. They account for people who have no insurance going to the doctor more often, but completely failed to account for the fact that millions and millions of people who don't go or don't go often, will go a lot more often once the copay disappears. The entirety of what the Yale study expects to save evaporates and we are back to a huge deficit. Then you get to add in whatever that second fatal flaw was. I'm too lazy to go look it up. IIRC, it was three things. That they didn't account for usage in a remotely realistic way is the big one, though, which would blow costs through the roof. Right behind it is that they assume that Medicare for all will reduce costs while eliminating all of the current cost reduction features in our current system (yes, it has them, yes, they work, no they don't solve it all) while implementing a host of "assumed" measures that don't address the areas currently utilized but are factored to be 'right the first time' at saving lots of money. Sure, pull the other one, neither government nor industry has any track record of success in untried cost reductions actually working at anything close to full efficiency (a number go backwards). Finally, the study forgot to score all of the Medicare for all provisions, so there's costs in the program not discussed in the study or the plan. They're just left out in hopes no one notices them. Things like long term care, which is probably super cheap and not worth being concerned over with an ageing population. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 7, 2020 12:53:27 GMT
That's using Sander's very generous estimate. Some project it to be 60 trillion or over through a ten year period.
There's no way it'd work. Not without raising taxes on everyone.
Those are facts. You have feelings on the matter. Which means fuck. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 7, 2020 13:23:28 GMT
Yeah. They're based in reality though. Everyone likes to project the best possible outcome for every situation. Bernie is no different. However, reality usually never works out that way.
You guys know I hate doing this, but I don't see how this idea of Bernie's could work. It just costs too much.
It's a nice idea though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 7, 2020 14:59:07 GMT
Yeah. They're based in reality though. Everyone likes to project the best possible outcome for every situation. Or project the worse outcome, like you do. You still have no facts. Just feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 7, 2020 15:26:19 GMT
Which is why I'm a realist. I do not plan for the best possible outcome. Nor do I look at the best possible outcome and say that's likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Mar 8, 2020 6:53:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 8, 2020 10:22:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 9, 2020 0:14:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Mar 9, 2020 0:19:56 GMT
Moderate extremist vs radical moderate? |
|
