Even the wacko-far Left Progressive Vox.com agrees that Bernie's "Medicare for All" would cost $32Trillion over the next decade:...

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare

Because Vox is a Socialist Democrat supporting website, they are OK with spending $32Trillion. But at least they admit the obvious.

What they don't mention is that every Government Giveaway Program costs more than expected, because once one group of people get something free, every Democrat Party sliver-group lines up for their "fair share" of other people's money, and then the tears flow from Democrats working to get re-elected, and the GOP folds like a paper bag.

vernon

Super Dave wrote:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/... (show quote)

If they do this medicare for all,they can put a one in front of that 32.I really believe that will bring this country to its
knees.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Super Dave wrote:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/... (show quote)

Since we are spending 3.4 Trillion $ per year now on health care in the US, a ten year projection would cost Americans 34 trillion $ over the next decade. What's the point you are making?

http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-total-health-expenditures-increased-substantially-past-several-decades_2017

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

working class stiff wrote:

Since we are spending 3.4 Trillion $ per year now on health care in the US, a ten year projection would cost Americans 34 trillion $ over the next decade. What's the point you are making?

http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-total-health-expenditures-increased-substantially-past-several-decades_2017

My point is that I'm not your daddy. Get your own healthcare.

vernon

Super Dave wrote:

My point is that I'm not your daddy. Get your own healthcare.

YES,wake them up.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Super Dave wrote:

My point is that I'm not your daddy. Get your own healthcare.

Thank god for small favors. But as usual, when confronted with facts (that we are going to spend 32 to 34 tr $ for health care one way or another) you deflect. Again what is your point? That socialized medicine is inferior to free market health care? That you are willing to let people die in the streets if they cannot afford health care insurance? That health care profits Trump health care outcomes for the nation?

And just btw....I have my own health insurance.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

working class stiff wrote:

Thank god for small favors. But as usual, when confronted with facts (that we are going to spend 32 to 34 tr $ for health care one way or another) you deflect. Again what is your point? That socialized medicine is inferior to free market health care? That you are willing to let people die in the streets if they cannot afford health care insurance? That health care profits Trump health care outcomes for the nation?

And just btw....I have my own health insurance.

I'm glad you have your own healthcare. I hope you're happy with it.

It would be great if you would stop trying to screw mine up more than Obamacare screwed it up already.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Super Dave wrote:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/... (show quote)

What Vox and other "sources" fail to tell is that $32 TRILLION cost for Medicare for All implementation would actually SAVE $2 TRILLION over that same 10 year period. Why is that fact conveniently omitted? Because it does not fit you shills for private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations narrative.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

buffalo wrote:

What Vox and other "sources" fail to tell is that $32 TRILLION cost for Medicare for All implementation would actually SAVE $2 TRILLION over that same 10 year period. Why is that fact conveniently omitted? Because it does not fit you shills for private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations narrative.

1. It's a done deal that all estimated are way low, because:
A. They don't account for politicians buying votes by increasing benefits to target groups, such as including addadicktome procedures.
B. They don't account for politicians increasing pay outs to their political donors.

2. I don't give a damn if you give me crappy insurance I don't want or can't afford to use for less money. I am an adult and therefore callable of selecting my own coverage.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Super Dave wrote:

1. It's a done deal that all estimated are way low, because:
A. They don't account for politicians buying votes by increasing benefits to target groups, such as including addadicktome procedures.
B. They don't account for politicians increasing pay outs to their political donors.

2. I don't give a damn if you give me crappy insurance I don't want or can't afford to use for less money. I am an adult and therefore callable of selecting my own coverage.

Problem is, your forgetting that their going to do those addadicktome procedures and all that give away spending anyway whether Medicare for All is implemented or not. Why not cover everyone with health care and bitch about the corporate welfare spending that dwarfs social spending that actually HELPS people in need instead of the 1%.

That crappy health INSURANCE will cost you more than the taxes for Medicare for All no matter what. That is why I advocate to eliminate it.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

buffalo wrote:

Problem is, your forgetting that their going to do those addadicktome procedures and all that give away spending anyway whether Medicare for All is implemented or not. Why not cover everyone with health care and bitch about the corporate welfare spending that dwarfs social spending that actually HELPS people in need instead of the 1%.

That crappy health INSURANCE will cost you more than the taxes for Medicare for All no matter what. That is why I advocate to eliminate it.

The Obamacare website was supposed to cost $0.5Billion, which is about 100 times too much.

When they said they needed more money, what did government do? Shovel more money at them. Why? Because nobody expected them to do it for $0.5Billion. that price was just to get it passed. Like the $32Trillion you're so happy about.

It actually costed $1.7Billion, paid to their political donors, and it was a disaster.

Why was that allowed to happen? Because the government was spending someone taxpayers money, and didn't give a shit how much it costed. That's how.

No private business would last a year being that stupid, because they can't afford to blow $1.7Billion on something that could be done better for 1/50th the cost.

So what happens when Soviet-Care says $32Trillion isn't enough? 1st they'll do a fundraiser with the "Corporations" that benefited from destroying the free market, then their "Tax the rich", and then cut benefits.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Super Dave wrote:

The Obamacare website was supposed to cost $0.5Bil... (show quote)

That doesn't explain why corporate welfare (taxpayer money handouts) is nearly double social welfare spending. You think that is right/moral?

Do you think the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations pay for or deliver any health CARE any better or cheaper than Medicare? Hahaha. They profit from INSURING healthy people, denying claims to those that paid premiums for health CARE that now need it, and tacking on high deductible to discourage use. You can't figure the rest out because your so obsessed about socialism and communism to the point of delusional paranoia.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

buffalo wrote:

That doesn't explain why corporate welfare (taxpay... (show quote)

You aren't listening.

The reason corporate welfare is so high is because government is so big.

The USSR used to pay huge amounts of corporate welfare. Russia still parts a butt-load.

Corporate welfare is paid by government.

The bigger the government, the more corruption exits

Are you getting a clue yet?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Super Dave wrote:

You aren't listening.

The reason corporate welfare is so high is because government is so big.

The USSR used to pay huge amounts of corporate welfare. Russia still parts a butt-load.

Corporate welfare is paid by government.

The bigger the government, the more corruption exits

Are you getting a clue yet?

Lots of corporate welfare comes from state governments, davy. Are they too big?

You blame government...I blame them both.

Then you must be against the formation of a new branch of the military that will require TRILLIONS in BIG government spending. Spending money that the US doesn't have unless they steal it from Social Security and Medicare and throw more elderly under the bus and at the same time tell them that it is for their safety...LOL

Wait, I know, the US could always try to sell the Chinese more of our worthless debt to finance this idiotic brain fart.

Better yet, taxes for the wealthy and big corporations could be eliminated and according to the reasoning that cutting taxes raises federal revenue. Hell, if that were true then eliminating taxes for the wealthy and big corporations should bring in so much revenue that the US could possible pay the $1.2 TRILLION the Chinese hold in US debt. Nah, the military industrial corporations would pitch a fit that they need that money.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

buffalo wrote:

Lots of corporate welfare comes from state governm... (show quote)

Your logic is flawed because you ignore the obvious.

Limited government means limited corruption.

The bigger the government, the bigger the corruption.

Obamacare lies, corruption, and abysmal failure want bad enough, you want more.

Millions of Americans got screwed by Obamacare, but you're not going to be satisfied until everyone is screwed.