Sigh... That is from consumer sales. That means Americans decided what to buy. So you support the government to decide for you? Will you be okay with them to buy your next car, what T.V. You purchase? What home? Fact: Bernie wants to tax America and decide their healthcare. That is 100% not American.
You keep talking about how much Americans spend. What you are failing to talk about is how much more Americans will be taxed. Call it for what it is.
Strawman. If it's not 100% "American" like you say (more bullshit) then I guess we should get rid of Medicare, The VA, and Medicaid? You like to spout things that aren't true. We have single payer plans ALREADY. I want one for me and my son too. It costs WAY less than spending money with a private insurance company to be a fucking middle man CARTEL.
Okay since you're such a Bernie fan boy, let me flip this around with using a conservative hypothetical perspective.... GOP says "America spends 3 trillion dollars per year on gas". If we open up 3,000 new oil wells, we can save Americans 50% of their money by saturating the market with US fuels. Would you support this bill?
Straw man? No this is reality @dviss1 I'm not talking about just the DNC or GOP. This is the DC establishment. They want this because they want power. It doesn't matter if you are a donkey or elephant. Once you get into the White House, there are no parties.
Dude, EVERY country uses this type of plan. These plans negotiate drug prices. My Ex Wife's medicine is $2024 a month. My son's inhaler is $137.87 per month. IMAGINE if we were able to negotiate drug prices. That cuts my Ex's meds to 66 friggin dollars and my son's to $3.50. You have absolutely no clue about how much money this saves the entire country. The reason we have private insurance (FOR PROFIT) is because of Nixon and his HMO plan with Kaiser. They FLEECE the shit out of us. Single payer saves so much money and you just can't see the forest for the trees.
And it has NOTHING with DC wanting power. They want to stem healthcare inflation and SAVE money on how much we spend a year. All while covering EVERY citizen. Come up with something different than taxes bruh.
Yes, because the federal government has had such a stellar track record on deciding how american spends their money right? LOGICAL (18.5 trillion in debt)
Yes but it will decrease the money we spend overall. This is what you can't seem to get through your head....
Do some research because you are clueless on this issue... http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq Won’t this raise my taxes? Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA,coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do. A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees. Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.
How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care? People will seek care earlier when chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are more treatable. We know that both the uninsured and many of those with skimpy private coverage delay care because they are afraid of health care bills. This will be eliminated under such a system. Undoubtedly the costs of taking care of the medical needs of people who are currently skimping on care will cost more money in the short run. However, all of these new costs to cover the uninsured and improve coverage for the insured will be fully offset by administrative savings. In the long run, the best way to control costs is to improve health planning to assure appropriate investments in expensive, high-tech care, to negotiate fees and budgets with doctors, hospital and drug companies, and to set and enforce a generous but finite overall budget. How will we keep doctors from doing too many procedures? This is a problem in any system that reimburses physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today’s health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, “How do we discourage both overcare and undercare?” One approach is to carefully control new capital expenditures. Once a hospital or imaging center purchases a multimillion-dollar CT scanner, it will try to generate enough scans to pay off the fixed cost. Explicit health planning should be done to assure that expensive machines and facilities are sited where they are needed and not where they are redundant and likely to generate overuse. Another approach is to compare physicians’ use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients. A physician who is “off the curve” will stand out. A related approach is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from colleagues. In addition, expert guidelines by groups like the American College of Physicians, etc., can help shape professional standards - which will certainly change over time as treatments change. This really gets to the heart of “how do you improve the quality of health care,” which is a longer topic. Suffice it to say that single-payer, universal coverage provides a framework for achieving thoughtful quality improvement.
Get your mind right and get onboard. Single payer is truly a conservative plan. It conserves much more money than our bullshit insurance Cartel we pay for now.
If we allow 5,000 more oil wells, it would save even more money. Will you support that bill if it was ever proposed?
Single payer is capitalism. It's the freedom for individuals to pick and choose what they feel they need. A government taxing someone because they believe they know better is borderline communism. Sorry, but this is absolutely true. It's not even socialism bro because the people aren't deciding... Why do you think the Marxis groups fully endorse Bernie?
The brass tax (excuse the pun) here is that Bernie will be taxing an additional 2.2 trillion dollars to support socialized healthcare. This excludes the other policies he's also pledging as well. An argument that this will save us money is not the issue. The issue is, we give up our rights to find our own healthcare, while being taxed on healthcare the government decides we will use. Key word here "Government decides" not the people. Socialism is the idea that people choose on these policies, not a government. Communism is when the government chooses on social policies and not the people.
You don't seem to understand all of the Socialism that we already have. We ALREADY have single payer. We simply don't have it for us all. You keep railing on the government decides bullshit. You can go to ANY doctor you want. Single payer doesn't change this.
Sigh... As you should be well aware, the VA is part of the government for soldiers that have been injured in the line of duty. This straw man argument is ridiculous.
Then make deals with insurance companies, give them vouchers, whatever... But you let the people decide on what insurance they want. We aren't communist!
